Talk:2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season

Please go to

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]

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]

The article states that Rossi will be on Bridgestones while the other three Yamahas will use Michelins. Is there a source for that? /

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]

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]

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? --Aleenf1 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]

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

]

San Marino is not Italy!--189.62.166.199 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (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]

Of course the autonomous communities of Spain have to follow the laws of Spain as a whole. I don't see how you can justify a distinction. But if a flawed website is the model of Wikipedia, so be it.--189.62.166.199 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't see why you focus on a purely cosmetic feature instead than on the article itself. We don't need tables, data, flags, we need content. Asendoh (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then take them out! They increase loading time anyway. And this is about as political as it gets. You're not telling me that flying the regional flag of Catalonia in stead of the flag of Spain has no political connotation, are you?--189.62.166.199 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

Fair point, thought to be honest, I think it's a little early. The text would need to be a summary of the season, and without it becoming a race by race recap, which would be unnecessary, I think we need to wait until the season is complete before we can summarise it. Ged UK (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race reports belong in the Race report articles anyhow, not here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean race reports. There could be some text about riders that have changed teams, changes to the calendar, and some broad based text about the season to date. "With ten of the seasons eighteen rounds completed Fiat-Yamaha rider Valentino Rossi leads the series although the points advantage he and former points leader Repsol Honda rider Dani Pedrosa is being serious eroded by reigning champion Ducati Desmocedici rider Casey Stoner who has won the last three races." etc etc, not a race report, but a season report, reflective of where the series is now. Frankly I don't see why we can summarise all the statistics after each race but not summarise the racing. If we had to wait until the end of the season for that then the stats could wait too. --Falcadore (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose we could, certainly the team make-ups could go in, and replacement rider/injuries. Not totally sure about the championship position summary. Whilst i understand the principle, I'd be worried about it becoming very POV, but I guess that's no reason not to do it, we just have to guard against such things. Ged UK (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about better things. I've made new layouts for the participants table to save something on the page size; however, all summed there are no more than 2k bytes saved on the total page size, plus the new layout is much more complicated to edit than the new. Do you think we should go back to the old one? Asendoh (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I massively think that obsessing about the stats needs to stop now from everybody. --Falcadore (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the 2007 season format is fine. In the current 2008 layout, the Race Schedule section is redundant as it is repeated in the Grands Prix section.Orsoni (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the length of the article, if the concensus is that the article is too long, a suggestion that has been made in the past would be to create sub-pages for sections such as Participants & Wildcard entries.Orsoni (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we could have tables that rollup by default (probably the participants ones) or split the table into two columns to make better use of the white space (as per Neighbours current cast members). Ged (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. If we all agree we can take it out. Asendoh (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Ged (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollups or two columns are both good ideas.Orsoni (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There IS a need to write the pole position and fastest lap. Look at F1 and BTCC. This page looks inferioir to that and so you change the bloody consensus. And I dare you to block me if you dont agree like fools. 124.13.126.244 (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be abusive, you'll just get blocked (oh look, you did). EXPLAIN why there is a need for this data. There are no points awarded for fastest lap, and unlike F1 and BTCC, there are details on more than one category on one page. The info you refer to is included in the particular race page, so wikipedia has the info but one click away. There are editors who already think there's too much statistics on here. Any more and it just becomes unreadable. You clearly don't understand what a consensus is. One person doesn't just change it. It has to be agreed by the majority of editors. Every time you come here and just revert changes and insult people, it just makes it harder to make your point. Ged UK (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a copy of the Formula One page, I'm sure those competing in the series would resent that they should do what Formula One does in any instance. More specifically Formula One does not have three categories on the same page. If the page was separated in MotoGP, 250 and 125 pages you would have a point. As pole position and fastest lap have no real impact on the championship then highlighting them with a bold and italic notations in the race results table is sufficient. If someone really badly wants to know qualifying and flap details then they can follow the links to the individual race pages or alternatively go straight to the source at MotoGP's website. I think you are losing sight as to what Wikipedia actually is for. --Falcadore (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That fool Camaron blocked me for 48 hours, but I am back in less than 24. You see your blocks dont have any effect on me so I won't stop these edits. Anyway, you guys MUST agree to a consensus, and I have EXPLAINED SO MANY TIMES why there is a need for this data but you won't accept it. I tell tyou one more time, change that consensus and DON'T revert my useful edits. 118.101.7.19 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation simply says this layout must copy F1. That's the entire strength of it. No-one else agrees. Ged UK (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No we MUST not, and don't you even dream of telling me what I must agree with, it's tremendously insulting. There is absolutely no reason why this page must copy any other. NASCAR doesn't, nor does virtually any other series page. Each page evolves according to its own requirements and differences. --Falcadore (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that individual race pages should contain the pole position & fastest lap data. If anyone was looking for this information, the first place they would look would be on the race pages. Furthermore, a concensus isn't reached by demanding your edit be final OR ELSE. Like a marriage, editing is about compromise. As I said before, I'm not sure why the Schedule Section is needed as the information is repeated in the Grands Prix Section, but you don't see me having a tantrum.Orsoni (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Dani's unprecedented mid-season tyre change our table has become rather inaccurate. Asendoh has changed Michelin to Dunlop Bridgestone, but that isn't an accurate reflection of the season. Somehow we need to have both in there, or perhaps with a footnote explaining the change. Every time i edit a wikitable I break it, so I'd rather not touch it! --Ged UK (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making the change without discussing... I have a proposal anyway:

Repsol Honda Team	Honda	Honda RC212V	M B	2	Dani Pedrosa
			M	69	Nicky Hayden
				8	Tadayuki Okada

That's what's been done for F1. Do you think it could work? Asendoh (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was criticising, the change needed to be made. That looks good to me. We should then be easily able to add a note that explains Pedrosa's unique situation, either at the end of the table or in the refs section. --Ged UK (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Didn't know this was up for debate. It didn't take any table mods to add both manufacturers. Just simply put Bridgestone next to Michelin ({{Bridgestone}}{{Michelin}} - there's an automatic line break between the two) with a dagger key (†) next to Pedrosa's name noting the tyre switch. ♫ ψadems ♫ (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really a debate, so much as a request because I can't use tables without breaking them! --Ged UK (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The race is cancelled. How we should show it in the drivers results' table? Probably something like this, as in Texas

Ok, that may work. I can't think nothing better now, so we could use that. However, how do we explain that in the main page? Should we just add a reference which explains the race has been cancelled? I think it may work but people who don't usually follow MotoGP may find it confusing. Asendoh (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a line on the MotoGP short distance to go with the line on the 250 cancellation. I'd have thought for the 250 race result column, we could either delete the entire column, or mark every rider with a C for cancelled or something, and add a note underneath. --Ged UK (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the MotoGP line is not appropriate there, I'd put it in the race article, since for example many 125cc races have been stopped this year but are not mentioned. Asendoh (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Race cancelled to {{MotoGP results legend}} [1]. Feel free to use it for 250, just filling it in blank with the letter "C". ;) D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Ged UK (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually made some changes to table. "C" is only listed for 22 riders who were supposed to start a race, while others are listed as INJ, DNS if they were in the entry list, or blank if they weren't. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I hoped someone would do it. I knew it was innaccurate when I did it origiannly, but i didn't have the heart to trawl through the 250 news to find out who should have been riding! --Ged UK (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a season review for the 3 classes, I'll probably publish the first version after Sunday, when (probably) the titles of the 3 classes will already be clinched. Since the Race schedule is very similar to the Grands Prix section, I'm moving all the notes on the Grands Prix table and replacing the section with the Season review. Anyone opposing or having a better proposal? Asendoh (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why not just add the season review as the first section after the lead? I don't see the need to take anything out. --Ged UK (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the Season Schedule is redundant since it merely replicates information already available in the Season Results section. Why take up extra space? As for the Season Review, I agree, it should go at the top of the article.Orsoni (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right. The only information the schedule shows that the results doesn't is the date, which is important. However, I'd have thought that we could easily add that column to the results section. --Ged UK (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What do you think? I simply merged the wto sections. Asendoh (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! --Ged UK (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the final result. I think it is better than the