Talk:Marco Simoncelli

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

Crash photo[edit]

Article includes this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simoncelli_fatal_crash.jpg

I don't think photos of the precise moment of Marco Simoncelli's death are at all appropriate for this page. Or can we put a picture of JFK with a bullet through his head on his page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.70.120 (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you are being oversensitive and perhaps imprecise. Firstly we don't know if that was the precise moment of his death, just a moment in time during a sequence of events which ultimately lead to his death. To pick up on your JFK analogy, his assassination has been replayed countless times on TV in the USA, UK and other countries. Similarly the death of Donald Campbell has been replayed time and time again on TV. So why not include a photo of the crash that led to the death of Marco Simoncelli? Of course, your opinion is a perfectly valid one (I happen to disagree) but it is quite possible others may agree with you and as Wikipedia is built on consensus, if others feel the photo is inappropriate then it could be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in good taste and I was surprised to see it on the page. If people want images or video of his death they are widely available on the net. He died from massive head and chest trauma and so you are likely seeing a shot of his death. If you can't see how this is inappropriate I don't know if I can come up with an argument to convince you. I don't know how to edit wikipedia so I'm not taking the picture out myself, but someone should.

The other user's analogy is correct, and I'm not sure what you're saying biker. JFK's assassination has been replayed...but it isn't on his wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.224.117 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to races not attended[edit]

For some reason the races table included links to races the rider did not attend. This makes no sense and is misleading. If people want to know the full set of races in a calendar year they can go to the relevant article for that year. This article is intended to provide information on the activities of one rider, so providing links to the races not attended is pointless. Manning (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a widespread choice apparently, and a very poor one. An article should ONLY contain material relevant to the subject. There are always links provided that will take a reader to a full overview of the racing year, so the availability of information is not compromised. However this article (and likewise for all other articles on racers) should only provide links that are relevant to the racer. Races not attended should be removed from the table, so as to provide a quick overview of the racer's activities in a given year. Manning (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...now that I look at it, you appear to be correct. I must admit it does look weird with all the blank spaces in the tables though... Apologies for the swift reversions. Perhaps make a note over at the Motorsport WikiProject...just to seek further opinions as you do. Craig(talk) 01:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no dramas. I'm drafting a default notice to put on all the pages I edit, and agreed, a visit to WikiProj-Motorsport is definitely in order. At the moment, I can't see any good reason for this practice other than "we've always done it that way" - of course I could be wrong :)

Here's my current draft template:

There seems to a widespread practice within Wikipedia of including a full season picture for riders in the race tables, including races not attended. I believe this is a bad practice for two reasons:

  • 1 - It is misleading at first glance - it suggests the rider attended more races (in some cases FAR more) that he/she actually did.
  • 2 - It does not relate to the subject. Every race table on Wikipedia provides a link to the relevant article on the entire racing season, and a reader (if so inclined) can easily access details for all races. A table of races for a rider should only provide information/links directly relevant to that rider.

Hence I'd like to suggest we remove all links to races not attended. The blank spaces clearly indicate the status of the rider for that particular race, and (as noted) a reader has easy access to the full details.

For the moment I've put the page back to how it was until I get more input. Manning (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

I'd like to comment a little bit on this. Removing the unattended race makes the table looks far more compact, easier to read, and only includes relevant information on the races the rider do attend. On the other hand, as an avid motogp fans, I'd often like to know which races and how many races that the rider missed when he did not participate. It also shows the number of races in a season and also the information about how many races that the rider could've participate if they did not miss any race. However, I agree that the current format is a little bit misleading and whenever the readers want to see what's the meaning of blank cells, the readers need to open the (key). It would help if the key is displayed on the side of the table. In conclusion, I think a blank unattended race cells are useful, as long as it's not misleading and the (key) is clearly shown. Another idea is to use a more distinct color for an unattended race, such as dark grey. — MT (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. When I stripped out the races not attended it did improve the overall readability of the table, but it created a new problem - the "end of season" was no longer clear. (This is why I restored it to its original form). Hence I'm also starting to think the best solution is a uniform appearance for "races not attended" (eg grey). A standard legend would also be very useful. Manning (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from the table which races a rider has participated in. It's not at all misleading. Participation implies a result. By the contrapositive, no result implies no participation. If you want to make a case for it, take it to WikiProject Motorsport as it would have wide ranging consequences. Don't start changing things until you have consensus. Readro (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's people like you who drive other people away from this project. Nothing has been changed, discussion is underway and consensus is being sought. So I guess you concluded that what we really needed at this point was for you to dive in and act like a jerk.
Regardless of the non-beneficial contributions, it is FAR from clear from the table which races a rider has participated in, which is why this discussion started in the first place. However, simple blanking the non-attended races only adds further confusion, as noted above. So coming up with a workable system on this page is a good first step to taking a proposal to the wider motorsports project. Failing to come up with a workable proposal stops us wasting everyone else's time. Manning (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is clear. If the rider attended the race there would be some form of result indicated benath the link. No result, no attendance. It's a fairly simple concept to grasp.
There are also sound reasons for indicating the full season. It does for example point out very clearly which races a rider did NOT attend, which would then indicate why a well-credentialled rider might have a comparitively lowly championship result. It can also indicate period when a rider was forced to sit out an event because of injury or some other form of incapacitation. If there were no over-arching championships that collected the results of many races into a seasons' pointscore I would agree with you completely.
But the presense of the links to races the rider did not attend are indeed superflous. In the spirit of compromise might I suggest a simple removal of the link eg AUS instead of AUS. Would that be agreeable to you? --Falcadore (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't know what I said that was uncivil, though I apologise if somehow my words can be interpreted that way.
Secondly, there is another issue when it comes to motorcycle racing - we don't have a full set of results. Unlike Formula One, which has a complete archive of results, Grand Prix motorcycle racing does not and in some cases we simply don't know whether a rider participated or not. We also have problems with the early years because riders often entered multiple classes and the table can get ugly very quickly (see John Surtees for an example). We also have issues where certain classes did not compete during certain rounds of the championship. The gaps created by this are weird looking. I came up with an alternative table that I think is more aesthetically pleasing, particularly for the earlier riders (see Geoff Duke for an example). Readro (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like having the full rounds on there as it allows me to compare how a rider did at each circuit (including whether they were there or not), and the order that each circuit comes on the calendar isn't fixed. I don't like the empty squares on the table. It improves readability slightly, but to my mind at too high a price of missing useful and relevant information.
I agree that we should have a clear indication whether a rider didn't attend a race, and grey seems reasonable to me, but i'm not fussy about which colour provided it's clearly different from anything else on there.
My understanding of the table at Geoff Duke is that black indicates that the class didn't race there, as we currently still have at Laguna with 125/250/Moto3/Moto2. The only issue I have with that is that I thought we used black for something else (DQ), but I might be misremembering that. GedUK  13:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to put something there as there really needs to be something definitive. Yes, we use black for DQ, but the word "DQ" is there as well. Readro (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely, and it's only a question of the colour as far as I'm concerned, and I'm happy to go with the consensus on that. GedUK  12:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marco Simoncelli. 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) 16:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marco Simoncelli. 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) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marco_Simoncelli&oldid=1208880263"