Jump to content

Talk:Minardi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMinardi was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed


Melbourne 2005

[edit]

This article should mention the controversy at the 2005 Melbourne Grand Prix. I can find much talk on the internet but so far nothing telling me just what the problem was. — Hippietrail 23:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The controversy was about a disagreememtn between the FIA and Minardi, who were trying to race using cars to 2004 regulations as they were unable to produce a new car for the begining of the season. In the end Minardi backed down at the last minute, and modified their cars' aerodynmaics so they were legal. See BBC website here and here Spute 13:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 places

[edit]

Article says Minardi have finished "4th three times - Martini twice and Fittipaldi once". What about the US GP 2005, when only six cars entered? -- Nope. They came 5th and 6th, with Ferrari and Jordanski taking the top 4 places.Damian Corrigan 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Stoddart History

[edit]

Contrary to what Paul might think, there WAS life before Stoddart. Can anyone add anything?

Added a fair bit (and a pic!) but could still be expanded quite considerably. 4u1e 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Scuderia

[edit]

While an Italian may tell you that 'scuderia' means 'stable', it has come to mean 'racing team' in recent years, and the appropriate translation here is 'racing' as it is intended to be translation of Red Bull's other team. I have changed it accordingly.

Scuderia does indeed mean "stable". I take this to be a historical continuation of the term "stable" and in "horse-racing stable".

'New' Minardi - Does it go here or not?

[edit]

Do we consider the Euro F3000 Minardi team (see www.minarditeam.com) to be a proper part of this article?

On the one hand, the article should not logically be limited to F1 only - we've already got a bit of material on Minardi's pre F1 activities, Giancarlo Minardi is involved with the team, which team does have the legal rights to the name Minardi, in Euro F3000 at least. And there's actually something to write about because they are competing at present.

On the other hand, Mr Minardi's involvement is fairly minimal, I don't believe there's much connection in terms of personnel or location between 'old' Minardi and 'new' Minardi and I suspect, although I don't know, that Paul Stoddart's attempt to enter a Minardi team in F1 from 2008 means that he may still own the rights to use the name in F1.

I guess the logical thing to do is to treat the 'new' Minardi as part of this article for now and see how things develop. 4u1e 18:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for answering an old message, but something about this article doesn't seem quite right to me. Reading between the lines, Stoddart sold his F1 operation (cars, factory, F1 entry etc - i.e. everything but the Minardi name) to Red Bull. Or, did he sell them the Minardi name too? I think the answer to that is crucial. If Stoddart kept rights to the name due to his prior ownership of the F1 team, any F1 activities of his in the future, and possibly any another motorsport activies, arguably belong here...
I think it's probably best if this article remain a time capsule article about the now departed Minardi F1 team, which can be added to should Stoddart or a successor ever return to that formula with the Minardi name. Other post-F1 activities, Toro Rosso, and commentary on ownership of the name, should take place here in summary form only. It seems that's it beyond our remit to do detective work about who the real Minardi is; all we are concerned with is that the F1 team no longer exists.
See also Minardi Piquet Sports, which I've just cleaned up, and Talk:Minardi Piquet Sports#Mess. --kingboyk 12:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've made it quite a lot better, even if I do say so myself. Shorter, better narrative, clearly labelled as being summaries of main articles on the Minardi Team USA and Minardi Piquet Sports teams. --kingboyk 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F1 portal Selected Article candidate

[edit]

Minardi is the current improvement drive candidate for portal:Formula One. The aim is to get the article to WP:GA status by August 13, 2006. Please feel free to help out in any way you can - references, as ever, are probably the biggest shortcoming, followed by more detail on the pre-Stoddart years and a results table. 4u1e 08:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this on the GA nominations page, as it will take at least a couple of weeks for it to work its way to the top of the pile. I'm a little uncomfortable with it just being my decision on clearing articles for the 'Selected Article' slot, so it's better if we can actually get it to GA standard before it goes on, rather than after, as was the case with Damon Hill and Gilles Villeneuve. 4u1e 08:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initial assessment against GA criteria

[edit]

Taken from the Good Article page, a GA standard article should meet the following criteria:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
Needs Action Needs polishing to make it more 'compelling' once additional material is added. Would be useful to get someone who is not interested in motorsport to read it and see if it makes sense to them. Anyone know a willing victim volunteer to do this? 4u1e 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
Logical structure is there, so OK. If wanted to improve it, could perhaps split content out further into more sections - i.e. have a section called 'notable drivers'. See Brabham for ideas from an (unfinished!) article with more sections. 4u1e 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs Action Needs a results table! 4u1e 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Done --4u1e 17:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
Needs Action Check through against the list - looks OK at a first glance, athough when editing is complete it would be sensible to check wikilinks go to the right places, are linked at the first appearance etc etc as well as all the usual grammar etc. 4u1e 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
Believe this is OK, although I wonder whether the article might be a little opaque to a non-motorsport fan? 4u1e 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
Needs Action I know it doesn't reference all its sources, because I wrote most of the early history bit either from memory or by cutting and pasting from other Wikipedia articles! So not only do we need to identify suitable sources (some of the external links may do the job) we need to check the material that is already here against them 4u1e 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;
Needs Action Not done - the few references there are are simple links 4u1e 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
Current sources are OK as far as they go (mostly press releases or news stories likely to be based on press releases). As they deal with fairly straightforward issues, this is probably OK. A more basic problem is the need for more sources! Hard copy ones would be good, but I don't know if there are any books that cover Minardi. 4u1e 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(d) it contains no elements of original research.
Generally fine - although the statement that 'Minardi was the nucleus around which the Italian F1 community collapsed' might be considered original research. (That was me, I think, by the way - sorry!) 4u1e 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

Needs Action Not enough coverage of pre-Stoddart period, which most of the history of the team. Paul Stoddart's ownership was really only a footnote to the Minardi team (IMHO!) Could also look at whether there are other types of section than 'Racing History' that could be included - see Fittipaldi (constructor) and Brabham for ideas. Perhaps a section on 'Notable drivers'? This could include some brief details of Alonso, Nannini, Webber and some of the others and their relationship with Minardi. 4u1e 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
Needs Action I think it's mostly OK on this front - there's a bit of 'fannish' writing (use of the word 'unfortunately') and the Stoddart era seems to be written exclusively from his point of view. Fairly easy to remove in the re-drafting, I think. 4u1e 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.

Not relevant at present, as we are aiming at changing it! 4u1e 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
Three images, with copyright tags. Seems OK. A couple more would be nice, of course, and the position could be improved! 4u1e 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.


In summary - needs properly referencing and the pre-Stoddart history filling out. The wording can then be polished to a higher standard. I don't reckon that's too bad a job to take on! 4u1e 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed

[edit]

This article failed the GA nominations due to lack of references.

OK, that's that idea jinxed. I guess we need to get it to GA quicker to allow time for it to be reviewed. 4u1e

Sources

[edit]

The ideal would of course be to have some hard copy sources. If anyone has some old Autosports tucked away they would supply a good source of information, as would any Autocourse or similar season reviews. It should be possible to do a fair job with the online sources available though. I would suggest:

Obviously you should not just cut and paste, these can only be sources of information. Cheers. 4u1e

Results table

[edit]

Question from Aprithvi: How to handle results table when drivers change during the season? The only one I've done so far is at Fittipaldi Automotive, where for most of its history there was only one driver anyway - the only time drivers swapped was in it's first season, and I've just covered that by having a second row, which fits easily in the table. Minardi will have some seasons with (off the top of my head) up to 4 drivers having competed for it. We could add extra rows to account for this - which will make it clear who drove for the team when, but it makes the table a lot bigger. Aprithvi has suggested (and is currently implementing!) a table that lists '1st driver', '2nd driver' and leaves it at that. I suggest a slight modification, give the names where it stayed the same through the season. Where there was a change, put 'various' in the driver name space and footnote it to specify who drove when. It's a bit more work, but conveys a lot more information. That's my take anyway - anyone got another idea? This would look like:

Year Main Drivers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Points Constructors
2005
Albers 		AUS
Ret 		MYS
13 		BAH
13 		SMR
Ret 		ESP
Ret 		MON
14 		EUR
17 		CAN
11 		USA
5 		FRA
Ret 		GBR
18 		DEU
13 		HUN
NC 		TUR
Ret 		ITA
19 		BEL
12 		BRA
14 		JPN
16 		CHN
16 		7 10th
Various [1] 17 Ret 12 Ret Ret Ret 18 Ret 6 Ret 19 18 Ret 13 18 13 Ret 14 14

Notes: [1] Patrick Friesacher drove the second Minardi from the Australian to the British Grands Prix. Robert Doornbos then took over the car until the end of the season.


What do you think? 4u1e 06:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be sufficient to say 1st Driver and 2nd Driver and link it to the driver who drove in the first race of the year. (1st driver going to diver with smaller car number) - Aprithvi 07:26, 30th July 2006 (UTC)

The Results table seems to be too long (Minardi have been in F1 for 20 years). How about we just display the last 5 seasons and show the entire table on a separate page? Aprithvi 11:26, 31st July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. An alternative would be to list the 'highlights', such as they are, here and give the whole table on another page.

Not quite there for the selected article

[edit]

Don't think this is quite there yet. Aprithvi has done excellent work on the results table, but the words still need a bit of expansion and referencing. I'll keep working on it when I have time and maybe it can go in later. --4u1e 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MinardiF1x2

[edit]

How about somewhere mentioning the two seater, and the fact that the operation continues to run under the Minardi F1 banner, and as part of Stoddard business groups.. http://www.minardif1x2.com 192.102.214.6 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toro Rosso activities

[edit]

If there has to be a summary of events after Minardi was sold to Red Bull, there needs to be some clarification that there is very little connection indeed between the two outfits. Minardi built their own car, for a start. Let's not pretend Toro Rosso's success is not wholly down to the extra money, the customer chassis and the expensive engines, not from any link to the Minardi days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Your version of the summary is better than mine, anyway. In any event, I doubt that there will be many more additions to the article now unless either Paul Stoddart or Giancarlo Minardi finds a way back into F1, or STR wins the championship next year (which would be quite the long shot, IMO). Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I hope I didn't come across as bad-tempered - I have a tendency to do that lately :( And I agree - barring a Minardi return or Toro Rosso doing something even more amazing than winning a GP, this article is dealing with a "past event". Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA Grand Prix 2005

[edit]

The USA GP 2005 was not boycotted my Michelin shod teams. In fact, Michelin issued a safety notice that stated that the tyre compound that they were using was not safe to use, therefore, unless a chicane was put on the final turn, teams agreed to slow for that turn or an alternate compound was allowed, the tyre wouldnt be issued, thus, the teams couldnt race......far from a boycott, the teams wanted to race but didnt want to risk the lives of their drivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowerman437 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "boycotted" to "withdrew from". OK? DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1999 season

[edit]

"Significantly, if Eddie Irvine, who placed 7th at that race, had been able to pass Gené, he would ultimately have won that year's World Championship by a point." -- what? Irvine earned 74 points at the end of the 1999 season. Having passed Gene on Nurburgring, he would have earned one more point to a tally of 75, but Hakkinen got 76 at the end of the season. How could Irvine won 1999 World Championship if he had even been able to pass Gene?

I'm going to remove that statement if nobody explains it to me. Ximaera (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption is that if Irvine had that 1 extra point from the Nürburgring, then Schumacher would have allowed him past in Japan, thereby giving Irvine a total of 77 points and the World title. But without that extra point, there was no benefit in Schumacher allowing Irvine past, as he would only have had 76 points - the same as Häkkinen - and Häkkinen would still have won the title on countback, so it was better for Schumacher to stay ahead of Irvine and try to catch Häkkinen. It might be more accurate if the statement said that Irvine could have won the World Championship by a point. DH85868993 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Minardi. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minardi. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"BVM Racing" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect BVM Racing and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 5 § BVM Racing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minardi&oldid=1209077537"