Talk:Madring

Merge proposal

I propose merging Draft:Madring into Madring (this article). I think the content in Draft:Madring can easily be added to this page. Louis (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

As a contributor to Draft: Madring who didn’t know this article existed until today, I wouldn’t have any objection to a merge in the abstract. However, that draft has been declined multiple times in AfC and I worry that the AfC team will see this as a conscious attempt to evade the AfC process by creating a new article with a different name, executing a move, and then merging the declined draft into the new article. I’m not expressing an opinion on the merits of whether this draft meets the criteria for publication, I just want to put it on the record that I wasn’t involved in this. Namelessposter (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This page was only created today by @Dmoroe6 it appears to be translated from the Spanish Article. It was originally called Circuito de Madring but I moved it too Madring. I'm sure Dmoroe6 only created this as they weren't aware of the draft page. Louis (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@SimplyLouis27 Yup, I wasn't aware of the draft page, sorry. And I've searched if there was one, my bad. Do what you think it's best! Dmoroe6 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Spinster300:, what should we do here? Sorry to be a bother. Namelessposter (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem! I just didn’t want to get blocked or banned for violating rules. Thanks for clearing this up. Namelessposter (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Further, I am not actually sure what the process is when there is two articles with one being in main space and the other being in draft space. Louis (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  Y Merge completed Note that I've done this rather simply as a full-content merge (avoiding duplication). I understand the concerns re essay-like, although I personally think that the content is fine, and helpful for readers. Usual editorial processes can of course continue. Klbrain (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Controversy

Local residents and environmental groups are against the circuit being build so close to a major city and residential areas. Noise issues as well as environmental issues, concern for habitat loss and climatic impact have been overridden by the city council citing financial benefits. This article needs to mention this in order to provide a balanced POW. ~2026-47385-46 (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

References

COI edit request: design-contract dispute

I know Jarno Zaffelli personally and may have a conflict of interest concerning Dromo Circuit Design. I am therefore requesting an independent review rather than editing the article directly.

I suggest adding a short subsection under “History”, after “Formula One chooses Madrid”, titled Design contract dispute:

In 2025, a contractual and copyright dispute arose over the circuit design. In a May 2026 interim judgment, the Cologne Regional Court stated that IFEMA had supplied Dromo project documents to Tilke GmbH & Co. KG and Tilke Verwaltung GmbH in February 2025. A court-appointed expert found all nine categories of design and technical material at issue on the companies’ computer systems—some as byte-for-byte identical files and others in converted or modified form—and dated the first reproductions to that month. IFEMA’s board formally terminated contract 24/219 with Dromo on 22 September 2025, about seven months later. Madrid’s construction licence for the circuit was not issued until 24 April 2025.

The court held that the reproductions were unlawful both before and after the termination. It concluded that IFEMA “had no legal position which it could validly pass on” to the two companies, and that the licence agreement did not give IFEMA an unrestricted, freely sublicensable licence to the Dromo IP Rights. The court also noted that the separate licence agreement had not been expressly terminated. It prohibited the two companies from reproducing the specified materials in Germany; the interim ruling did not determine whether acts in Spain were lawful or resolve the wider Spanish contractual dispute. In reporting on the dispute, El País quoted IFEMA as saying that contract 24/219 had been terminated because of documented serious breaches and that it was entitled to provide the materials to third parties; Dromo disputed that account.

This wording reports the court’s specific factual findings and legal conclusion, while retaining the geographic and procedural limits of the ruling and IFEMA’s response. WikiSteel (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

References