Talk:2020 Styrian Grand Prix

Formula One Low‑importance

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

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

Low

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

Austria Low‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name[edit]

Motorsport.com refers to the second race in Austria as the Steiermark GP. Does "Styrian Grand Prix" have a source? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Styrian Grand Prix is translation of Steiermark Grand Prix. motorsportwerk, Mclaren, AlphaTauri and the The independent all use this translation (to name a few). The logic behind this is because we use Spanish Grand Prix and not Espana Grand Prix (its likly the English translation would be the most common name) but if it turns out that Steiermark Grand Prix is the common name (to early to determine this yet) we can always move the page.
SSSB (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Motorsport.com uses both.T v x1 13:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at the time I posted above, it did not. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Sbinalla[edit]

Reverted "but the sport's management announced that they expected the young rookie Alexander Albon to not get rammed again by veteran driver Lewis Hamilton, in an interview Alexander Albon said "I don't want to sbinalla again" "but the sport's management announced that the final calendar to have as many as eighteen." Funny meme but it's vandalism. --paulsd (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grosjean[edit]

The source provided clearly states he was 20th in qualifying, and no source has been provided that he has failed to qualify. Tag-teaming IPs have insisted he has failed to qualify, without any kind of source. Apparently, a misleading error is the tradition in these circumstances, maybe someone could clarify the rationale behind that for me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has failed to qualify because he did not set a time lap for attending into the race. That's why he will be allowed to race thanks to the steward. We tend to put DNQ as we have done that so far for many F1 Grand Prix articles.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has not failed to qualify. The 107% rule simply requires a driver to obtain permission from the stewards in order to race. A driver has not failed to qualify until the stewards have refused permission. I can see in the past that drivers are marked DNQ when they have actually raced. This is nonsense. Going further back, these drivers are sometimes marked with a "–" or "NC". It is not consistent, and in this case, it is inaccurate and unsourced. There is no source anywhere to say Grosjean had failed to qualify. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct thst the table shows DNQ. I'm waiting for the reliable source given by stewards to car 8 (Grosjean) permission for racing.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. You don't have a source for DNQ. All you have is a failure to meet the 107% rule, on a wet track, where the 107% rule doesn't apply anyway. Why does it say "He was allowed to race at the stewards discretion." under the table? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right my friend, I'm really sorry for what happened between each other. The starting grid source does not say Grosjean was given the permission for racing by stewards. I've corrected the table. :)--79.43.108.133 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for understanding. Cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had completely forgotten that 107% rule doesn't work on wet track. At the 2019 Brazilian Grand Prix the situation was different because qualifying took place on dry conditions and according to this source Sain Jr. had been given in that case the permission for racing. :)--79.43.108.133 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if track is wet. See 2016 Hungarian Grand Prix. 212.90.63.155 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know but we must follow what source says. The source doesn't say Grosjean was given the permission for racing in this occasion.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

212, you don't have a source to say Grosjean has failed to qualify. 79 has provided a source to say Grosjean is on the grid for tomorrow and no permission from the stewards has been necessary. There's no DNQ here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care at all how it will be. But you can't just discuss between you two and call that a consensus. Either create discussion on WP:F1 talk page or wait for more DIFFERENT people to answer here. 212.90.63.155 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do. It's not about consensus. A source has been provided and you are edit-warring against that source. You have provided absolutely nothing. Zero. It's very clear. No discussion is required anywhere else but here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple and clear. The reliable source does not say Grosjean was given the permission for racing. You can't change this thing.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there is any doubt article 35.1 (page 31) of the sporting regs state that the 107% rule only applies if the session is dry. Should we then remove this row from the table? And/or should we leave a footnote explaining that the 107% rule doesnt apply? Personally I saw yes to both.
SSSB (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In each condition, dry or wet, sources have always included the 107% time. I think is correct to leave it anyway into the table without a footnote. The specific 107% time rule from this season has changed.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official qualifying classification credits Romain with 20th place in the session. The 107% did indeed not apply yesterday. The rule didn't change for this season either. You can easily identify new or amended rules in the rule book because they are colored pink.T v x1 15:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Stytian Grand Prix is no longer a one-off GP[edit]

A new page about the Styrian Grand Prix needs to be created, as there will be a second Styrian Grand Prix in 2021. Sapu93 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Admanny (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]