Template talk:Infobox Grand Prix race report

Sponsors
Should we add sponsors to the template? They are important!  LB22   (talk to me!)  Email me! 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sponsors are usually already included in the official name field (e.g. LXXIII ING Australian Grand Prix or LIIV Foster's British Grand Prix). AlexJ (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, sponsor names just aren't important in F1. In many years of watching it I have never seen or heard anyone outside the official race programme and the FIA TV feed mention the sponsor name. It just isn't part of the culture in the same was as it is in NASCAR, for example.  Pyrop e  20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Formula 1 pole time?
There are three sessions in the qualifying. Do we need to add a info box for those three sessions? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Only the pole time is of any real importance, and that is the fastest time set in Q3. Anything else is irrelevant because in Q1&2 only the bottom 5 times are counted - the rest are just deleted. AlexJ (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suppress display of unpopulated fields
The template should be updated to not display the course length and race distance fields if these are not populated. DH85868993 (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference parameter
I was considering if it is useful to add a reference parameter in the template, much like the  parameter in Racing car. This is intended for providing reference for standard race details such as course length, total distance, no. of laps etc. e.g. for 2009 Australian Grand Prix, a reference such as this one can be added to the infobox, so that it serves as source for all the basic details given. Leave  Sleaves  14:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to raise this idea just yesterday, but it looks like you beat me to the punch. Definitely a good idea. Aptery  gial  22:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Cdhaptomos   talk – contribs  14:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Date
Could anyone please help me to make this template emit the date & year parameters using Start date, so that I can then add an hCalendar microformat to the template? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nudge. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitespace when Official name omitted
If the Official Name parameter is omitted, you get a big lump of whitespace between the "Date" and "Location" fields. See here for an example. I can't work out why. Does anyone have any ideas? DH85868993 (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag alt
(Copying the following discussion here from my talk page:)

Do you know how to fix Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report so that the little flag at the top doesn't have alt text? I don't know the appropriate template. It's purely decorative and shouldn't have alt text, because the name of the country is on the same line anyway. Ucucha 00:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Such a fix wouldn't be trivial. It's simpler and better to get rid of the flag, as it provides no navigational benefit. I . Eubulides (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. I'm probably too sensitive in not wanting to offend people who are fond of their little flags. :) Ucucha 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you consider the effect it would have on races not named after countries? Take 1949 BRDC International Trophy for example - the changes have removed all trace of the host country from the infobox. A quick message on the Wikiproject talk page to check with those more experienced with the template's usage wouldn't have hurt - as it is, your edits, although in good faith, have taken some fairly important information away from some pages. AlexJ (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(end of copied discussion)


 * Almost all articles using this template have the countries in the article names, so this problem affects only a small number of articles. And it's not much of a problem in these rare exceptions: in 1949 BRDC International Trophy, for example, the location is already specified in the infobox, and if it's that important to say that the race was located in the United Kingdom (I'm not sure why, but let's take it as a given), the location should have ", United Kingdom" appended to it. As things stand, the infobox generated by this article contains too many links, which presents WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems for visually impaired readers. Eubulides (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It only affects a small number of articles... currently. The template is designed for use on many more articles that don't have countries as part of their names. With regard to the overlinking, an infobox by the nature of it's purpose contains a lot of keywords, rather than lengthy sentences. In order to provide more information about these, we link the relevant article. Are you suggesting we reduce the usefulness of the infobox to everyone, to overcome design faults with screen reading software? AlexJ (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we increase the usefulness of the template by removing an unnecessary and distracting icon from lots of articles. Ucucha 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, distracting? From what? Icons serve a useful purpose as visual shorthand, to set the scene. You want to let a user know that they have reached the right Grand Prix? The icon says yes or no in a millisecond. You want to place a race geographically (a significant thing in international motorsport)? An icon does that quickly and simply, without the user having to screen through a whole slew of text to get there. I agree that too many flagicons clustered together can get confusing and cluttering, but a single one, on its own, at the top of an infobox, only serves to communicate information in a neat, elegant, and succinct manner.  Pyrop e  03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the numbers affected are that small. in the early days, it's the non-championship races we're mostly considering - the championship races include the country in the title. Looking at the 1950 Formula One season, we have 8 articles on non-championship races (with potential for another 9 to be created) vs only 7 championship races. In other words for the early years, there are many more races for which the flag adds information than there are ones for which it does not. Non championship races existed from the 1950s to (in decreasing numbers) the early 1980s. The issue persists into modern times with articles such as 2009 European Grand Prix - since 1983 there has usually been one European Grand Prix per year out of 16-17 in the world championship. Viewed in that way, it actually affects a significant proportion of F1 race articles.
 * The flag is providing important information in a compact manner - and I struggle to see how it's distracting, for 'normal' use anyway. Is this an accessibility issue? And if so, does removing the alt text alleviate the problem? The easiest way would presumably be to create alternative flag icons for the 25? or so countries that have hosted a GP. 4u1e (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding Offset (Start line/finish line)
In "Race Preview" press release from FIA, they will mention Start line/finish line offset for each circuit. which will be different for each circuit. so the Total race distance = (Total number of race laps X Length of lap) - Offset. But in Template just Toltal race distance will number of laps X length of lap, so it will add offset for race distance which is not correct. we need to add offset item in template, so that we can mention correct Total race distance for each circuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannatb (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Total race distance is not calculated by the template; it's specified by the fields Distance_mi and Distance_km. Ideally, the editors who are populating these fields should be sourcing the race distance information from an official/reliable source and not just multiplying number of laps by the lap length (although I'd guess that's what usually happens). DH85868993 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous/next event links
It has been proposed that "previous/next event" links be added to this template. Interested editors are invited to participate in the centralised discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Formatting of race title
An editor has proposed some changes to the formatting of the race title fields. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the centralised discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Race duration field
Is it possible to add a "Race Duration" or similar field to this template? (I should add that I'm not entirely sure how to do this myself)

Quite a few GP races were held with a fixed duration, rather than a scheduled number of laps (ie not the same thing as races being timed out before reaching the scheduled distance like the current 2 hour limit). These include the 1931 European Championship races (10 hours), the 1932 French and Italian GPs (5 hours), the 1952 French Grand Prix (3 hours), and most of the 1953-57 Argentine GPs (3 hours is given in Grand Prix! (Mike Lang) for most of the years, but the elapsed time is slightly over 3 hours each time anyway so maybe they all were, but that's not entirely relevant now...).

Anyway, I feel like these cases should be distinguished in some way in the templates, just not sure how.A7V2 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be a useful addition, I think even for Grand Prix which happen over a set number of laps having the duration of the race would be good, espically in cases where the 2 hour limit is reached or in the case of red flags, ie 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, unfortunatly I can't work out how to implemete it either. SSSB (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Driver of the Day
I think it would be a good idea to add the Driver of the Day award to the Infobox as it currently lists all other race achievements (e.g. fastest lap and pole etc.) and I feel it would add something extra to articles that's easy to find. What's everyone's thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commyguy (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have advertised this discussion at the Formula One WikiProject (because I'm not sure how many people watch this template). DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a bad idea to add this. It’s just a meaningless gimmick. It’s a popularity contest with no even remote objectiveness. Just look how few times the actual race winner is “elected” driver of the day. I just don’t think this is encyclopedic.Tvx1 23:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be added to the infobox. As Tvx1 says, it's hardly objective, and I will also add that I don't ever see it mentioned in independent sources' reports on races. It's just a gimmick run by the tv producers. A7V2 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, looking at the results at User:LRataplan/sandbox you can see how biased it is in favour of popular drivers. I think it the way driver of the day works can be nicly summarised by this parody. It has no basis besides being an indicator of how popular a driver is. Further, its never mentioned in indepedent sources. Based on this I don't think it would be a useful addition. SSSB (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Don't bother with this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Date format issues
This template forces the date format to be dmy. This is a problem when it comes to Grands Prix which are in America where the template should use mdy (per MOS:DATETIES (see 2005 United States Grand Prix for example). Is there a way to override the template unilaterally reverting to dmy? If not one needs to be added. SSSB (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - This can be avoided by using the format suggested in the documentation page. The documentation suggests replacing the "date" parameter with "Fulldate       = {Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}" (I deliberately left out one "{" from each side), although I don't know how common this is, or if I have used it myself when adding this infobox (!), but anyway, if you delete the "df=y" part then it displays in month first order. See my edit to 2005 United States Grand Prix . A7V2 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, I must have missed that. SSSB (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Unknown parameter issue
I was just looking at Category:Pages using infobox Grand Prix race report with unknown parameters and managed to fix an error on 2019 United States Grand Prix with the "Full_date" parameter not being recognised (even though the date was displayed in the infobox?). Anyway, I then moved onto 2021 British Grand Prix and it says "grid_from_sprint_quali" is unknown, yet Grid positions set by results of sprint qualifying displays fine in the infobox. I then previewed changing it to "grid_from_sprint" and this displayed Grid positions set by results of sprint instead, is this intentional? If so, then how does "grid_from_sprint_quali" produce an output yet cause an unknown parameter error? FozzieHey (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I see the issue here, when "grid_from_sprint" was renamed to "grid_from_sprint_quali" the unknown parameters module wasn't updated. I've now added the parameters. FozzieHey (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Race_No and Season_No
It is said in the documentation, these two parameters, namely Race_No and Season_No, should not be touched until a resolution is reached. So what has developed since the 2017 discussion? Klrfl  Talk!  08:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Indianapolis 500
This template is quite frustrating for the 11 Indy 500 that counted for the World Drivers Championship. It allows you to list one "previous" and one "next" race. There's a good chance someone going on an Indy 500 page wants to see the "previous" or "next" Indy 500, rather than the "previous" or "next" F1 race. However, it feels wrong to hi-jack the F1 template and use it in an Indy 500 centric context. Would it be possible to edit this template to allow you to list 2 "next" or "previous" race, or maybe find a consensus with the Indy side to use both the F1 and Indy 500 boxes on the relevant pages? SunflowerYuri (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would also be interested in this in the context of F1. I think it would be a benefit to have a link to both the previous/next race in the season, as well as the previous/next edition of the race, i.e. the 2021 Monaco Grand Prix's infobox linking to the 2020 Monaco Grand Prix and the 2022 Monaco Grand Prix. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:
 * I agree that there's a good chance that someone visiting one of 1950-1960 Indy 500 pages would expect/want the "previous race" and "next race" links in the infobox to link to the previous/next running of the Indy 500 rather than the previous/next WDC race
 * The links to the previous/next Indy 500 (as well as links to the previous/next WDC race) already exist in the succession box at the bottom of the article (I'm not suggesting that means they shouldn't be in the infobox as well; just providing the information in case anyone reading this discussion didn't know that)
 * I'm open to the idea of adding links to the previous/next running of the race to the infobox (i.e. in addition the existing previous/next WDC race links) just for the 1950-1960 Indy 500 articles
 * I'm open to the idea of adding links to the previous/next running of the race to the infobox (i.e. in addition the existing previous/next WDC race links) for the F1 races as well
 * I'm open to the idea of removing the "previous race" and "next race" links from the infobox altogether, given that they already exist in the succession box at the bottom of the article
 * I have advertised this discussion at WT:F1 and WT:AOWR
 * DH85868993 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved below Using the most recent infobox as an example, I would propose we add "Edition" to the top of "Race details", which would state "2nd Qatar Grand Prix". Above Edition would be "previous running" and "next running". Then the "official name" would either be replaced by "title sponsor", or left as is, though that may start to become redundant with the number of times it would say "___ Grand Prix" in an infobox. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Originally, those 11 Indianapolis 500 pages (1950-1960) used the standard Indy 500 template Template:Infobox_Indy500_(1911-1941) or Template:Infobox Indy500 at the top right, and the corresponding Grand Prix info box was shown somewhere down near the bottom. It was changed at some point, and it's never never really been discussed since. I suggest it should be changed back to that layout, which would be the simplest solution - no need to edit anything on the Grand Prix Infobox or the Indy 500 Infoboxes. It's also worth nothing the Indianapolis 500 technically wasn't a grand prix, it 'paid points to the World Championship' from 1950-1960 - I think that allows it to take a little less a priority. Doctorindy↔Talk 13:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this proposal should be kept separate form the Indy discussion. My proposal isn't primarily to fix the Indy 500 issue, which is it's own problem. I'm going to start a separate section so the two discussions can be more focused. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support your suggestion (restoring the "Indy 500" infobox at the top of the article and moving the "Grand Prix Race Report" infobox back to its former location further down the article). DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @DH85868993 and @Doctorindy: I also support such a proposal. Actually I noticed the "issue" under discussion some months ago, when I was first becoming an active contributor. I went back extensively though the talk pages of Formula One, American Open-Wheel, and Motorsport, and found no discussion. I also looked at the 1911-1941 template. This template was also used for some of the 1950-1960 500s. In 2014, a revision was made the 1911-1941 template saying that the 1950-1960 500s should use the Grand Prix template. This revision seems to have been made without discussion.
 * The infoboxes for the 500 are unique in that they provide information and context regarding many of the unique aspects of the 500, such as who sang Back Home Again, who drove the pace car, etcetera. This information has been lost using the GP infoboxes, which also perpetuate a misconception that podium finishers are awarded in the 500, which is incorrect. Only the winner is recognized separately from the rest of the field, there is no podium. It also fails to provide the context that the Indianapolis 500 was never a "Formula One" event. It was never sanctioned by the FIA, and the cars (and drivers) were, with a few notable exceptions, different from thosse running the Grand Prix circuit in Europe. I realize you both know this, and am just putting it here for the benefit of others.
 * I support returning the old infoboxes to the affected articles, perhaps expanding the 1911-1941 infobox to include races up until 1955 (the final year of AAA-sanction). I also support the creation of special sections in each article which provides context for readers about that event's inclusion on the World Drivers' Championship Calendar.
 * RegalZ8790 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like we have consensus regarding the infoboxes. I'll make the changes on the weekend, unless someone else beats me to it. DH85868993 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am glad a consensus was found on the matter. SunflowerYuri (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as am I.
 * I took the liberty of reverting to Indy500 infoboxes. I also expanded the 1950 article, reworking the lead, and adding a section discussing the WDC. I would like to hold off on making similar changes to the others so that there can be a discussion on the new section, as well as on how to word similar sections in the 1951-1960 articles.
 * Once we have reached a consensus, I am willing to add sections to the other articles.
 * RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Next Edition proposal
I think it would be a benefit to have a link to both the previous/next race in the season, as well as the previous/next edition of the race, i.e. the 2021 Monaco Grand Prix's infobox linking to the 2020 Monaco Grand Prix and the 2022 Monaco Grand Prix. Using the most recent infobox as an example, I would propose we add "Edition" to the top of "Race details", which would state "2nd Qatar Grand Prix". Above Edition would be "previous running" and "next running". Then the "official name" would either be replaced by "title sponsor", or left as is, though that may start to become redundant with the number of times it would say "___ Grand Prix" in an infobox. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not always clear what "edition" of an event is being referred to, for example with United States Grand Prix there may be ambiguity depending on what sources you refer to. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox for United States Grand Prix comes to a conclusion about how many have occurred under that name, so I'm not too worried we couldn't come to a consensus for each edition as well. Probably just use the references at List of Formula One Grands Prix. Additionally, almost every article has (or should have) the edition of the Grand Prix in the body of the article. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to having a title sponser field as the title sponser is irrelevant. It has zero bearing on the event. I would suggest that the best way to deal with this is to add a "event" field. The event field would then contain " " (this would generate "Qatar Grand Prix (Previous - Next), the previous and next can be made small, or be seperate fields within the infobox. This would then also allow us to link to the sponser in the official name field, without having a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem (this is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One) As for the United Stated Grand Prix issue, we can just follow what we have at United States Grand Prix, and we can always add footnotes to the infobox to deal with ambiguity issue. SSSB (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great solution! Makes sense to have a link to the parent article be it’s own slot in the infobox too. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw both of you have edited the template before. I don't have experience doing that and wouldn't want to break something. Would one of you be able to update the template to include SSSB's proposed change, since there hasn't been any negative responses or comments for over a week. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a play in my infobox and made the following changes to the template: Special:Diff/1151713030/1181822440, which had the following effect on my "example" infoboxes: Special:Permalink/1181822563. I couldn't get the new editions to fit on to the same line as the Grand Prix. So if someone has a solution? Additionally, I left the next and previous editions parameters as you needing to put in the full name, to match the next and previous race parameters (feels more intuitive). Finally, I reused the Grand Prix parameter (which puts the Qatar in the top of the infobox) for the new Grand Prix field - let me know if this would cause any problems. I am going to leave this here for now, and allow anyone to comment on how this turns out before I apply it to the real infobox template. SSSB (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternativly, I can add a whole new "event field", which can then just be filled in with whatever info we want, which now I read this thread, is what you wanted. SSSB (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea to reuse the Grand Prix field, I can't think of a scenario in which that wouldn't work well. In terms of the next and previous, would formatting it as you initially mentioned (Previous - Next) instead of (Previous)(Next) help make it more compact? Alternatively you could move the Grand Prix name up to the top of the Race Details section, and add "<-(Previous edition Next edition)-> similar to the previous/next race in the same area. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Compactness isn't the issue. I couldn't work out how to have the template only include the next/previous links only when a link was present, so I copied thr code from the previous/next race code from above. The problem is that that code forces a new line and I can't work out how to make it not do that. The alternative is that I stop trying to be clever and simply add a blank parameter named "event" where you can type whatever you want. I just tried it this way so that we can maintain consistency in how the info is presented - and it would make it easier to change going forward. SSSB (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I've attempted an edit here: test cases changes Cerebral726 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. We could also get rid of the auto-wikilinking. Then that would allow us to put things like "inaguaral edition", "final edition" or "one-off edition" as appropriate? SSSB (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I like that idea a lot. Trying to tackle it but it's certainly a stretch for my complete lack of experience. Let me know if you get that working. My thoughts are ideally we would have:
 * "Inaugural_edition = y/n" that would replace "Previous edition" with non-wikilink "| Inaugural edition"
 * "One_off =y/n" that would would probably just remove the editions?
 * "Final_edition = y/n" that would replace "Next edition" with non-wikilink "Final edition |"
 * Cerebral726 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)