Talk:1997 Australian Grand Prix

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

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.—

Talk to my owner:Online 17:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Nakano and MasterCard Lola

@

lead is supposed to be "a summary of the article's most important contents." Shinji Nakano didn't achieve any real success in Formula One and MasterCard Lola only competed in one race. Can you therefore please explain why you think their debuts are among the article's most important content? SSSB (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

This article's scope extends no further than this race. Nakano's success or lack of it before or after this race is not relevant to this article. This article should not be concerned with Nakano's career, just his presence and performance at this race. In the context of this race, the debutants are relevant – that is, the three drivers and the new teams. If three new drivers made their debuts at the next race this weekend, would you take one of them out in a few years' time if he turned out to be unsuccessful? It's the sort of revisionism or editorialising we should be avoiding. Which criteria do you use to discern "real success", your own? Some people would argue that Trulli wasn't very successful either, winning one race out of 256, and they might have a case. Either they're all relevant, or none.
As for the teams, the debut of MasterCard Lola was big news at the time, as a new team always is. Their debut and failure at this race is important to this article. We're not talking here about their overall impact on the sport, just this race. The overall story of their failure should be detailed at MasterCard Lola, which it is. The fact they were completely outclassed in qualifying was the biggest talking point of the Saturday. That said, I don't believe details like their gap to the polesitter are relevant to the lead, and should be detailed further down. Stewart's debut as a team should be mentioned, as arguably, should Prost's, as they were/are treated as a new team. We're not talking about detail here – just a mention of the debutants in the lead. They were important factors in this race at the time, so should be noted as such now. The scope of this article is solely concerned with this race, and the presence and performance of the teams and drivers that weekend, nothing more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if three drivers made their debuts this weekend, I would mention it in the background section, and then consider if it is appropriate to also mention them in the lead further down the line. Whilst the article's scope doesn't extend beyond the race, I beleive it is necessary to look beyond the scope of the article to find the context to determine if individual debuts qualify as some of the article's most important context. And, if I had to choose between all or none, I'd choose none, as none of them played a major part in the race.

Now, I wasn't watching F1 in 1997 (I wasn't even born), so if them being outclassed was a major talking then maybe it should be in the lead. But it looks like we may have to agree to disagree about the criteria of what does/doesn't belong in the lead (I'm not sure I care enough to go backwards and forwards for an extended period of time). SSSB (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with no debuts in the lead. I'm ambivalent about debuts being important enough to put in the lead. I'm not okay with arbitrary criteria being used to decide that some drivers are good enough or successful enough to be in the lead while others aren't. But a debut being more important because at some point in the future that driver won a race is a nonsense. His later career does not make his debut more significant. Neither Ralf nor Trulli were so important that their lesser milestones belong in the lead of any article over and above anyone else's. A World Champion's debut? Or scoring a point on your debut? Possibly... I would concede to that, but otherwise it's all or none. Like you say, none of these three made any major dent in the race, and it's the race which this article is concerned about. Nakano actually had a better race than the other two, ironically.
Lola – yes, certainly it was a big talking point at the time, alongside reigning World Champion Hill being down the back in the Arrows. Lola were hyped enormously and flopped disastrously. It was much as it would be today if say, Benetton returned next season with a huge fanfare and DNQd at the first race and then went bust. Ultimately, what goes into the lead should be decided by consensus on the article talk page, like we are doing. I don't think there's a "one size fits all" solution. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1997_Australian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1196308939"