Talk:2011 Monaco Grand Prix

Grid Positions

The grid positions in the qualifying table are wrong, because the people who qualified 10-24th actually started in the 09-23rd grid slots due to Perez's injury, not 10-24th like it says. Should this be changed? Sas1998 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

When someone does not start a race, the people behind do not move up a grid slot. Take US 2005 GP for example - several of the teams did not start the race due to concerns over tyre safety. By watching videos on YouTube you can easily see that the guys at the back did not move forward. The same happened in Hungary 2009 when Felipe Massa got injured and did not start - his slot was left empty. The same happened for Perez in Monaco. Even though the guys behind started in effect as 9-23 rd on the road. They still filled grid slots 10 - 24. Just because somebody else did not start, this does not entitle the drivers behind to in effect gain a place! Colinmotox11 (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see both sides to this, and neither is wrong. It's true that when a driver does not start, his grid slot is left empty, whether his withdrawal is prior to race day or at the last minute. The issue is whether you're describing actual position on the grid, or "effective" position on the grid. Hamilton's grid position was 10th, but he only had eight cars in front of him, so there's a conflict there. Sources like FORIX seem to be closing up the grid and citing effective grid position, but they may not be consistent in that - FORIX shows Glock as 21st on the grid in Turkey, whereas in actual fact, he never appeared on the grid. Why they should treat Pérez differently, I don't know - maybe it's because he basically withdrew the day before the race. Whatever we decide to do, we have to make it clear that Pérez' slot was left empty. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not write it clearly in the race report? Leave Hamilton 10th, etc, and explain it in text. With sentences,, not a bullet point note. --Falcadore (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He was not 10th - They closed the grid up. http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2011/855/ shows Hamiltion as grid place 9, as did the TV transmission grid placements, also I just looked at my recording, and he was on the right side of the track (odd numbers), with Maldonado on the left side at No.8, and Petrov at No.10 on the left side.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I have tweaked to show this. Moriori (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it must be noted that Hamilton was actually deemed to have qualified in ninth (and so Perez in tenth) - cf. [1] and [2] «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you didn't just edit to that effect. Can someone explain to me why Hamilton was classified 9th in qualifying and not 10th? On the timing screens, before Hamilton's flying lap, he was shown below Pérez. He only put in one flying lap and it was deleted, leaving him with nothing but out-laps and in-laps. Given that Pérez did an out-lap before Hamilton, Pérez should have been 9th and Hamilton 10th. Pérez was not withdrawn until after Hamilton's penalty was given. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, I had edited it to that effect, and added a reference to back it up, but it was reverted (several times)! «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there does seem to have been a bit of argy-bargy over this. I blame the FIA, it's bound to be their fault. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't think there was argy bargy as much as some editors not being up with the play. The days of leaving empty grid spots are gone. FIA Regulation 36.4 says if one or more cars are withdrawn the grid will be closed up accordingly. That's why I changed the article to say "Hamilton started ninth in the position vacated by Pérez". Moriori (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hispania 107% rule

Hi, the article currently says that the hispanias failed to make a 107% time in free practice, but were allowed to run. However, from the numbers on http://www.f1.co.uk/read-news/2011/2675/monaco-gp-free-practice-3-times they do both seem to have made it within the 1.20.471 by a tenth or so in practice 3, so I'm amending the sentence. Coolug (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess the original sentence was actually referring to qualifying, which is officially called the qualifying practice session, although admittedly not many people would know/realise that! «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton's Comments

Just looking over the article and surely there should be a post race section covering things like Hamilton's outburst. Zunraa (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you propose?

• Hamilton makes comments, thinks no more about it, is taken to task by a PC Plonker, explains how he intended it as a joke, has to explain to foreign media the significance of the reference to Ali G, apologises for not having made that clear, the stewards accept his explanation, but the PC Plonkers of the world won't AGF and let it go, so they try to make a mountain out of a molehill.

How would the article about the Monaco Grand Prix be improved by adding this? Moriori (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It was one of the major points of the race, which the media speculated over for a long time. Right or wrong it happened and is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunraa (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really anything to do with the race at all. It was post-race minutiae, and the media deliberately blew it up into something far bigger than it was. We don't need to copy them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing the comments. they are valid and were perhpas bigger than the race itself. Blame the media all you want, but it's not your job to whitewash hamilton's career/actions.66.190.31.229 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is just nonsense. Any action which results in only a reprimand at the track by stewards and no other offiical penalty is not notable. It may become notable IF the FIA in Paris decide to take further action against Hamilton, otherwise it is just a media beat-up. If we included content everytime a driver said something untoward about race officials, the race reports would be loaded down with minuatae. At the end of the day Hamilton made some regrettable comments but it had no impact on the race itself. There was no additional grid position penalty, no point penalty, no time added on to his race time, no suspensions, suspended or otherwise, not even a fine. If you want to start an article on race relations in Formula One perhaps it might be worth a mention, but this an article about the Monaco Grand Prix. If you feel personnally offended by Hamiltons words, or sympatthise with his predicament, wikipedia is not the place to indulge in it.

As a point of comparison - when a footballer steps on his tongue in front of the media in such a fashion, does wikipedia provide coverage of that? --Falcadore (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore is right. Bigger than the race itself? In what world is that? Maybe you didn't see the race. Personally, I don't like Hamilton much, but I can see what's undue weight and what isn't. It blew over pretty quickly and only someone deliberately looking to criticise the guy would fail to take as the weak joke that it was. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

say what? How many "reprimands" has hamilton apologized to the stewards for? How many times has he had to "Explain his comments to the stewards" Removing valid, notable info is vandalism and will be treated as such. The endWhatzinaname (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence makes no sense. Any other occasions on which he's been in front of the stewards are of no relevance to this race. And be very, very careful about calling people's edits vandalism. Turns out your comment isn't the end after all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it, including my first sentence. its pretty obvious you and that other guy have not supplied a single argument whatsoever for an attempted to whitewash some incredibly stupid comments by lewis hamilton. He made scandalous comments that drew the attention of the formula one world, he actually apologized for these comments, specifically the racial ones, then his own boss on mclaren comes out to tell the world he has buried the axe with the stewards over the issue, and even the FIA stewards themselves made statements regarding the apology. Now explain why it doesn't belong here. I'm not playing these little games with you either. supply the reasons/logic or leave the wiki alone Whatzinaname (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My arguement was that it did not constitute any form of effect on the 2011 Monaco Grand Prix (the actual subject of the article it should be noted) beyond the superficial. That seemed pretty obvious to me. If a penalty had been applied it would absolutely be different, but no such penalty was applied. I certainly did get that you believe a superficial media beat up with no actual consequence for the subject of this artcile is important. --Falcadore (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a more appropriate place for this kind of content would be the article about Lewis Hamilton. It was a comment by Hamilton, about actions specific to Hamilton. That you bring up other previous reprimands (plural - thus referring to events that did not occur at the 2011 Monaco Grand Prix) suggets that you agree with that too at some level. I would additionally suggest Wikinews is a better place for this style of sound bite reporting than Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Falcadore's comments, and add that reasoning and logic has already been supplied for my/our argument. It doesn't belong here because it has nothing to do with the race and had no effect on it. Take it somewhere more relevant if you have such a beef over it. I suspect you have a warped view of it anyway - "scandalous"? Really? The reason the stewards didn't take any action was because it was blindingly obvious that it was a joke. Not a very good one, and not a very clever one, but still a joke. As for "leave the wiki alone" - what do you plan to do if I refuse? I could do with a laugh. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that the consensus so far is against adding this stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll also agree to that. This article is about the race, not a driver's much later rantings. Put it on Lewis Hamilton if you think it needs to go somewhere.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that Hamilton's page is more appropriate, though I suspect the pushback will be even more significant. Call me psychicWhatzinaname (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK psychic. Why would you "suspect the pushback will be even more significant" at Lewis Hamilton? Do you not assume good faith and think there is some sort of bias being applied here. I am not quite sure how to interpret your comment. Moriori (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

been editing wikipedia for too long to not recognize people, including me, are far less receptive of negative things being placed on wiki-bio pages then esoteric/wonkish things like race summaries.Whatzinaname (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So rather than satisfy sourcing requirements of a BLP article by attmepting to add it to Lewis Hamilton, you just thought you'd add it to a not particularly appropriate race report instead? That is a bit... lazy? If you thought it would be refused at [[Lewis Hamilton and thought you'd slip it in here on the 'QT' in not good editting practice, and certainly not any kind of justification for the material to be there. The BLP requirements at bio pages are there for a reason, and they are not there to be gotten around by adding material to a page that isn't a bio page. Slander and defmation suits don't care what the name of a wikipedia page is. Maybe you don't understand what Wikipedia is for, it certainly isn't a substitute for a blog. --Falcadore (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got quite the imagination there. I never said anything about failing the requirements of BoLP. This qualifies in spades. I just don't feel like arguing about it over the internet at this juncture, particularly with the F1 season still in high gear.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Collision or Accident

Isn't collision an accident? Why we need to distinguish them? Oceangai (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Collision is an accident with another car - "Accident" is usually used to describe a car hitting the wall, barrier etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2011 Monaco Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130929180620/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/10/12604.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/10/12604.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120419135730/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11213.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11213.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222182747/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/8/9808.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/8/9808.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2011 Monaco Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110903080324/http://www.formula1.com:80/results/season/2011/855/6855/live_timing_popup.html to http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2011/855/6855/live_timing_popup.html#
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110602042959/http://www.f1.co.uk:80/read-news/2011/2675/monaco-gp-free-practice-3-times to http://www.f1.co.uk/read-news/2011/2675/monaco-gp-free-practice-3-times

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Second one works; first one doesn't so I have reverted it and tagged it with {{cbignore}}. DH85868993 (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Monaco 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622005933/http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_031110.aspx to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_031110.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)