Talk:2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycle racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of motorcycle racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Motorcycle racingWikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycle racingTemplate:WikiProject Motorcycle racingMotorcycle racing articles

Confirmed MotoGP participants

A minor thing, but if Stoner wins the WC this year, wouldn't he be likely to run the #1 plate in 2008? Also, Repsol Honda is under strong pressure from Dani Pedrosa to switch to Bridgestone, so the Michelin icon might be premature.--George Bogtrotter 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's video at MotoGP.com of Pedrosa's 2-year contract has the HRC chief stating that the tires are unconfirmed, and while the factory would like Michelin, both Pedrosa and Hayden would like to use Bridgestone. On the other hand, Bridgestone is denying there's a possibility of that, but confirmation of tires still hasn't been made by the factory team.--Fugly Floom 15:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png

Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rider numbers

Of course in motorcycle racing, most riders prefer to use same number throughout their careers (except when they get chance to use #1). I searched for 2008 signings in lower classes and I put current numbers for those riders listed. Same applies to most MotoGP riders for next year. In most recent years I have two riders in my mind who have changed the number many times: Randy de Puniet and Alex de Angelis. Also, I edited earlier that number 34 is retired in MotoGP class in honor of Kevin Schwantz. So Andrea Dovizioso can't use it next year.BleuDXXXIV 07:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyres

The article states that Rossi will be on Bridgestones while the other three Yamahas will use Michelins. Is there a source for that? /Kriko (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for future wildcard riders

As suggested last year: for wildcard riders who finished with no points and have only a few races (one or two), I propose to put their results into a separate table. In this way, the standings table becomes more readable and we save some space on the page. See 2007 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season for how it should work. What do you think about this idea? Asendoh (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe only the riders that scored points should be included in the standings regardless if they were wildcards or regular riders. Thats the way the official standings from the FIM are. Chris Ssk _talk 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold and italics race positions

Why are some rider's finishing positions marked in bold, italics or both? Shouldn't a reason be specified somewhere in the article? eirc (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the bold marking show pole position? 86.153.142.117 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold stands for pole, italics for fastest lap. I'm gonna clarify the thing now. Asendoh (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wet in China?

I remember that all the MotoGP riders were race in dry conditions in China, despite having soak for the other 2 categories. Is that any other reason to mark that race wet? --Aleen f1 04:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was declared a wet race by the race officials (by waving the white flag during the race). Even if it rains just a little bit, it can be declared a wet race even if it doesn't actually affect the race much. Ged UK (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official results table displays the weather together with the official classification. Since the weather was declared wet, even id it didn't rain at all, I marked it as wet. Asendoh (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

I'm curious about something. Yesterday there were some edits that changed the Indianpolis flag to the flag of Indiana. I saw these and was going to revert them, but then thought, hold on, there are three races in Spain, and they don't all have the Spanish flag. Catalan GP, Catalan flag. Valencian GP, Valencia flag. US GP, USA flag. Indianapolis GP, USA flag? Seems inconsistent to me. Ged UK (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted them (plus the numbers in the results table which are a duplicate of what's already in the participants tables). In the official MotoGP site, the Jerez race displays the Spanish flag, the Montmelò race the Catalan flag and the Valencia race the Valencian flag, while both the Laguna Seca and Indianapolis race use the standard US flag, I think that's what we should take as reference. Asendoh (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me! Ged UK (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia and Catalunya are autonomous communities. Indiana is not. That's probably the difference.Orsoni (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana is a federal state that can set its own laws, has its own court system, governor etc etc. Not much of a difference is it? I'd hate this to work itself into a politics debate! I reverted THEUnique's edits today, I can see that we need to reach a consensus. I think the Indiana race should have the US flag as per the official site. Anyone else? Ged UK (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis GP should carry the U.S. flag. I'm no political scholar, but I believe Spain's autonomous communities carry a bit more leverage in their own governing than U.S. states, who also have federal laws they need to follow. But that's just an assumption on my part.Orsoni (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis should carry "Indiana" flag. There are few reasons. First of all, its not "United States GP". The US GP will be held earlier and should have USA flag. On the other hand, "Indianapolis GP" should have Indiana flag due to its known as Indianapolis GP. For example, there are 3 races in Spain and 2 races in Italy. In Spain, one is known as Spainish GP and other are Catalan GP and Valencian GP (and these two GPs use their state/region flags. Also, there are 2 races in Italy, one is Italian GP and other is San Marino GP. And Italian flag is used in Italian GP and San Marino state flag is used in San Marino GP. Importnatly, you use the flag of the region who sponsered the race. In the case of USA, United States as a whole sponsered "United States Grand Prix" and state of Indiana sponsered "Indianapolis Grand Prix". THEunique (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2008 (CST)

I think we should simply stick to what the official site says. Also, for motorsports, I see the habit is to use the standard US flag for all motor races which take place in the United States instead of the flag of the single states, with some exception (ALMS springs in mind). In the Indycar article, for example, the Detroit Grand Prix and the Grand Prix of St. Petersburg are marked with the US flag instead than with the Michigan and Florida flag. Same for the Detroit Grand Prix and the Dallas Grand Prix in F1. Asendoh (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Asendoh is correct. When the U.S. had 2 Formula One Grands Prix, they both carried the American flag. Both the Laguna Seca and Indianapolis rounds are considered U.S. rounds. As I mentioned previously, Catalunya and Valencia are autonomous regions and San Marino is a republic, whereas Indiana has to follow Federal law.Orsoni (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

It's good that we have an increasing number of editors, however I believe editors should post here first before making major changes. There are lots of participating editors and one person shouldn't decide how to edit the page without sounding off to other editors on the discussion page. Just my two cents.Orsoni (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree, but then I'm the sort of editor who usually looks for consensus. I suspect that this will be wishful thinking for some editors, but we shall see. Ged UK (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About that: I was goona post here about changes I made... I took out the three separate result tables for the three classe, it increases the page size without giving further information (we already have PP anf FL info, in the standings table), in the end what really counts is the win and not the fastest lap or the pole position, and furthermore we already have articles with the results for each race and class. I also reinstrated the old level formatting not because the new was wrong, but simply because with the single = the paragraph headers were too big in my opinion. Asendoh (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the table improvements, makes it much easier to read, there were too many tables before, I think you were right. With regard the para headings, I suddenly noticed they were grouped all wrong, so dropped them all down one, but again, I think a level lower each is better, provided we keep the grouping the same. Ged UK (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. I believe if we ran things past a group, we could formulate a conscensus of what works and what doesn't, rather than one person making a decision on his own. It's a group effort. The motorcycle articles are improving all the time beginning to approach those of the Formula One circuit.Orsoni (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries

Should we mark differently cases where:
1. rider took part in the weekend, but was not able to race (Lorenzo at Catalunya, Capirossi and Hopkins at Assen)
2. rider didn't take part in the weekend (Capirossi at Donington)
Opinions? BleuDXXXIV (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I've always felt that the inj mark is to demonstrate that they didn't race, and the inherent significance that has on their ability to score points. So as far as i'm concerned, it's fine like it is. Ged UK (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c.... a rider should be marked as injured (INJ) if he wasn't present at a Grand Prix or if he didn't race because of injuries, and marked as non starter (DNS) if he set a time in the qualifying sessions but he didn't start the race, for any reason. Speaking of Assen, Capirossi is marked as injured since he didn't take part in the official qualifying session, and Hopkins as non starter since he did set a time. Asendoh (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Asendoh. Doctor Costa either pronounces them fit to race, or not.Orsoni (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, i forgot about the DNS option. Ged UK (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Listen, guys, there is a need to put the pole position, fastest lap like what is there in F1 seasons. Please dont revert my edit on making different tables on 125 pole, fl and winner 250 pole, fl and winner nd the MotoGp pole, f1 and winner. 124.13.126.195 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.126.195 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Consensus is against the layout you are inserting. D.M.N. (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, put the conseus in this layout. 124.13.126.195 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is met with discussions, discussions in the past show your version of the article is not warranted, you seem to be in the minority. Edit-warring is not the way to go about it as this is disruption to the encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been. Unlike F1, there are three races, and this simply makes the page far too long. Ged UK (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, well summarized.Asendoh (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And... stop vandalizing my userpages just because you want this thing to be done. This isn't F1, the page is already almost 80KB long, plus we have that kind of information in the season standing tables. Asendoh (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is very important. and what is the problem if the page is too long, fellas? 60.48.180.233 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly important, there's no points scored for pole or fastest lap. And if a page is too long, it becomes difficult to read. Please dopn't just revert the changes made, wait until there's a consensus. Ged UK (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy without the class by class breakdown. To do it as User talk:60.48.180.233 makes the article extremely stat heavy with no payoff in increased information as its covered in the points tables and has a detrimental affect on the look of the page. --Falcadore (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making an edit which is not vandalism, and because of this bloddy conseus, ypu guys are thinking that it is vandalism. So, you change the conseus. 124.13.125.75 (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It IS vandalism because YOU want to do a thing that THE MAJORITY of us don't want: you are edit-warring against the general consensus of the regular editors who DISCUSSED on the page instead of going ahead countless times (and you've been warned more than once). And you know what? Grow up, I think you can do better things in your spare time than to vandalize countless times a page of an italian nerd. Asendoh (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing over the format of the statistics, why not contribute what the article really needs, content. There are two lines of description of the season compared to 200 lines of statistics. It reads more like a bank statement than an encyclopedia article. Life should not be reduced to a catalogue of numbers. --Falcadore (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]