Talk:Monza Circuit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coords[edit]

I corrected the coordinates of the circuit. The coordinates given are for the start/finish line, taken from Google Earth (on a low resolution photo).--Ciroa 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

Assessment for F1 WikiProject[edit]

I assessed this as Start class, but I believe this strongly could be a B-class article with references. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following my earnest effort with all the inline citations (from the existing bare URL ELs), I've changed both the F1 and Motorsport Projects from a 'start' to a 'C' class. I hope this is OK. But there still needs to be further independent references to make it worthy of a 'B' class. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

The spelling of the name of this circuit is wrong. The correct spelling is: "Autodromo Nazionale di Monza" (is missing "di", genitive). If no one has concerns, I'll rename it if few days. --Wizard IT (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The circuit's official website spells it as "Autodromo Nazionale Monza", i.e. without the "di", so I suggest we stick with that. DH85868993 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's simply an orthographic mistake. It's fixed now. Elk Salmon (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the text on that page refers to the circuit as just "Autodromo di Monza", i.e. without the "Nazionale". So if the article is to be renamed, perhaps that should be taken into account? DH85868993 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?[edit]

Why all this "citation needed" tags?? --ItemirusTalk Page 08:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is in dire need of inline citations! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's already a tag at the beginning of the article saying more citations are needed. And I agree with that.
The 'banners' at the start of the article (or start of sections) are to warn readers that this particular article is deficient as an 'encylopaedic' article. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having 100 citation needed tags in the article is ugly. And most of what is being said is true as far as I know. It's just that it lacks citations.
The 'citation needed' tags may be 'ugly', but where an apparent 'statement' in an article is made - it MUST be backed up by an inline citation. If it doesn't have a citation - then there are two options: add the 'citation needed' tag, or remove the unreferenced text! Furthermore, when you state specific persons, especially when dealing with deaths, then it is absolutely VITAL that they have an inline citation - see WP:BIOG. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a book on F1 race tracks which I think could be used as a resource. But does every sentence really need a citation? That can't be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.201.190 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a book which covers this article, then use the appropriate citation template, and ensure you quote specific page numbers from your book for each sentance in this article which needs a citation. And yes, EVERY sentance should have a citation, and this would be the ideal way of achieving a high quality encyclopaedic article - however, trying to find a reference for every citation may prove difficult - and ommissions of citiations from some sentances shouldn't be a major problem. But this article has hardly any inline citations, and that is a major issue. I'm sorry all these 'citation needed' tags make it look ugly - but that is how Wikipedia works. Kind regards - oh, and don't forget to 'sign' any future comments on 'talk/discussion' pages with four 'tildes' ~~~~, thanks. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"EVERY sentance should have a citation" not really, "Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image. " --Typ932 T·C 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typ932, your lack of comprehension of the English language is very apparent, because you missed the text emphasis on the word "should" - "EVERY sentance should have a citation" - in other words, ideally every sentance should be referenced. But the crucial issues of this article is that there are MANY statements of 'facts' (or apparent facts), and these specific facts MUST be backed up by citations (or have the 'citation needed' tag). Furthermore, citations MUST be added for ALL comments on persons, weather living or dead - and especially so when it is a 'major event' in that persons 'life' (such as births, marriages, and particularly deaths). Why do you think the Assessment for F1 WikiProject failed to achieve nothing more than a Start class on the quality scale. The article, as it stands - whilst it provides very good comprehensive information, can NOT be verified - so in order for this article to improve its 'quailty', effort needs to made to search and include inline citations. :) 78.32.143.113 (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know very well what should means, but the case is that citations should be used only when needed... and yes I know very well citations is needed for this article but "citation needed" tag is not needed here in every sentence...everyone smart enough knows it by reading the article.... --Typ932 T·C 12:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are fundamentally wrong. I suggest you look at citation needed article and Template:citation needed template! Quotes from pages:

used to identify questionable claims which lack a citation to a reliable source, Many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, and the most important quote All direct quotations, statistics, and facts whose accuracy might be challenged require citations

So I state again - ALL points of 'fact' or 'statistics' MUST have inline citations - if they don't have inline citations - either tag them accordingly, or REMOVE the unreferenced text. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read? I just wrote that "should be used only when needed.." and needed here means just that same thing you wrote, but its not for all sentences as you said earlier. this is pointless discussion once again... --Typ932 T·C 13:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~ As solely a reader, and not an editor, may I say it's an absolute disgrace the amount of "citation needed" tags that dot this page. Is the person who jotted them down seriously questioning that the circuit was heavily changed following Senna's death in 1994? Sounds like someone has a grudge more than anything.

Citations[edit]

There is no need to put the article full of citation needed tags, its enough to have refimprove tag in the beginning of section, the article is almost unreadable state at the moment when messed with tags... --Typ932 T·C 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, I suggest you read the WP:MOS 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you would use some of ur brains... --Typ932 T·C 20:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> That was a very constructive and helpful comment! <rolls eyes> 78.32.143.113 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as much contsructive as your comment above have you read it by urself? seems not --Typ932 T·C 12:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree with Typ932 about the unreadability of the page. It suffers of over-citations now... --Jollyroger (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what's with all the citation tags? It's really an eyesore. Not every single statement needs 2 or 3 citations to back it up, especially when it's something like the track layout, which is not exactly subject to interpretation or bias. Does someone have a bit of OCD? Wannabe rockstar (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are retarded --83.132.34.187 (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


78.32 etc. seems to have been banned for edit-warring; I'm going to take the initiative, then, to organize this article. The same citation doesn't have to appear 3-4 times in the same sentence, especially for trivial things like having a citation for the assertion that the track is in Monza. Ridiculously unnecessary. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle racing[edit]

Being as this article is in the Motorcycle racing WikiProject, there seems to be very little info in the article on how Monza facilitates motorcycle racing. Perhaps someone from the WikiProject can add further info - there is plenty of info in the already included MonzaNet citations. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of Citations?[edit]

I'm starting a new section because the old citations block on this discussion page was fair time ago and sounds like an argument that can't be that productive. All I want to do here is state my opinion and see what comes of it, without the risk of having my head bitten off. Personally, I feel that the 'History' section has far too many citations. I won't argue that citations are necessary, of course they are, but taking the first sentence, nine citations (many of which are duplicates) seems quite excessive. It makes quick reading and scanning of the article more tricky than it should be, looks messy and seems a little facetious. I'd suggest putting all the citations at the end of the relevant sentence - this would clean it up, no information would be lost and using the first sentance as an example, we could lose six duplicated citations without losing information or making it ambiguous. Also, looks at the first sentence of the second paragraph - only two citations (5 and 6) are needed but putting them in after every single fact seems rather silly and excessive. "In 1928, the most serious Italian racing accident to date[5][6] ended in the death of driver Emilio Materassi[5][6] and 27 spectators[5][6] at that year's Grand Prix" could easily be changed to "In 1928, the most serious Italian racing accident to date ended in the death of driver Emilio Materassi and 27 spectators at that year's Grand Prix[5][6]" because all the information in that sentence can be found in those references - highlighting "the most serious Italian racing accident", the death of Materassi and the deaths of the spectators seperately when the info comes from the same sources seems unnecessary. Anyway, that's just my opinion and suggestion - any thoughts? FaithHealer1 13:23, 8 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.49.249 (talk)

It does need a citation trim I do agree with you, there are paragraphs with several cites after every clause. Feel free to make the changes, although it is on my mental to-do list when I get the time. QueenCake (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No replacement for displacement?[edit]

The page lists capacity as 137000. Is that seats, or including SRO? I'm also not sure mentioning it in the very first line is the appropriate place... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest Lap[edit]

The fastest lap of the modern Grand Prix circuit is, according to this video from the official Formula 1 channel, is 1:19.525
Shall we edit this in the infobox?
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYPU3MNqHw
Alexsd27 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Qualifying laps have never counted towards lap records. --Falcadore (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you. Alexsd27 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Autodromo Nazionale Monza. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Track layout[edit]

It is claimed, that after the 1933 GP the layout was changed and chicanes were added. But the Combined oval/road course version was run from 1955 to 1969, without any chicanes included. So the 10 kilometer version was run up until 1969 as far as I can tell --AndroidOfNotreDame (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Autodromo Nazionale Monza. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct name: Autodromo Nazionale di Monza[edit]

Dear users, the official name of the circuit includes the "di" (italian for "of"). Look at https://www.monzanet.it/images/content/pages/docs/autodromo-monza-5iDcEifRtuRhDPU.pdf, part of the circuit's official website. You will find an official contractual guideline by the SIAS SpA (the owners of the circuit) clearly indicating the circuit official (and legal) name. At page 3 the first line of the box is headed "Nome della Società e Ragione Sociale" ("Company name and business name"), that is given as "Autodromo Nazionale di Monza", followed by the owner's name ("S.I.A.S. Società Incremento Automobilistico e Sport S.p.A). Quite straightforward. I'm not skilled enough in Wikipedia mechanics to change the article title, is there anybody so kind to do that? All the best and thanks in advance. --Arturolorioli (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks to user:Anthony Appleyard. --Arturolorioli (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autodromo Nazionale di Monza → Monza Circuit – The article currently uses WP:OFFICIAL as its title, which is a violation of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. The commonname is clearly Monza. By moving it to Monza Circuit, that would fix these issues while providing natural disambiguation from the city of Monza. Note we did exactly the same for Imola Circuit last year. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral comment - With Imola the issue was that the WP:OFFICIAL name did not conform with the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, or WP:ENGLISH policies. In this case WP:COMMONNAME is not an issue as the current title contains the word "Monza" and therefore is likely to be easily recognisable to readers. The proposed title is more WP:PRECISE and is in WP:ENGLISH, which could be seen as preferable. In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Autodromo Nazionale Monza it was flagged that sources use both "Monza Circuit" and "Monza Autodrome" to refer to the subject in English, and while "Monza circuit" is probably the most commonly used construction the "Monza Autodrome" version has the advantage of being closer to the WP:OFFICIAL name which is currently used. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons I gave in the previous discussion, namely that English language sources do use this name, and I feel it is a good natural disambiguation since the common name Monza is not available. Failing that, I would also support a move to something like Monza (disambiguator) but that would not be my first preference. A7V2 (talk)
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.
  • Incorrect name @A7V2: @Joseph2302: Disambugated name would "Monza (circut)". "Monza Circuit" is fake missleading, pretending to be official name. Eurohunter (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop pinging me in multiple places about this. Cicut isn't correct spelling, missleading isn't a proper word either, so it's hard to take you seriously. Also, this is consistent with other circuit such as Imola and Mugello. We had a proper move discussion and you chose not to participate. If you disagree, you'll need a WP:MOVEREVIEW. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it's a Wikipedia:Natural disambiguation, which Monza (circuit) is not. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are reading too much in a capitial letter. Pretending to be official name is not an impression I get and the opening sentence makes it pretty clear what the official name is
SSSB (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Natural disambiguation is generally far preferable in my opinion. I really don't understand why you would want to use brackets in this case. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not the third[edit]

The lede (citing the circuit's own publicity) claims Monza is the third purpose built track. This is clearly not true - Wikipedia itself lists Los Angeles Motordrome, Oakland Motordrome, Chicago's Speedway Park, Des Moines Speedway, Omaha Speedway, Sheepshead Bay Speedway, Tacoma Speedway, Uniontown Speedway, Cincinatti Speedway, Beverly Hills Speedway, Fresno Speedway, San Francisco Speedway, and Cotati Speedway as all being built before 1922 (all of those being board tracks, so explicitly built for auto racing). I suspect there are many tracks, if you include asphalt, concrete, brick, clay, etc surfaces, and locations other than the US.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:ca70::3f08 (talk) 13:38, September 10, 2021 (UTC)

Major Events[edit]

This seriously needs a clean-up. Way too many championship and it's loaded up with WP:RECENTISM. Monza is 100 years old. Series like Formula 2 and Formula 3, who exist only as ladder categories for Formula One are not major events. You can't be a major event when you don't have an identity or calendar separate from Formula One. Major Events is about the most important events in Monza's 100 year history, not what is on the calendar for 2022. --Falcadore (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apeiro94 I removed GT World Challenge and 24H Series as considering the 90+ year history of the circuit a regional second and third tier GT Championship are not major despite being headline series of their events. 24H series is strictly amateur in it's competitors and struggles with entry numbers at many events. --Falcadore (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to compromise as much as I can. OK, let's consider 24H Series is rather amateur series, and not put it into the major events section. Maybe, the same can be considered for the International GT Open too. But GT World Challenge is SRO Motorsports Group's series, and it is more professional than these other GT3 series, and it is the successor of FIA GT Championship and FIA GT1 World Championship. So, I will put it into the infobox again. And I can also agree for not putting the future events into the infobox. But, I still do not agree for not indicating the exact years for the series in the current events. Maybe it can be discussed in there: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One Apeiro94 (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monza_Circuit&oldid=1210829419"