Template talk:Formula One Grands Prix

Czechoslovakian Grand Prix

As the Czechoslovakian Grand Prix was never part of the Formula One calendar, should it be removed from the Formula One races template? -slowpokeiv 19:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was one of the early-1900s grand prix races, so perhaps "Past championship Grand Prix events" should be changed to "Past Grand Prix events" to permit the inclusion of discontinued pre-F1 races. — Dan | Talk 20:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

European/German Grand Prix

I realise it could be contentious but I have changed the current lists to include german/european rather than european, and moved european to future due to the valencia race. I realise there is the issue over the naming rights, but there are a variety of sources stating both, so it would seem safest to name it as both —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrphayes (talk • contribs) 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Possible/Future Venues

Is this template really the place for potential future races. Clearly there is a place for confirmed future races (Abu Dhabi, European and Korean), but I'm not so convinced by possible future races, even if they have sources saying that they are possible (which they do). If we go down that road there are many more races we could add, all of which have sources, for example Mexico, Russia and Las Vegas. I won't take any action at the moment, but am interested in what you think. John Hayes 09:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

American Races

We Shouldnt we have the Las Vegas, Indy 500, Us east and west in this template. Arent we talking about countries that have hosted a Gp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattav2 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the template lists races which have been part of the Formula One World Championship. Nothing to do with countries. DH85868993 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

French Grand Prix

There are sources on the 2013 Formula One season article of the French Grand Prix returning to the calendar. Editadam 22:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate link

WP:NAV-WITHIN is pretty clear about not duplicating links, stating straight up "Avoiding repeating links to the same article within a template." Especially since the links are the same race, even if it was renamed. It is factually incorrect to call the Brazilian Grand Prix a former race when it is still very much part of the calendar, albeit named for the city instead of the country. Ditto with Mexico. (It's probably worth noting somewhere that there's been a trend of F1 races being named for their host cities instead of the countries, but that's not what a navbox is for.) oknazevad (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

With due respect, WP:NAV-WITHIN says "For large navigation templates, consider the following: ... Avoiding repeating links to the same article within a template." (my italics). I wouldn't consider this to be a large navigation template. DH85868993 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

As someone who went through each and every entry yesterday, I wouldn't call it small. Plus not being too large is actually a strike against keeping duplicate links to the same article, as they're right next to each other.

And it's still incorrect to call the Brazilian and Mexican GPs "former". oknazevad (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd say it's arguable whether it's incorrect to call the Brazilian and Mexican GPs "former" - is there a race called the Brazilian Grand Prix on the current schedule? No. Was there in previous years? Yes. However, another option would be to just have one link for each renamed race but change the link text to reflect both names, i.e. change the link text from "São Paulo" to "São Paulo/Brazilian" or "São Paulo (Brazilian)" (and likewise for Mexico City/Mexican). DH85868993 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Was thinking of making a similar suggestion. oknazevad (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This seems like the most effective solution imo. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Non-issue. There's no strict requirement to avoid duplicate links, and the Grand Prix is in fact former as the title has been retired. This logic of "well there still is actually a race in Brazil" is ridiculous, there are still many races in Europe and nobody would suggest the European Grand Prix still exists. The title very obviously means something and when there was a deliberate change that was a break in continuity. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

A false equivalency, as they are the exact same races renamed, not just races that happen to take place in the same country. If they weren't, we would have separate articles. We don't. They're the same races at the same tracks. Which means we only need one link to cover navigating to those articles. There may be no strict requirement, but there really should be a good reason not to stick to the guideline consensus. I don't see one. Getting hung up on names is a mistake. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to account for why the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix isn't actually the British Grand Prix, since it's "the same race at the same track". There's no unspoken true essence of a Grand Prix. An event can be at a different track and be the same Grand Prix (plenty of examples of that). Your understanding would imply these are actually different races. The defining feature is the title of the event. If it's being run under a different title it's a different Grand Prix. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

There was also a separate 2020 British Grand Prix the same year as the 70th Anniversary GP. No, it's not the same race at all. It's explicitly a separate race. (There was also the complicating factor that the 70th was one of the races added to the calendar just for 2020 to cover for race cancellations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.)

You’re the one arguing they should be considered separate, so you're the one who has to bring proof beyond a rebranding. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

My position is internally consistent. Different titles, different races. Your position seems to have at least two other factors external to the title. That really speaks for itself on who needs to do the explaining. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

My position is that a continuous operation is clearly the same race, regardless of name changes. Plus the official F1 records list them as a continuous race. Relying solely on names is how you get entirely separate events separated by decades of inactivity and an entire ocean being put in the same article even when they're clearly not the same race at all (Pacific Grand Prix, which in its current state is a WP:SYNTH violation). I don't deny that you're consistent in your thought. I'm just saying it's incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Continuous operation, except if they operate continuously in the same season, in which case then the name becomes decisive – this does not look like an easily applicable criteria. The Grand Prix in Azerbaijan operated continuously across seasons even though the first was the European Grand Prix. Why is that a different race? Your rule can't be applied with certainty because of the number of exceptions. There are many Grands Prix that have not been run consistently, either temporally or geographically, but are recognised as a single event. You haven't addressed those. The statistics for an event can be collected in different ways. Which records are you referring to? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The ones at the F1 website. They clearly show the Brazilian/Sao Paulo and Mexican/Mexico City records as one continuous history. I'm confused by your mention of the same season. Please elaborate what you mean. oknazevad (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

You said you were identifying races by continuous operation, specifically that they are held at the same track. That's clearly an unworkable rule, because several races have operated so continuously they were held back to back at the same track (70th Anniversary and Styrian) but you recognise those as different. You also, implicitly, recognise a race is the same even if it is held at different tracks (e.g. Australian Grand Prix moved from Adelaide to Melbourne, but is still one event). Your rule doesn't even work for the examples we've discussed, let alone the ones you haven't engaged with. In fact your rule does imply that the name of the event is ultimately decisive for its identity. I would also suggest not using the F1 website as a rule here – you'll notice the wording is very careful and does speak of the track, not the event, which is why it says Azerbaijan first hosted a race in 2016, even though the Azerbaijan Grand Prix did not debut until 2017 (yet another exception to your rule). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)