Talk:1994 San Marino Grand Prix

message: Excellent work done on this article. --Golbez 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Although completely erelevant, didn't Schumacher laugh on the podium at Imola? Sorry, I've just seen a few vids on You Tube and I was wondering if anyone had recorded the 1994 San Marino GP - If so, please can you check, thanks :) --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 10:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some edited video that shows him smiling. In the full live version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F2BWbi_1pc) it's far less apparent. Also at the time of the podium, Senna's death had yet to be announced, and the last information the drivers knew was probably just before the race restart (this was a mistake in Speed Channel's programme, who appear to take his offical time of death not time of announcement into account) Alexj2002 12:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Thanks Alex :-). --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 12:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schumacher

message: Just wanted to say that! --4u1e 07:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i agree 218.186.9.1 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice work 

message: After counting the seconds via this video: , Ayrton Senna's last lap was roughly 1 minute, 26 seconds - Sorry that's the best I can do for now --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 09:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Senna's last lap

message: Did Rubens's accident happen during a practice or qualifying session? Did Friday qualifying even take place during the '94 season? Something tells me it did, which is why I want to check if I've got it right in the article. Alexj2002 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was during qualifying. I've corrected the article and added a reference. Alexj2002 13:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubens Barichello - Practice or Qualifying?

message: There's some stuff to do with the article I'd like help with finding information on. 
*Firstly were Larrousse punished for letting Comas leave the pits? Were they fined and if so how much?
*The BBC cut away from the RAI pictures of Senna's crash. Did any other broadcasters cut to their own pictures?
Will add more when I think of them. Alexj2002 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Murray Walker's autobiography, this was the first race they'd ever taken their own outside-broadcast kit to the event, as they started doing this for European rounds from 1994 onwards.--MartinUK (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct, "As Time Goes By" by Christopher Hilton has an interview with the BBC's GP producer Mark Wilkin who explains how this was the first time they could do it compared with having to cut away altogether as they did with Berger's crash in '89. He mentions they'd decided that's how they would do it the previous day after seeing the graphic images RAI showed with Roland's crash (quali was not shown live by the BBC). AlexJ (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: the intro discussion of concequences (changes in saftey) don't match the main article text (state funeral, court case, with a little on saftey). The two should be closer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made changes to the lead and legacy sections to address this. Alexj2002 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've explained this in a bit more detail, and it's been edited to make it clearer. Alexj2002 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The main points on how the race went after Senna's crash added, mainly details of changes for the lead. Alexj2002 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a screenshot from the video used in the court case, it shows Senna's car leaving the track from multiple angles, and as it was used in the courtcase, I think we can claim fair use on it without any problems. Alexj2002 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review checklist

message: We can't use pictures that have no Fair Use rationale, those two did not have one and would be reason for the article to be rejected as a good. Additionally it would be hard to claim fair use on them as a free alternative would be possible for both. With respect anyone can use Google Images to get pictures of Senna driving a Williams or Barichello in Jordan overalls, the difficult task is finding one that is freely licenced, and that's what this article requires. Alexj2002 21:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of pictures I found these . They are pretty graphic to say the least, but do clearly doccument Senna's death. I saw someone commenting on this artcles featured article nomination page, that the could have used another picture in the article. One of these could do the trick, although chances are they have no Fair Use rationale, but if they do it could be good. Gran2 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Pictures 

message: The Youtube links provided were removed as we must not link to material that violates someones copyright. The photos were also removed as they too were copyright to various sites, and incorrectly claimed to be GFDL. Alexj2002 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big revert 

message: I have added a spoken version of this article today; see the link at the top.  Hassocks5489 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Version added 

message: Were any charges brought by the Italian government over Ratzenberger's death, like they had with Senna? The359 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I believe that (but no source to back it up due to the overshadowing of Roland's death by Senna's) Ratzenberger's death, which was caused partially by him knocking his wing loose over a kerb on the previous lap, was deemed to have been (to put it bluntly) his own fault in that his mistake hitting the kerb had caused the car to fail and lose control. Senna's loss of control was not established although Italian prosecutors believed it to have been caused by a poor weld on his steering wheel column - something that was someone other than Senna's fault. Without sources though I can't confirm Roland's investigation either way. AlexJ 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratzenberger's death 

message: If I recall correctly, this was also the first race ever (or first race in quite some time) in which the safety car had been deployed since a rule change.  This might help explain the mention of concern from the drivers that the safety car was not fast enough. The359 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The safety car was first used in an F1 race in 1973. It wasn't used again until Brazil 1993, which I wouldn't regard as a long time before. I believe it might have been used at the GP before Imola ('94 Pacific GP) The main concern was over the safety car itself. It was a standard (except for lights and stickers) Opel Vectra (European version of the UK Vauxhall Cavalier). The car was hopelessly inadequate speed-wise to start with, before it's brakes were shot after just two laps. Compare it to today when you have a heavily modified AMG-Mercedes Benz, that is idling for the whole race in case it's called out, and drivers still complain about tire pressures and you get some idea of the concerns about the Vectra. AlexJ 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I remember seeing the safety car used there, I just thought I had heard commentators say that it was a first.  I figured it might be useful in explaining why the drivers would have a problem with the safety car going slow specifically before this race, if it was a first. The359 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the fact that is was used the previous race had allowed the drivers to realise how slow it was (remembering that driver aids were banned in '94 so SC in '94 was different to '93 when electronics might have compensated for tyre temperatures). Pure speculation that though, we have no way of knowing exactly why they raised their concerns only that they did. AlexJ 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This may be 7 years after this discussion but it was the first time it had been used in 1994, the second time in a dry race (I don't think the 1973 usage really counts), and the third time overall: Brazil 1993, Britain 1993, and San Marino 1994. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First safety car? 

message: The circuit maps aren't accurate. The Tamburello turn is too sharp, the chicane at Acque Minerale is omitted (and this part of the circuit is showing in something resembling its 1995-present configuration), and the second of the two Variante Bassa chicanes is also omitted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.112.187 (talk) 1 May 2007 (UTC).
:Okay, I've corrected these mistakes in the map at the top of the page, can you confirm that's now correct (or point out any further mistakes) before I change the rest of the maps please. AlexJ 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circuit Maps 

message: This sentence-"It led to the reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, " reads like the organization existed but needed reforms, not that it had ceased to exist in 1982 and was reconstituted as a direct result of the accidents as stated by the page about the GPDA.-Anonymous reader of the featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.44 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I'll do something about it.  Rdfox 76 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording about the GPDA 

message: Hi. This article says that following the Grand Prix the HANS device was brought in. This is kinda misleading as I understand the HANS system was not brought in until 2005ish (I remember the commentators saying that Montoya should be used to it as he's driven NASCAR where its been standard for years). So I dont think that the HANS introduction was directly linked with the death of Senna. Thoughts? Gringotsgoblin 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What it's trying to say is that since the race, safety has become a higher priority in F1. Some of the big examples are given which as you say have happened several years after the race (I believe HANS was 2003 so 9 years after, Bahrain GP Circuit was finished in 2004). I still think examples of increased safety should be given (to avoid the question 'Like what?') but perhaps they don't belong in the lead? AlexJ 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article needs to include them, but as you say, it's not really appropriate in the lead. Perhaps in a separate section further in which deals with the ramifications of the deaths. (I didn't think the reference to the Bahraine GP was out of place as the track was presumably planned well in advance of its build and inclusion into F1 - therefore its planning may well have taken into account the lessons of San Marino. However, HANS being incorporated so much later on, when it was available for years, indicates that something else was responsible for its inclusion...) Gringotsgoblin 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HANS device 

message: I've changed the importance scale from "High" to "Top" as per this page. Due to its significance on the sport, I cannot argue with that assessment. Not to mention, it is a Featured Article! Formulanone.one.two 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - but quality of the article (FA) has nothing to do with its importance. There is (or used to be) an FA on Exploding whales. How important is that, in a world context? ;-) 4u1e (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance Scale changed

message: I have just come across this website, which has a link to some photos taken by the webmaster of the Grand Prix.  I can't read the disclaimer (link at the bottom of the page) as it's in Italian, but if someone contacted him about permission to use the photos, it's possible that something good could come of it.-- Diniz(talk) 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost any of those photos would be superb, if the author was to release just one or two under CC-BY. Need to find someone on WP:F1 who speaks Italian! AlexJ (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source of photos 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: I'm reading a first-hand account here link to Jalopnik that Berger was retired by the team manager and the handling problems was a ruse. How much credibility do we want to place on this? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely plausible, and I expect it's true. Nevertheless, that isn't a reliable enough source for it to be included in the article, and ultimately per WP:V "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". AlexJ (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much why I did not want to jump in with an edit on the main page with this. It looks like Berger has no autobiography out either so I wonder if there is a verifiable source that corroborates this story. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berger retired by team? 

message: The session was not cancelled, but delayed for about twenty-five minutes after Ratzenberger's accident (although several teams did not run afterwards).  I've got a copy of Eurosport's coverage of the session.  The sources used to reference the session being cancelled (Frank Williams biography and Damon Hill article) are probably derived from the fact that Williams took no further part in the session.--Midgrid(talk) 20:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and made the change.--Midgrid(talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturday qualifying 

message: Does anyone have access to the official Race Classification table (formula1.com, being the current source, often tends to have erroneous information—so I wouldn't regard it as a good source)?
I specifically note the following discrepancies with my sources (major one of which in this case is the recording of the contemporary TV broadcast):
* Larini's time was 54.941 (not .942)
* Hakkinen's time was 1'10.678 (not .679)
* Number of laps for non-finishers from Berger till Alboreto (at least for those seven) were one less than currently listed in the article (should be respectively 15, 16, 22, 26, 36, 39, 43 laps)
* Comas - not sure if he finished 4 or 5 laps: he was last seen on the 5th lap still going, but then before the race was stopped he was missing from the line of cars driving around the circuit; and he didn't re-start the race.
* Ratzenberger was not DNS, he was DNQ (the 26th grid position was left vacant in his memory, but this didn't mean he qualified into the race). (This one even formula1.com agrees on, so I'm not even clear why with formula1.com being the source of his results for the article, he is still listed as DNS.)
cherkash (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratzenberger set the 26th fastest laptime in qualifying (1:27.584) on one of the laps before his fatal accident. The top 26 qualified for the race in 1994, regardless of time (there was no 107% rule or similar until 1996). As mentioned in the article, this meant " A time posted by Ratzenberger before his fatal crash would have been sufficient for entry into the race starting from the 26th and final position on the grid." hence DNS rather than DNQ. AlexJ (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The countback rule applied for re-starts at the time. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Race Classification table? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00187.htm
** In 1994 San Marino Grand Prix on 2011-05-25 06:10:50, 404 Not Found
** In 1994 San Marino Grand Prix on 2011-06-08 02:38:01, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Personally, I don't think it's beneficial for the classifications table to be being changed constantly. Just look at the edit history of the last couple of years and you'll see what I mean. I tried to add some notes to prevent the random changes. That was met with, shall we say, resistance. I can't address it specifically since the other editor involved has made some pretty serious threats.
Again, in my opinion, the notes are necessary, regardless of what the consensus decision is on what the table says. Reactionary blocking of edits does not seem constructive to me. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a note saying "This is the official classification. Do not change!" regarding a blank space in the wrong column is terribly helpful. Maybe other editors will disagree with me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're in favor of editors randomly changing the classifications table with no regard for factual accuracy. Noted. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I proved the opposite when I reverted you here . You put notes in the table implying that "accident" is a classification (it isn't) and that a blank space is also a classification (it isn't). That column is not the classification column anyway. That column is for explaining why a driver retired or failed to qualify. The cited source says "accident" for Senna, and I don't see anyone trying to change it since you tried to change it, so no note is necessary, in my opinion. The source does not cover reasons for non-qualification, but there is no question as to why Ratzenberger and Barrichello did not start the race. I fail to see why you removed those reasons for their non-participation, so I have restored them. Do you question the factual accuracy of those quoted reasons?  Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are well aware, that is a deliberate misrepresentation and not what we're discussing here. Are you now going to claim I'm attacking you again by simply disagreeing? 128.114.59.144 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Eh, forgot I logged out. Whatever, I'm done here anyways. I can't work with editors who are so opposed to wikipedia's core mission. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've lost me. I thought it was pretty good myself - what did I misrepresent? I'm addressing the hidden comments you added, as per your first comment in this section, and your removal of the reasons for Barrichello and Ratzenberger's non-participation here . If this discussion is about something else, please elaborate. Also, jolly up a bit and try to assume good faith please. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on. If you want people to assume good faith, maybe try not making obviously false accusations and then being deliberately obtuse about it. You know perfectly well that the edit you linked was superseded by a later one. Why would you keep harping on it? Why would you attack me on my talk page claiming I was championing a version I clearly wasn't? Why would you bring this up again here, and than blatantly lie immediately after and claim you weren't doing so? Why are you pretending to be unaware of the fact that this has been changed dozens of times in the past? You'll receive an assumption of good faith from me the minute you acknowledge you've been acting in bad faith and agree to stop. If you don't consider that other editors are worthy of even the slightest bit of respect, why are you even here? What can the rest of us do? It's wikipedia, not Bretonbanquetpedia. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's quite enough fucking around. I'm not entering into whatever it is you're trying to do. If others have anything to say here, then I'm sure they'll do so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to have a rational discussion about a way to improve wikipedia. That is clearly at odds with what you are doing. I thought that was perfectly clear, but if I'm missing something, it would be ridiculously easy to show otherwise. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My post at 00:33 was concerning your hidden comments, which was what you started this discussion about, and your removal of the Ratzenberger / Barrichello info, which was your last edit to the article. If you want to respond to what I said, please do. You think you're rational? In the last 2½ hours, you've accused me of the following: lying, having a personal agenda with no regard for guidelines, acting in bad faith, vandalism, being pro-vandalism, attempting to destroy Wikipedia, disrespecting other editors, attempting to make Wikipedia a more dysfunctional place, having a long history of disruptive editing and making threats against other editors. If you want to continue to do that, the place to do it is here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifications table 

message: The San Marino Grand Prix, as represented by the Italian flag. I'm pretty sure San Marino is not part of Italy. Ezza1995 (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct: San Marino is not part of Italy, but the convention of the Formula One WikiProject is to use the flag of the country in which the circuit is located, so in this case the Italian flag is used because the circuit at which the race was held (Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari) is located in Italy, not San Marino. DH85868993 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, and it's partly because according to the Manual of Style for flags, flag icons are not allowed to be used to represent events, only places and people's nationalities. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's not the San Marino flag. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/formulaone/article2331237.ece
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C12771-1077121%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/formulaone/article2333563.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061026111820/http://www.gpracing.net192.com/drivers/prost-senna.cfm to http://www.gpracing.net192.com/drivers/prost-senna.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've just removed some of the imagery in the article.  Much of it was duplicated by others, or didn't add to the article, also making the sections too image heavy compared to the rest of the article.  I know an image is worth a thousand words, but there was a millions words going on there...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Chaheel Riens Yea I still think there are a few more pictures than needed in the Race Day section, I see you reverted them, and then someone reverted them back. But, I won't complain, I just think it looks a little overcook, a little crowded. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive imagery in article 

message: I don't think this article meets modern FA requirements because it there are some comprehensiveness issues. The background just lists the points without mentioning other controversies such as Senna being adamant that Benetton had illegal technology, and then in the qualifying it only mentions about 1-2 lines about the actual competition; the rest is about tragic accidents. Some detail about qualifying and some competitors continuing after RR was killed and the race (apart from Senna's accident) is not so detailed. eg, Google came up immediately with this. Compared to more recent F1 race FAs, this one is quite thin on racing details, especially as it is likely to be ones most written about Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns