Talk:Michael Schumacher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Michael Schumacher has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Motorsport (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Formula One (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Germany (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sports Car Racing (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Untitled

[edit] GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Michael Schumacher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article is in general a very good piece of work, but there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is OK, perhaps 6.5/10. The sections on "honours" and his life off track are a bit messy and could use tidying up and organising into properly developed paragraphs.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Problems. I see several [citation needed] tags that should be addressed and there are a number of intext links (like this: [1]) that have to each be assessed for reliability and then properly converted into a full reference.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on the references section this afternoon, if no one beats me to it :) Schumi555 (talk)
I've corrected the intext links, but there are still four '[citation needed]' tags that I cannot find references for. Maybe we should remove this information if references cannot be found? Schumi555 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)07:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've referenced three of the bits that had "fact" tags, and hidden one other bit that had a "fact" tag. No fact tags are left. D.M.N. (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Good work, I think this article can now have its GA status confirmed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reworks - Honours

Hi all

I have reworked the Honours section into chronological order, as it seemed out of order as 2007 award came before 2006 then a 2007 the 2006 then 2008 lol. I also made a few grammar changes to tie them together.

I also added another ref for the Asturia awards - also added UNESCO awards 2002

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removed edits

I have removed some PoV edits, as well as some non neutral, and will replace the edits that were ok.

Unfortunately as these were re-edited several times I could not undo selected ones, so will replace the ok ones

--Chaosdruid (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Total Number of wins

Does the total of F1 wins include or exclude the 1997 Championship ?? I know Schumacher was deducted the season's total points, but was he deducted all of his victories too ??? I have no idea. If MS's total victories does NOT include 1997, then shouldn't the inclusive total be listed in parentheses with a footnote ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.35.170.0 (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

They are included. I believe that he kept all his stats from the races, as he wasn't disqualified from them, just lost his championship position. Schumi555 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
True. Bizarre and possibly inappropriate, but true. 4u1e (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2004

The 2004 season seems to have been given somewhat scant coverage. To put it into context, there is more information on how he has been on the pit wall and an occasional test driver in 2008, than on statistically the greatest season for any driver in the history of the sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.161.114 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's probably because it's not a very interesting season to write about - he won lots, no-one else came close. However, if there's stuff to add, go to it, or make some suggestions here and we'll try and add something. 4u1e (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not the Stig.

Schumacher is not the Stig, he was only there for one show.

There is no way that Schumacher was near top gear filming for the last two seasons.

Also this is why the FXX was so much quicker round the track and top gear were allowed to film it on track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.74.188 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably this will become clearer in the next week but this has been announced and your doubts seem very speculative. If he is the Stig, it certainly warrants a sentence in the opening: Schumacher would be copresenter of a progreamme with 350 million viewers, after all. --81.108.128.207 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"Also this is why the FXX was so much quicker round the track" it might also be a quick car....Uksam88 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Turns out he is The Stig after all. Jack1956 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM db1987db (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Db1987db, nobody is using this as a forum. We're discussing the reliability of sources and the content of the article. --81.108.128.207 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just reminding anyone who tries to to turn it into one, that's all :) db1987db (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Very sorry. --81.108.128.207 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's ok...just the top two sentences did seem like the start of a Forum... db1987db (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason why he appeared on the show was that he will be one of the 30 people mentioned who actually own an FXX. The offical site says "And how does his Ferrari FXX track car feel compared to a Formula One car?" here, with an emphasis on "his Ferrari FXX". What are the feelings on this being reliable/needed in the article? Schumi555 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


As I said earlier Schumacher was on the show because of HIS FXX, see page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_FXX

Note that Schumacher's FXX is the ONLY one that is black without a stripe, as shown on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.74.188 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know you meant that it was his FXX from your comment earlier. Regards, Schumi555 20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that this Daily Mail article (the only RS I could find covering the unmasking) doubts that he was the Stig for longer than this one episode, which makes sense. It was also never stated that he had been the Stig for longer in the episode, so we shouldn't go stating anything like that without a good source. Plus the end of the episode Clarkson says "I don't think that David Schumacher is the Stig"... – Toon(talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Top Gear : The Stig

In 21. June. 2009 The UK automotive mystery man in Top Gear was Michael Schumacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osphere (talkcontribs) 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Obv he was the stig it matches with when he resigned from formula 1 and the new stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.244.142 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If this article is to say that Schumacher was the Stig at any point before tonight's programme, it's going to need a good source to verify it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not set in concrete that Schumacher is the stig. There's evidence that it was all a big joke in the show,Fir a start, Schumacher was listed as a guest and not the Stig, it's also evident when he tried to go around the track in the Suzuki Liana. Mainly that Stig already took the Liana around the track in episode 2 of series 8, posting a time of 1:44.4. Looneyman (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is unlikely that any "evidence" will be forthcoming. It benefits nobody for the show's makers to bother providing such unless they could gain some publicity from it. The way it could be listed is to say that he was revealed to be the Stig in that episode of the program and no more than that.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Already put this on the talk page for The Stigs wiki, so may as well add it here too. Evidence that Michael Schumacher is NOT The Stig. On the top gear site, Michael talks about having to learn the Top Gear track prior to lapping the FXX, if he had been The Stig for the last however many years he would not need to do this. So there you go, evidence for something which, in my opinion, was already pretty obvious. Tocheb73 (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That is conjecture and OR unless dominative proof such as Perry McArthys revelations is bought about then there are no definitive sources as to him not being the stig. Just because he says he had to learn the track, for a specific car doesn't mean he he wasn't for most of the other cars.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about a picture in this article

Regarding this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schu_Hakk_98BritGP.jpg

While the article's caption and the file's description say that it is Coulthard, the original and current filename both imply that it is Hakkinen... 88.105.84.115 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Coulthard from the helmet design, and indeed the caption in the article says it is Coulthard too. Schumi555 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)I
It's Coulthard. No question.
The file has now been renamed to File:Schumacher_and_Coulthard_in_the_1998_British_Grand_Prix.jpg. DH85868993 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] motorbikes

No mention in the article about him riding motorbikes? http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/jul/29/formula-one-michael-schumacher-comeback-ferrari Mathmo Talk 03:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Michael_Schumacher#2008:_Car_development. DH85868993 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 coolant

About the 1997 championship, the article states that during the Jerez Grand Prix, Schumacher was slowing down due to a coolant problem, which allowed Villeneuve to close the gap. I have never read anything about a coolant problem. Where does it come from / what is your source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.154.14 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.90.50 (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Comeback for 2010

Schumacher is coming out of retirement to sign with Mercedes for the 2010 season. Bild has reported it today, but the official contract is to be signed next week. Therefore the information in the Wikipedia should not be changed until the contract is officially signed. Norum 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we change the line where it says December 23rd comeback.......it doesnt read well. Maybe have it on 23 December reports suggested......i think it would make more sense like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.80.139 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Apterygial 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link to the report in Bild: http://www.bild.de/BILD/sport/motorsport/formel1/2009/12/23/mercedes/macht-michael-schumi-schumacher-comeback-moeglich.html

Norum 09:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Massa Crash 2009

According to an interview Schumacher gave the German magazine Spiegel in October 2009, he was not physically present at the time of Felipe Massa's crash in Budapest but watched the race on TV instead. This should be corrected in the article. Link to the interview (in German). --92.224.97.248 (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


I dont think so, this has nothing to do with him, it doesnt matter where he was, only what he was prepared to do; step in. We dont need to document where he was at each big moment of his life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.76.66 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

The infobox giving Schumacher's vitals need to be changed. Nothing is officially confirmed yet, so Schumacher technically in't a current driver. Even if it's only for one hour, it needs to be changed. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Apterygial 03:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

SkyNews just confirmed it. It is official. Norum 10:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but someone had changed it at least twelve hours in advance. There's a difference between EXPECTED to sign and CONFIRMED to have signed, and that's why it had to be changed back. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing the article

Now that the comeback has been confirmed, I feel it would be best to encompass the 'Attempted comeback' and 'Retirement' sections under the dedicated Ferrari section (Section 2) as sub-points, and to give the Mercedes GP information its own section (2.5). The way the article reads right now, the retirement bit is beneath the Mercedes comeback section, chronologically implying that he's retired again. Very misleading. Msplzstoplosin (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is he really banned in 9 states in the U.S.?

He said so in the Top Gear, but I could not find any evidence to prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.43.90 (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke. ColinClark (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect stat

"It is also of note that as of the end of the 2004 season, Schumacher had at least one Grand Prix win at every circuit he had raced on. For him to regain the record upon his return to Formula 1, he will have to win in Turkey, Valencia, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Korea."
The above is wrong, confusing the designated countries of Grand Prix and actual circuits. For example, he only raced at Donington Park once ('93) and didn't win there. However, that race was under the Grand Prix of Europe title, which he did when it was held at the Nurburgring. It also means he has no need to win in Valencia to regain that record, as that is also under the European GP title. - Pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.128.220 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to reply to my own comment; it's even more incorrect than that. He never won the South African Grand Prix, having competed their twice. When I get a chance, I'm going to replace it with a "It is sometimes erroneously claimed that..." section and explain the misunderstanding. I think it comes form that stat that by the end of 2004, he had won at every current circuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.128.220 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussed previously way back in 2006 (see here). Hope you don't mind, but I don't think we have room in the article to explain why it is sometimes (how often, really?) claimed that...etc. I've cut it down to the record he actually holds, but as I noted way back in 2006, others have similar records: Fangio for one, and I'd be surprised if one or two of Ascari, Prost, Senna, Clark and Stewart didn't have something similar on their CVs. 4u1e (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And now I've checked it out, I've deleted it altogether. He didn't win in China until 2006, and by then Turkey, where he has never won, was on the calendar. So in 2004 he had one win missing from his CV for a clean sweep. 4u1e (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be true to say that by the end of the 2002 and 2003 seasons he had at least one victory on each circuit used in those years' championships. He didn't win in Austria until 2002, spoiling the record before that, and China and then Turkey break the pattern from 2004 on. How notable that is though, I'm not sure. Another way of tackling it would be to give the percentage of all the tracks he has raced on that he has won at. 4u1e (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Legend

I dont know, from the article I dont feel a sense of the greatness he imposed over f1, it seems a little biased, more of a 'He was good, but it was annoying as no one else won' rather than, although he did stamp out the competition he was admired by the public.... everyone says so, even ecclestone (the king of f1 no matter what you say) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkitas (talkcontribs) 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to present a neutral point of view. As such it would be improper for any edits to tout him as "the greatest", "the best" or even "he was really good". This is called peacocking and is frowned up on as it is unencyclopaedic.
Chaosdruid (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There will always be personal opinions, but it is not POV that Schumacher and Senna together are by most regarded as the greatest drivers in F1 history. That's why I added the same line that tops the Ayrton Senna article, as the same reasoning applies to Schumacher as it does to Senna. 99% of the time Senna's and Schumacher's names will be included in any discussion on who was the greatest driver, as backed up by a number of references/sources. GameLegend (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive results table

Please contribute to the discussion taking place at Wikiproject Formula One.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and please leave the table alone until that discussion is concluded. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


[edit] What does he look like?

how about a decent pic?, showing his face .CorvetteZ51 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The existing picture shows most of his face... DH85868993 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of 1994 Season in Controversy Section

Surely there should be a short, perhaps one sentence, mention of the Allegations of Cheating in the 1994 Season under the "Controversy" section. There is an entire Wikipedia page for this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Formula_One_cheating_controversy, but there should be a mention, and link, from here. 80.176.151.208 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:Schumacher Special Gold Helmet 2011.png Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Schumacher Special Gold Helmet 2011.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export