Talk:1994 Belgian Grand Prix

Schumacher "win"

This is the wrong race to dispute. Michael's disqualification at Silverstone the same year was much more questionable. He was disqualified at Spa because the car was running lower than allowed by the Formula One regulations - he didn't win the race any more than he would have done if he'd taken the flag in a five-litre car. -- Ian Dalziel 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ban

Wasn't the two race ban as a result of his DSQ at Silverstone, and not as a result of the excessive wear on the underfloor plank? --Don Speekingleesh 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The two race ban was a result of his ignoring the black flag at Silverstone, yes. The revert war developing here is over whether he "won" the 1994 Belgian Grand Prix. At Spa-Francorchamps. Hence "at Spa" in the comment above. -- Ian Dalziel 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was referring the the way the article mentioned the two race ban - implying it was for this race. Should have made myself clearer. Sorry.--Don Speekingleesh 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see! Yes, agreed. I thought your comment was a response to mine. Juggled about to clarify, I hope. -- Ian Dalziel 15:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

DSQ Placement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know, this is probably a stupid question, but... I know this is also on other articles too, but shouldn’t Michael Schumacher with the DSQ be classified after all the DNF drivers? I don’t know if it was a rule back then to put the DSQ drivers before the DNFed ones. I know that’s what they do modernly, you can see from 2019 Japanese Grand Prix that both Renaults are DSQ but classified after Max Verstappen. The official website does not even classify him in the results page. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@FORMULA1FAN71: yes he should. I just moved it to the bottom. Remember you can be WP:BOLD next time.
SSSB (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: Hmmm, well, maybe I should have checked the source, it’s an archive to the old F1 site from 2014. There, it states the DSQ was indeed placed before the DNF’ed people, and it also lists the DNQ people in the results part. All of the other articles from 1994 follow this pattern. BUT, the modern, updated F1.com lists the results as you changed them. Question: A. Should we update every race from this year with the circumstances used here while using a citation from the modern website, or B. Should we revert these standings to the original and keep the citations the same. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@FORMULA1FAN71: well consistancy from article to article is not needed, we are also under no obligation to format our results the same way as the source. But I would support changing all the results to reflect the situation at the current F1 website. The thing is that different sources present the results a different way. StatsF1 lists Schumacher at the top becuase he finished the race first and was only disqualified later. Both these sources are equally valid to cite the results table on this page. This only adds to the notion that we don't need to present it in the same way as any source so long as the article as a whole presents the same information (even if its in a different way).

Therefore we can keep the article as it is without changing the source (although I would support replacing the source with a non archived version as the current version of the source presents more information better (in my opinion)). And I would support making the same changes everywhere else.
SSSB (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: That’s great. I will change the sources if I can. But I do not know how to change the tables as that is in markup and I can only use the vis editor FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: @FORMULA1FAN71: No disrespect intended, but I think this discussion needs to continue on the WP:F1 talk page (if it hasn't done so already, of course).

I'm still not completely on board with non-qualifiers being removed from the race results tables. Nor am I completely on board with all disqualified drivers (both during the race, like Mansell at the 1989 and 1991 Portuguese GPs, and after it) being listed after the drivers who retired.

I think we should seek the opinions of more than just two users. And the best way for that to happen is for this discussion to continue on the WP:F1 talk page (again, if it hasn't done so already). 80.233.50.63 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe it has. It definitly hasn't recently. Feel free to take it there.
SSSB (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Or better still. Place an advertisment for this discussion there. WOuld you mind explaining why you prefer it the way you do (barring in mind what has been said above).
SSSB (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: @FORMULA1FAN71: Ever since I first looked at Wikipedia's F1 race articles - which was a considerably long time ago - it seems to me to have always been the style that the non-qualifiers (and non-pre-qualifiers where applicable) are listed at the bottom of the race results table, and drivers that were disqualified during the race are listed before the drivers that had already retired from the race at that point (and, obviously, after the drivers that retired later on in the race). In other words, I've come to see it as the status quo.

So removing the non-qualifiers and non-pre-qualifiers from these tables - and grouping all the disqualified drivers together - feels to me like a pretty seismic change in that status quo, and hence I feel it should be discussed on the WP:F1 talk page. Making these big changes based on the opinions of just two users feels plain wrong - I for one would certainly like to know the opinions of the other users who frequently edit F1 race articles, like User:Falcadore, User:GTHO and User:DH85868993. Otherwise, it just comes across as two users editing these articles to suit themselves and maybe one or two others, which isn't good, is it?

Call all this whatever synonym of "testicles" you so desire, if you feel so compelled ("sloblock" is my preferred choice, BTW), but it genuinely is how I feel. :) ChupoKlasky1991 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@ChupoKlasky1991: I honestly do not mind about the DNQ/DNPQ stuff being in the race results, but I do feel it is unnecessary even as that has come across as the norm. They haven't participated in a race they weren't allowed to take part in, so why should they be mentioned. As for DSQ placement, that should and would most likely stay where it is at the back. If you look at the most recent DSQs: 2014 Australian Grand Prix, 2015 Brazilian Grand Prix, 2018 Italian Grand Prix, 2018 United States Grand Prix, and as previously mentioned 2019 Japanese Grand Prix. All of these have drivers disqualified and placed at the back. I feel that if this was discussed more, no action would be taken to place because these articles are made up to recent standards that would've already been discussed. That would also make this article more up to date with the placement. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@ChupoKlasky1991:, this way of dealing with DNQ's is also the current standard and how it was dealt with the last time we had DNQ's (2011 Australian Grand Prix and 2012 Australian Grand Prix). I also dispute that this is a seismic change. They are still in the other tables. I also don't think it makes any sense to add DNQ's into race results given they aren't even allowed to particpate in the race. But I will add an advertisment to this discussion on WT:F1
SSSB (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Consistency for this isn't necessary. In "modern" times yes, DSQs are usually placed after the DNFs but that isn't how things used to be done. DSQs usually occured due to technicalities like recieved unauthorised outside assistance as opposed to running an inelligible car. And many period sources list something like "DNF" with the reason given as "Disqualified" at least in certain circumstances. Anyway I think it's fine to do it here, but in general this isn't something which should be applied to all articles just based on the F1 website. A7V2 (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The function of disqualification is you have been punished. Disqualified. Dis. You have been removed from the race entirely. Your lap times are not eligible for lap records or fastest lap points. When you are a DNF you at least had laps recorded. You can still get the lap record. You have made an honest attempt to race, or at least your level of dishonesty remains undiscovered. Disqualified goes at the end. Always. You got caught, you are removed from having participated. --Falcadore (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Schumacher Spin/Barrichello Crash Corner Clarification

There seemed to be some confusion about a month ago as to where Schumi spun. Someone has now changed it to the exit of Fagnes. The problem I have, t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶2̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶m̶a̶p̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶c̶k̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ This was the old layout of Spa. There is no map on Wikipedia with the exact amount of corners as that is a different topic (chicane was added in at eau rouge). The map at the top of the wikipedia page shows turn 12 Fagnes. Ok, that's probably where the other guy got it from as he said the exit from that corner. But in reality, Michael spun at the exit of the next turn. Turn 13 as specified from this map. Here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GevXGtMxP0 . Since on here, this turn has no name, I went to the modern track layout as found on Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps . Apparently, the track map here is also "wrong", If you look at this map and then to others, you see that this one has an extra corner added in after turn 1. But on that map, it states turn 14 (in reality 13) as Campus. That other wikipedia map... nevermind, i'll leave that to a separate discussion. As for Barrichello's spin, https://overtakefans.com/f1-race-archive/watch/index.php?race=1994-belgian-grand-prix-race . Go to 53:20 and watch for a few minutes, they will show a replay where it shows the little straight right before Pouhon. He skid off at Pouhon, which is not the same as Campus nor Fagnes. This is also the corner Philippe Adams spun out if that was needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FORMULA1FAN71 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I have seen that although not stated originally, it was mentioned that when Brundle spun off, it was at the same corner as Barrichello, Pouhon. I dont know if that counts, Ill wait for more replies here until I change it. I also forgot to sign my original post. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's a canonical standard for naming the bends at Spa-Francorchamps, on the short circuit link, at least. There are many maps with varying names. I was standing at the bend which was then called first Stavelot when Schumacher spun (deliberately?). It was on the exit from the previous bend, which I'd have called the second half of "le pif-paf de Fagnes". The article had said "Campus" which is the name of the new complex on the inside of the circuit, and seems to have been applied to the bend on some maps. Someone took exception to that and changed it to "Pouhon". That is entirely the wrong place - much further up the hill. That's why I changed it. That apart, I've no strong feelings about how to describe it. "On the short straight before Stavelot", perhaps? Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Circuit Map

I'm fairly certain that the layout of the bus stop is in its 2004 configuration here, but moreover, the Eau Rouge chicane is missing from the circuit map. I have therefore removed the map as I don't think there is one that shows the "correct" 1994 version of this track. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)