Talk:Jules Bianchi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
WikiProject Motorsport (Rated GA-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Formula One (Rated GA-class, Low-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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject France (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suzuka accident[edit]

Please do not insert rumors or speculation about Bianchi's status on the talk page or in the article. At this point, all that can be confirmed from reliably-sourced reporting is that he had a very serious accident and has been taken to hospital unconscious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest information I have heard or read is that he's currently undergoing emergency surgery for a serious head injury with plans to go direct to ICU after. (I'm not certain if that is specifically more serious than an ordinary surgery, but the article does specifically mention it as if it is a change in procedure.) This article is where I'm getting that info from; UnsanctionedStyle (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't find a good source for it, but thought I'd still share. Around 10am GMT they announced there would be no more updates given for 24 hours. GameLegend (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

result of the CT scan: severe head injury: Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone change this line "Bianchi's crash represented the first accident that resulted in major injury during a Formula One weekend since the head injuries suffered by Felipe Massa while qualifying for the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix." to "Bianchi's crash represented the first accident that resulted in major injury to a driver during a Formula One weekend since the head injuries suffered by Felipe Massa while qualifying for the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix." As it is currently listed is not strictly true, a marshal was killed during the recovery of a Sauber during the 2013 Canadian Grand Prix.[1] InfiniteRequiem (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Very sound suggestion above. Done! (couldn't you edit yourself?!) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: WP:BLP still applies[edit]

Just a quick reminder to all; WP:BLP will still apply to this article for a week or two, as it specifically covers those who are recently deceased, too. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Newbie query - can article be locked? Too many first-time contributors and unregistered users making improper edits. Me and ZappaOMati are only ones holding the fort... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've sent a request to WP:RPP. Zappa24Mati 03:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No, he died Saturday morning in France. Which would make it the 18th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adevarts (talkcontribs) 03:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the source. On Saturday morning, his family said that he died. And if you read their statement, which as I said, was made on Saturday morning, which is the 18th:

Last night is the 17th. Zappa24Mati 03:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

My new section needs rewording... but will hopefully stop people changing the sad passing on the 17th. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Redundant words should be removed[edit]

The section 2014 Suzuka accident begins "In the first instance, Bianchi was medically attended to at the crash site before being transported by ambulance..."

The words "In the first instance" are superfluous, and so I removed them. However, I have been reverted, with an edit summary of "Relevant because he was subsequently hospitalized to France". This is not the case, because the time line is readily apparent from the way the rest of the paragraph is written. Such verbosity is unhelpful to our readers, and should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted with a poor explanation, sorry. It is common practice for race drivers to be stabilized on track and then immediately taken by ambulance to the medical centre or by helicopter elsewhere. In this case, "in the first instance", not only was Bianchi treated on the race track, he could then not be airlifted due to the weather and continued to be treated on route by ambulance to a Japanese hospital. "In the second instance", he was relocated and treated in France. Why lose context for the sake of arguable prose? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The prose is inarguably poor; and no context is lost with removal of the phrase to which I refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Find other non-F1 articles to edit with your prose? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


I have restored the correct heading markup, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings, which says "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Instead of picking on trivial matters, lookup. There is discussion to redo those section. You are not contributing to anything other than further unecessary endless edits. The main heading is "Suzuka accident" CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Accessibility is not a "trivial matter". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
[EC] I have now been reverted, with the most unacceptable, and false, edit summary "You did not author the article nor previously contribute to it. Go contribute elsewhere?". I suggest a reading of WP:OWN is on order. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is dismissing accessability or claiming ownership. You are just not contributing to minimising undue edits given the above discussion in this very Talk page. If you prefer that para numbering, leave it since it will disappear in due course as those sections will be redone (have you read above or not?) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure, given your recent comments here and in the section above, and repeated reversion of edits to the article, that people will understand if I decide not to defer to your judgement of which edits are "undue". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
And your attempt to cause a dispute because you didn't get your way does not faze me. In saying that, I was wrong in referring to a discussion in this very Talk page. It is actually in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Jules Bianchi's article, which you may wanna consult as well. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It looks to me as though changing the bolded headers to actual section headers isn't a huge deal, and will help people using screen readers read the article. I don't really understand what the problem is here. CtrlXctrlV can you explain what's wrong with changing them? agtx 16:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur, so I reinstated the section headers. CtrlXctrlV, you need to drop your bullying attitude towards editors who make edits you don't like. Comments like "Go find another article to edit" are utterly unacceptable and you will be referred to the administrators if you persist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing), thanks four your input. On the redundant words, as pointed out by the other editor we are currently discussing an imminent rewrite here. So discussing any changes here will be moot anyway. You're welcome to weigh in your opinion there. Tvx1 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem Agtx, in fact I made that edit myself previously. I even invited Pigsonthewing to restore the numbering but after pointing out that further edits will be futile given those whole sections will undergo a rewrite, as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Jules Bianchi's article. I thought WP:BLP applies yet all that Pigsonthewing has done is cause more (avoidable, at this time) edits. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Tvx1 before you accuse anyone of bullying, kindly recall or check through the history to see that I established each of those indexed sub-sections that you have since proposed to cut back (and which I largely support). With: (i) that in mind; (ii) WP:BLP in place; (iii) the discussion you initiated here, it was not a matter of preference (or bullying) on my part, but one of utility of Pigsonthewing's edits at a time of lots of edits by all and sundries. And, again, I did not oppose to those sub-sections being reestablished either, as is evident from the comments above (after pointing out your discussion, which I envisage will result in each sub-section being dropped or changed substantially). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
If you didn't oppose them, then why did you revert Pigsonthewing instating them? And nevertheless it was completely inappropriate to tell another editor to "go edit other non f1-articles" (i.e. stay away from of F1 articles). Tvx1 17:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Read the context (incl. time stamps) and how it escalated before selectively jumping to conclusions. Thanks. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I did read the context and the timestamps, but if you must: Pigsonthewing replaces bold headers by actual section headers per MOS, you revert, Pigsonthewing reinstates correct section headers per MOS, Pigsonthewing initiates discussion on this matter on this talk page, you revert the headings in the article again, after all of that more discussion continues here. None of this shows you agreeing to use the correct section headings, let alone invite Pigsonthewing to restore them. An certainly none of this justifies you telling him to "sod off".
Don't really understand why you refer to BLP above. BLP doesn't mean edits to articles should be minimised or avoided. Only problematic edits about living and perhaps recently deceased people should be avoided, meaning with content that is poorly sourced, biased or whatever else that makes it a problem, particularly content that includes negative material. The fact that an article is likely to be substantially rewritten may mean fixing formatting problems isn't so important, but it doesn't mean people aren't welcome to do so if they desire. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on that aspect Nil Einne :) it was just not to add to the many edits happening at the moment, in the context of imminent further changes and this whole thing starting due to rejecting the other user's changes for the sake of prose. Makes a difference when things are explained properly and sensibly, without escalation as caused by the other user also subjecting this page to a dispute (heavy-handed). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You know, your reverts did unnecessarily add to the edits too. There would have been much less if you would have just left Pigsonthewing's initial edit alone. That the section will be rewritten in the future does not mean we should leave it inaccessible for some until that has happened. So yes, his edit was constructive. Tvx1 18:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding to these edits too Tvx1, unhelpfully keeping the fire alive I don't know for what purpose. In saying that, great use of "initially" instead of "in the first instance", which Pigsonthewing could have thought of himself before or instead of causing a trivial argument. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense sentence[edit]

The sentence in team reaction, In addition, other teams introduced their own to the other Twitter hashtag, makes no sense. Can somebody who knows what the other teams did reword it appropriately? Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It was unreferenced trivia too, so deleted. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead talk / Other F1 teams[edit]

In the lead, it currently features Bianchi as a Ferrari test driver. Is this wise? While he was the first member of their driver academy (, this implies he actively took part in Ferrari Grand Prix sessions. It's a very minute distinction that should/could be explained in detail later in the article. Twirlypen (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I edited to say he was just an Academy member. Agree? And somewhat related to your point... yesterday I deleted an edit adding Force India to the list of teams in the infobox. Can someone please explain what's the criteria for those listings? Is it just the teams a driver has raced for or do they also cover teams tested for? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
For infobox purposes, it's strictly teams he has been entered in races for. If it's 0 races (0 starts), then no. Anything else though, then yes. As such, his only Formula One team was Marussia. For comparison, Pascal Wehrlein has tested for both Force India and Mercedes, but he is not credited as being a F1 GP driver. Twirlypen (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Twirlypen :) glad that revert was correct then... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely! It was just the wording in the lead before was borderline misleading regarding his Ferrari status. I knew what was trying to be said, but being this is a Main Page article at the moment, it needed immediate clarification. Twirlypen (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Jules Bianchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)