Talk:Michael Schumacher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Michael Schumacher has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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 reassess it.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

GA Reassessment[edit]

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)

Reworks - Honours[edit]

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)

Removed edits[edit]

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)

Total Number of wins[edit]

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 (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)


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 (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)

Not the Stig.[edit]

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 (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. -- (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) 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. -- (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. -- (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:

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 (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)

Top Gear : The Stig[edit]

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 (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)

Question about a picture in this article[edit]

Regarding this image:

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... (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)


No mention in the article about him riding motorbikes? 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)

1997 coolant[edit]

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 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

[2] says coolant leak. I've added the source to the list of references. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comeback for 2010[edit]

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 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 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Here's the link to the report in Bild:

Norum 09:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Massa Crash 2009[edit]

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). -- (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 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


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)

Organizing the article[edit]

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)

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

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

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

Incorrect stat[edit]

"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 (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 (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)


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)
The line "widely regarded as the greatest F1 driver of all time" in opening summery doesn't fit the neutral point of view IMO and I followed the four references and they don't convey that either,
  1. Is a pole with no results anymore and would leave historical drivers at a disadvantage
  2. Has him third "Greatest"
  3. Puts it well with "Statistically the most successful driver in F1 history",
  4. Has him third "Greatest"
I would say "he is one of the greatest" and it would keep it more neutral. Latendresse76 (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive results table[edit]

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)

What does he look like?[edit]

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)

Mention of 1994 Season in Controversy Section[edit]

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,, but there should be a mention, and link, from here. (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

File:Schuhelmets.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Schuhelmets.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Schuhelmets.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What would be good for this page[edit]

1I think that there should be seperate sections for each of Schumacher's racing years, especially his world championship years as there is not a lot of detail covering any of his years apart from his years at Mercedes which were the least successful and probably not the ones people want to read about. 2I think that this page should have some kind of protection especially as Michael Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver ever while other modern and less successful drivers like Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel do have protection. I think the same should be done with other legendary and successful drivers of the past like Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodo497 (talkcontribs) 20:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Monaco qualifying[edit]

Grid penalties are not relevant to the 'pole positions' stat. The 68 recorded by this page includes races where he hasn't started in first place due to penalties. The stat is an indication of the number of times a driver has been the fastest in qualifying only. He achieved pole position, but did not start from it, it is simple as that. Tom Green (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, I think you are crushingly misinformed. Fastest in qualifying isn't "pole position". Pole position is the position at the front of the starting grid, hence the name. Traditionally, it is an old horse racing term relating to the starting pole on the inside of the race course. The inside is the shortest distance around a race track so this was the preferred place to be sat on your horse ready for the start. Similarly in motor sport, that borrowed the term, if your car isn't there you don't get credited with a pole position stat. How many external sources would you like me to point you to that deal directly with recent occurences; there are a few hundred just on the internet. Try here, or here, or here, and how about here? Have you got any reliable sources that support your claims? Pyrope 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, it's as simple as this: find a reliable source that says he has 69 poles. In the past, the pole stat has always gone to the driver starting from the front of the grid, after penalties e.g. 2005 Italian Grand Prix. Also, if you want to start a discussion about something, don't change the article to your preferred version first. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's one of the more reliable stats accumulation sites... 68. Here is James Allen passing on his specialist knowledge to his blog readers... "Webber". There are plenty more. Pyrope 19:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
And here's the official word 68. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarcastic? Possibly, but then ill-informed pomposity sometimes needs to be pricked. Semi-abusive? In what way? I pointed out your lack of knowledge, I asked a couple of questions, and I provided a healthy list of sources that prove just how misinformed you are. If you find being proven wrong, using multiple, highly reliable, independent, third-party sources is "semi-abusive" then you really should make sure of your facts before telling a whole string of established editors that you are in the right. Now, rather than remove the comments, how about you respond to them? Pyrope 21:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your approach was immature and unprofessional in my view, however I have backed down until official stats are updated (if they ever are). References are key as you say, so if they aren't updated then I won't be discussing this again. I am not interested in further arguments, perhaps it was flawed to take it upon myself to remove your comments. Tom Green (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It certainly was no less mature or professional than your initial policy of ignoring the entire recent history of an article, installing your own preferred, utterly incorrect version and then trying to justify it on a talk page. FYI, the references have already been updated, on every stats site I know of, to show Webber's 10 poles, with Schumacher remaining on 68. One thing you are correct about is how flawed an idea it was to remove people's comments from a talk page, something you are not entitled to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I was wrong factually and morally, now get over yourself. Tom Green (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Pot, kettle, etc. Pyrope 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

At the start of the press conference after the 2012 Monaco Grand Prix Qualifying, the interviewer congralutated him with his 69th pole position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. However, just because you find one ill-informed source, from a spoken interview conducted in the heat of the moment, doesn't mean that the overwhelming bulk of reputable, reliable sources (including that interviewer's employers...) that state otherwise are wrong. Pyrope 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This session was not the same as the qualifying for the Spanish GP. In Spain Hamilton got disqualified from qualifying meaning that Pole Position was no longer his. In Monaco Schumacher did qualify on Pole, but was relegated 5 places because of a penalty, he didn't lose his 69th Pole Position. Even on Formula One video games, if you are fastest in qualifying, but get relegated becuase of a penalty, the Pole Position is still counted as yours. Surely therfore this is Schumacher's 69th Pole, not Webber's 10th. Dodo497 (talk)

No it wasn't the same as the Spanish GP, but it was just like the 2005 Italian Grand Prix, where Kimi Räikkönen was fastest in qualifying but had a 10-place grid penalty, so Montoya started on pole. says 68 poles for Schumacher and 10 poles for Webber. DH85868993 (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Separate sections[edit]

This page definately need clear different sections for Schumacher's different Formula 1 years. What I don't understand is why 2010 onwards all have a separate page for each year when these were probably his worst years in the sport while there is only one section for his world championship years from 2000-2004 and 1994 and 1995. Whats even worse is that there is only one small paragraph on the 2004 season, samller than that on some of the single races in 2010 to present.

It's not that the previous years are not broken up enough, but recentism is a common problem with a collectively written encyclopedia: it usually boils down to the salient points given time. We know who you are if you sign your posts (4x~) by the way. Britmax (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

1999 British Grand Prix[edit]

I think Schumacher's entry for the 1999 British Grand Prix should be a DNS, not a Retirement. Schumacher crashed on the aborted first lap of the race, and failed to make the restart. Under Regulations 156/157A of the FIA 1999 Sporting Regulations (link here), following a red-flag within the first 2 laps of a race, the first start will be null and void and the race restarted from scratch. As Schumacher was unable to take the restart, he should be DNS by the same token as Barrichello, Panis, etc at the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix. Obviously this would have an effect on his total starts, making the 300th start claim on 2012 Italian Grand Prix incorrect.

MTracey1 02:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally-reliable sources differ on whether it should be a "DNS" or "Ret" (e.g. FORIX (subscription required) and say "DNS"; ChicaneF1 and say "Ret"). The current WP:F1 consensus is to consider it as a "Ret" (which is not to say that consensus can't change; just pointing out that's what the current consensus is). DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was about to suggest consistency with 1998 BEL, but I hadn't realised there was an official ongoing discussion. I'll leave it to the community concensus. Thanks. MTracey1 03:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Monaco Qual[edit]

Look on official table, Michael is marked as Q-winner, maybe we should change the data in this and Monaco articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which data? Data presented here relate to Pole Position starts, not qualification wins. The two are not the same thing, see above discussion. Pyrope 19:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Last driver born in the 1960's[edit]

Following Micheal's retirement in 2012 he will be the last driver born in the 1960's to race in F1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael_Schumacher#Helmet deadlink - someone please fix this? (i don't know how)[edit]

Hi. I was reading some of this article today, and enjoying it, when I came upon a dead or empty link in this section: Michael_Schumacher#Helmet:


Schumacher's helmet for the 1994 season

Schumacher, in conjunction with Schuberth, helped develop the first lightweight carbon helmet. In 2004, a prototype was publicly tested by being driven over by a tank; it survived intact.[1] The helmet keeps the driver cool by funneling directed airflow through fifty holes.

This link no longer has content in it: <ref>{{cite news |url= |title= Even a tank can't halt schu now |accessdate=8 November 2006 |publisher=JEC Composites}}</ref> However, I went to the internet wayback machine though and found a snapshot of the nice content that used to be there: I'm sorry, I don't know how to fix this, that is, how to reformat the citation to include the archive URL from wayback machine. Can someone more knowledgeable address this please? Thanks! joepaT 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Even a tank can't halt schu now". JEC Composites. Retrieved 8 November 2006. 

ski accident[edit]

The initial reports were incorrect - Gérard Saillant is not his carer, the Grenoble staff are (he attended as a friend, and gave general comments to the press).

The accident occurred in a small off piste area between two pistes. (People tend not to think of such areas as unsecured, so it is a useful qualification).

He was rushed first to the local hospital in Moutiers, then to to the regional hospital for its specialist facilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:49, January 1, 2014 (UTC)‎

Done Thanks, I have edited the page. Anything to add still? --hydrox (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

thats all, thanks, and thanks for the links you sent (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

then on to a hospital in Grenoble specialising in brain injuries[edit]

The hospital where M. Schumacher is being treated is the public "regional university hospital" associated with Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble. This hospital treats a very wide range of ailments, by no means restricted to brain injuries. It is however true that, due to its location in the Alps, it has special expertise in the treatment of injuries resulting from mountain sports (e.g. ski in winter). David.Monniaux (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It was never intended to say that the hospital is brain injury only hospital. I've changed the passage to say "then on to a larger hospital in Grenoble, that specialises among others in brain injuries." --hydrox (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The article does not contain a link to the official accident report (by Patrick Quincy) as it should. I could not find it, can you ? TGCP (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Schumacher's accident in the opening[edit]

While the subject of his accident is covered at the bottom of his page, I believe it should be noted from the short two paragraphs in the opening that Schumacher was injured in a skiing accident in 29th December 2013.

Apavlides24 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with adding that information in the lead section per WP:RECENTISM. I think it is in the appropriate place now. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have added a couple of sentences in the lead regarding this. It is clearly a highly significant moment in his life and biography, particularly as he remains in a coma 18 days after the accident. In fact there should probably also be a bit more about his personal life in the lead anyway - the usual convention is that any area meriting its own section in the article should be covered briefly in the lead. I'll leave that for now though...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to note this, but here goes: the final sentence of the opening, which refers to M.Sch. being paralyzed etc. relies on a highly dubious source. A few weeks after these reports, which derive from Philippe Streiff, a self-proclaimed friend of the family, Sch.'s manager Sabine Kehm said the following: "Kehm emphasized that Streiff was not a friend of the family and that he also had no contact with Schumacher's wife or his medical doctor." (, retrieved 7/18/15). Kehm has been the only reliable source since the accident, and she has handled all media inquiries in this regard. She has made a few generic statements about Sch.'s condition, but there are no specifics. I therefore suggest that the final sentence of the opening either be deleted or replaced by more reliable information. Parsifal12 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reader feedback: how many childrens he have,...[edit]

Resolved posted this comment on 3 January 2014 (view all feedback).

how many childrens he have, that's what I would like to know.

Any thoughts?

It's already in the article. Under Personal Life. Dismas|(talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014[edit]

Lucer1983 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Pyrope 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


>> Schumacher being brought out of coma(Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)).

Infobox "races"[edit]

In the infobox, the item Races 308 (307 starts) appears. Can someone explain the discrepancy (it seems he took part in one more race than he started!) Thanks, Lynbarn (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably something to do with the 1999 British Grand Prix where he failed to make the restart, due to the injuries from his crash at Stowe. Britmax (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. By "races", it (slightly counter-intuitively) means "Grand Prix meetings", therefore he was present at 308 races, yet only started 307 of them. The first start at the 1999 British GP was declared null and void, and he missed the second start as Britmax says. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
That article has him retiring. If this is in fact his one Grand Prix in which he did not start, it should reflect so there and the 1999 season article. If the first start was declared null and void, then the records should state this as a DNS. If they state otherwise, then it's a start and retirement, and this infobox would need to be changed. Twirlypen (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The assumption was wrong. His one DNS was the 1996 French Grand Prix. However, the above issue should still be looked into as to whether Schumi was recorded as starting the 99 British GP and retiring or not starting the race at all. Twirlypen (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:F1 convention is that Schumacher's result in the 1999 British Grand Prix is "Retired" - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Disputed_results#Restarted_WDC_races and the associated discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't read such a convention at all in that discussion. I see different opinions being raised with no consensus ever assessed. What's most worrying to me is that a group of wikipedia editors want to make their own definition for those kind rules. We have to obey the official rules. The official rules at the time dictated very clearly that if a race was red-flagged before the end of the second lap, the race would be restarted for the original distance and the previous "attempt" at starting it would be declared null and void. I have witnessed many races from the nineties and early noughties were this ruling was applied (I even attended one of them, Belgium 1998.). There should not be a dispute about the fact that Michael's GB result should be DNS (in all articles concerned) and he should have 306 starts instead of 307. His accident is treated as if it happened during the warm-up lap. Note that both and Forix support that. That is a very strong statement on what is the correct result. Another strong indication that that first start attempt was declared null and void is the fact that Villeneuve and Zanardi, who caused the red flag in the first place, were allowed to take part in the fresh start (in their original grid position). If it had been a mere resumption, they would have not been allowed to do so and would have been listed as retired after 0 laps. Tvx1 22:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that discussion showed a consensus for "Ret"; I said the convention (as documented atWikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Disputed_results#Restarted_WDC_races) is that all the related articles currently reflect the result "Ret". By all means let's discuss the matter further, and if a consensus emerges for "DNS", then we can update all the related articles (and the convention) accordingly. I have advertised this discussion at WP:F1 in the interests of gaining maximum input. For what it's worth, I would support a change to "DNS", based on the info at FORIX and DH85868993 (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I too would support DNS/306 starts, based on the rules and facts of the situation. The fact that VIL and ZAN were allowed to "restart" in their original positions is especially telling. Twirlypen (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason why I'm so puzzled about the "Ret" convention is that, according to the disputed results list there a considerable number of articles which have "DNS" for similar events. Furthermore the Disputed results list is desperately incomplete. If you compare with our List of red-flagged Formula One races, you'll notice that the former list misses quite a number of restarted races. Tvx1 18:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason we ended up with "Ret" in Wikipedia is that originally say "Ret", so when the results table in 1999 British Grand Prix was autogenerated from in 2004, that's the result which was imported, and subsequently disseminated to the other related articles. Some time between then and 2010, changed their result to "DNS". You're correct about the incompleteness of the table - feel free to update it (or I'll get around to it eventually). DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I would be happy to do it, but I can't access all of the necessary results. has ditched its results archive since overhauling the site, I can't access forix, nor do I have access to a copy of Mike Lang's books. I'll give it a go though. Tvx1 14:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 Done I have added the missing races. While I was able to retrieve the results from the internet archive, I haven't been able to check the Mike Lang and Forix results. Tvx1 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tvx1. I'll update the FORIX and Lang results within the next 24 hours as I have access to both. DH85868993 (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, here is a link to the official rules in 1999. Tvx1 01:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've advertised this discussion at Talk:1999 British Grand Prix, just in case any interested parties are watching this page but not this one. DH85868993 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, there seems to be a strong consensus to change the result to "DNS". If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I'll update all the affected articles. DH85868993 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've updated all the affected articles. DH85868993 (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

date of his status[edit]

there have been several efforts to update the date of his status. i think this is wrong - we cannot go beyond what reliable sources report that his doctors say, and the last report was March 7. he could have died last week, right? Or two days ago he could have taken a turn for the worse, or have woken up altogether. we just don't know... interested in hearing other folks' thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

agree Wikipedia is not a news medium, but an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources of information. The application of automatic counters etc. is gimmicky and unnecessary. Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course. We can't report what we don't know via a reliable source. --Drmargi (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
If we should follow all you guys logic then we should not "report" on Schumachers incident at all. And even less so about his health after the incident.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If anything the current prose is misleading as it indicates that he is in a stable condition while all reports since then has been that he is getting worse and is highly unlikely to ever wake up or even less so recover from his injuries.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand where you are coming from, User:BabbaQ. The accident definitely happened, was significant to Schumacher's life, and is very well documented in reliable sources. If you have reliable sources on his current status, please provide them. There are lots of rumors and speculations, but as far as I know his doctors - the most reliable source for information on his health status - last issued a statement on March 7. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog's actions here have been contrary to Wikipedia policy. If BBC News considers a report noteworthy enough to give it prominent coverage, it more than meets the standards necessary for noteworthiness here. Jytdog needs to go and read the guidance at to correct his misunderstanding about this issue. Elroch (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are two separate issues here:

  • The March 7 update on Schumacher's condition, which a number of editors re-dated to whatever the current date was. Jytdog and several other editors were correct in reverting changes from March 7, the sourced date for the update.
  • Today's (April 4) update on Schumacher's condition, in which his agent, Sabine Kehm, indicates he has shown "moments of consciousness". In this case, Jytdog has erred in removing this content, claiming it is rumor, despite it being announced by a family representative and well sourced to highly reliable media sources. We do need to verify what we post, no question. We do not get to make judgments on the veracity of the primary source of that information to the degree an editor declares only Schmacher's medical team are suitable sources for updates reported by the media, particularly given they would be Kehm's source for her update. The world sporting and news media are satisfied Kehm is able to speak accurately for the family, as is the role of an agent, and we have included other content disseminated in this way. There's no reason to exclude this particular update, particularly on the POV basis that it's just rumor. That's pure speculation on one editor's part. --Drmargi (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of coma[edit]

"He was in the coma from 29 December 2013 until 16 June 2014", "By 16 June 2014, Schumacher had regained consciousness and left Grenoble Hospital".

Are you sure that the source material specify June 16th as the day he got of coma and not just left the hospital? And does it say that he regained consiousness? Awake and conscious are not exactly the same. We don't know anything about his awareness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014[edit]

Please change "He has left the hospital in Grenoble for further rehabilitation at an undisclosed location.[1]"

To: He has left the hospital in Grenoble for further rehabilitation at the University Hospital (CHUV) in Lausanne, Switzerland.[1]

The BBC article actually states this, and it has been reported in many other news outlets: Genomicsio (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - DJAMP4444 18:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b "F1 legend Michael Schumacher 'out of coma'". BBC. Retrieved 16 June 2014. 

F1 Records[edit]

I think the table can be improved; it should include all records set by Schumacher at their highest point, not just those he still holds. It should also document what the previous mark was and who set that, and who reset the record if Schumacher has lost it. -- (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not records which a driver previously held, but no longer holds, should be listed in the Records table has been discussed before (for both Schumacher and other drivers) and the consensus has been that only records the driver currently holds should be listed. But you are welcome to raise the matter for discussion again at the Formula One WikiProject. (Note that I suggest discussing it there because the outcome of the discussion will affect numerous articles, so it makes sense to have the discussion in a central place). DH85868993 (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What of the other issue? Listing who held the record previous to Schumacher? -- (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If only the records the driver currently holds are listed then records held by someone else (before or after Schumacher held them) probably won't be listed. Britmax (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Typically the previous record holder is not listed in driver "Records" tables (see Sebastian_Vettel#Formula_One_records, Lewis_Hamilton#Formula_One_records as other examples), but this information is frequently detailed in the article text, e.g. "This meant that Hamilton broke Bruce McLaren's record of being the youngest driver to ever lead the world championship.", "This was Vettel's third consecutive championship, and at age 25 he became the youngest ever triple world champion, beating Ayrton Senna's previous record.", etc. But again, you are welcome to raise the matter for discussion again at the Formula One WikiProject. DH85868993 (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


I added a new photo down in the career section. I think it would also work as the infobox image. Feel free to comment. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If I could offer one criticism of the photo, it's that the brim of his hat is covering his left eye, unlike the standard infobox pic, where is face is more visible. ZappaSJSMati 02:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Double infobox[edit]

Why does this Michael Schumacher page have 2 infoboxes, one for his racing career and one for his personal life? I cannot find another similar sportsperson with this type of page layout. I would suggest they should be merged together in the top right as with every other page that I checked. I searched for some prior reference to this layout in the talk page and found none. --Carrben12 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Carrben12: Not F1 drivers, though they're race car drivers: Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson have it as well. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 16:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede too long?[edit]

The introduction is five paragraphs long. MOS:LEAD encourages just four, especially for newer subjects, like this one. There might be less relevant info in the lede, making a reader possibly doze off. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Michael Schumacher. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)