Talk:Ayrton Senna/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pronunciation

I think the pronunciation should be done by an Brazilian from São Paulo, not from Rio de Janeiro, as it is (or sounds like) actually. Sorry if this is not posted in the right place. 201.13.7.237 (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wife and divorce.

I believe Senna and Lilian de Vasconcelos divorced when Senna went back to England at the beginning of 1982, but I don't have sources with me right now. Can someone with sources add a bit of information about this? ColinClark (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some more interesting info on Senna's personal life.

I came across this link that has some interesting and surprising facts about his personal life as shown below: http://www.v-brazil.com/culture/Brazilian-celebrities/ayrton-biography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.50.14 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a fansite. The book it refers to might be useful though. 4u1e (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflating beliefs with racing

A very religious man, he openly conflated his beliefs with his racing, something for which he was criticized as dangerous by Alain Prost, among others.

What exactly did Alain Prost mean with that? I think there is a need for a proper source for that sentence. Gugganij (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, there is. My recollection is that on at least one occasion Prost was quoted as saying that he felt Senna's belief was dangerous for the other drivers. In other words, that Senna would take risks that someone without his faith would not, believing himself (and those around him?) to be protected. If true, that's strikingly relevant, but it does need a ref. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of edit by Minerva97

My apologies to Minerva97, but I've just reverted this edit. Although no doubt in good faith, I think it significantly lessened the clarity of the article, by putting the entireity of his racing career after everything else about his life, to the extent that there was no mention (outside the lead) of his career as a racing driver until we suddenly learned that he had died in a racing accident. The structure I have reverted back to (early life - racing career - death) is pretty much standard in racing articles of this type - including the featured articles Tom Pryce, Rudolf Caracciola, Damon Hill and Alain Prost (the last two featuring a life after racing, rather than death). I also don't think the contents page needs to be lengthened to include entries for each year. Happy to discuss. 4u1e (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My removal of "source" from Personal Life section

I have removed a Youtube interview from the Personal Life section. Please feel free to replace it but only if you can explain why Bruno's competitive but warm relationship with his uncle, the fact that Bruno ran over a dog in GP2 or the road car that Bruno now drives have anything to do with Ayrton's relationship wth Adriane Galisteu. Thank you Britmax (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Dan Wheldon

I was about to make a modification to the first paragraph, "He was killed in a crash while leading the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix and is the last driver to die at the wheel of a Formula One car."

However, I thought a discussion might be helpful. From the outset, I sought to remove the mention of "and is the last driver to die at the wheel of a Formula One car." However, it occurred to me that "Formula One" in this context could be interpreted as the league brand and not the style of car. Dan Wheldon died while racing in the IndyCar series which is certainly similar but not the same as the Formula One league brand. Different specs, different league, and different governing bodies... Any other racing enthusiasts care to chime in? I'm going to leave it be for now.

Well, unfortunately there have been more deadly crashes in 'Formula One-like cars' since Senna's. What you're thinking about is Formula racing, but that is just open wheeled classes. Formula One is just the series that we know as such; the one with Senna, Prost, Schumacher, Alonso and Vettel. Even when both Formula One and Indy car could be entered into the Indy 500, back in the 50's, they were clearly different cars and race classes. GameLegend (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to provoke an irrelevant debate about the merits of other motorsport formula, championships or categories, Formula One is widely accepted as the top rung of international motorsport competition and that is the only reason that the statement in the opening paragraph is significant and essential in this article. The difference in car design over the years may at times be construed as nominal, but the international significance of the class is not. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Races not attended

Why does this table provide links to races that Senna did not attend? I find it misleading. This article is about Senna, not the Grand Prix season for a given year. Therefore the tables of races should ONLY show the races that Senna participated in, not the full racing calendar. Manning (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is that this is standard practice for all racing driver articles across Wikipedia. But also consider that showing the races that Senna did not attend gives the reader extra information, e.g. by including the 1984 Italian Grand Prix in the table, the reader is informed that there was such a race and that Senna did not attend it (which may encourage them to find out why, if they are so inclined). DH85868993 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I gotta severely disagree with this on three counts.

• There is a link to the full racing season in the left column of the table. If someone wants to know the entire schedule for a given season then they can easily find it. This is an article about Senna, not about the grand prix season, so information should ONLY relate to Senna.
• I completely disagree with your point that it gives the reader extra information on the fact that "a race was held and that Senna did not participate". By including a link to the race, it implies that Senna somehow participated, and the reader is then required to dig around to determine on their own that Senna did NOT actually participate.
• The fact that "we've always done it that way" is hardly grounds for continuing what appears to be a poorly thought out practice. Manning (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100% with DH85868993. It is information about Senna's participation in the 1984 season, and there's nothing to be gained from removing that information or from mucking with the standard practice. ColinClark (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, my whole point is that is it NOT information about Senna's participation - it is misleading as it implies Senna attended races that he in fact did NOT attend. There's plenty to be gained from altering the standard practice, it would add clarity as to exactly what races Senna participated in, and would rectify the current misleading nature of the table. Manning (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How exactly does it imply that he attended a race where there is no result for him? It's blindingly obvious from the table that there were races which he did not attend, represented by the lack of a result. Why else would there be no result? No digging around is required. The table already shows exactly which races he attended, in some detail. Yes, we've always done it this way and not a single person has objected until now. One objection in about five years isn't a good case to change the format. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is it "blindingly obvious"? This whole thing started because I was reading a table and wrongly concluded that a racer had attended a race when he in fact hadn't. The listing of a race link in the table indicated (wrongly) to me that he participated. As there is no legend or colour scheme to indicate non-participation, you are presuming a familiarity with the table format design that I don't think is justified across the wider readership. It did not occur to me (as a casual reader) that the lack of a result indicated non-participation.

I personally think there is room to improve how the tables are done, and so I'm working on an alternative. Some others have expressed a similar viewpoint, so I'm not alone. If we can come up with a solution that is clearly better, then we'll pitch it to the Wikiproject. If we can't, then no harm done. However I remain dismissive of anyone who refuses to consider change solely on the basis of "we've always done it that way". Manning (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, I think it's obvious because there's no result under the name of the race. The only other possibility might be that we've just not bothered to put the result in the cell, and there are no cases of that across the 900 or so F1 drivers. Why colour the box? The very fact that it's not coloured is enough, and a note could be put in the key to help anyone to see that a blank box means that the driver was not entered for that race (I stress not entered rather than not present). I strongly suggest that any changes be made to the key template, not the tables themselves, as very few people will be in favour of slogging their way through changing all the hundreds of results tables, for example to colour the blank boxes. I think it's quite clear that "we've always done it that way" isn't the sole reason for opposition to any changes, or we wouldn't have developed this system to replace the original one. My primary opposition rests in that I don't believe any table changes would be an improvement. However, let's see what you come up with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any simple way you could improve the tables themselves, the only comment I would make is that perhaps the (key) link could somehow be made a bit more obvious for the benefit of the very occasional or first time user. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are also sound reasons for indicating the full season. It does for example point out very clearly which races a driver did NOT attend, which would then indicate why a well-credentialled rider might have a comparitively lowly championship result. It can also indicate period when a rider was forced to sit out an event because of injury or some other form of incapacitation, or because of a contractural issue. If there were no over-arching championships that collected the results of many races into a seasons' pointscore I would agree with you completely. Perhaps you are thinking motor is like Golf or Tennis where skipping tournaments have no effect beyond a player's ranking, which is simply not the case.

But the presense of the links to races the driver did not attend are indeed superflous. In the spirit of compromise might I suggest a simple removal of the link eg AUS instead of AUS. Would that be agreeable to you? --Falcadore (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, since the article for a missed race may well (and should) explain why that driver missed the race. This would often be information beyond the scope of the driver article, but suitable for the race article. With the link in place, a reader can go to the article for the missed race and ideally find out why the driver missed it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(post ec) FWIW, I'd rather not even remove the links. As others have stated, the point of including the races not entered is that it gives an overview of the driver's activity over the season - if for some reason he (or she) missed half the races, this should be clear from the table and not hidden by removing them from the table. Removing the links just seems like making life difficult for the reader in the event that they do want to click through to that race, with the only benefit being a small reduction in coding. 4u1e (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't accept that. If a driver misses a race during the season then the drivers article should cover that explanation more than adequately and hitting the link to a race report would not be necessary.

Think about it, the reasons for missing a race during the season are all significant events for the driver. Incapacting injury, joining or leaving a team mid-season, contractural disputes. They would all be covered by this article. So the link would still be unneccessary. So we can remove them in safety. --Falcadore (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The absence of a driver from a race you would expect them to have participated in can be significant: the lost points can change the championship result. As for "If a driver misses a race during the season then the drivers article should cover that explanation more than adequately and hitting the link to a race report would not be necessary", I don't see how you can say that removing the link from the season to the explanation of a driver's absence is a viable idea. We are going to end up with a line of races with "missing teeth" and if the driver has taken part in more races in just one more season than the one with missing races the box will be the same width so it doesn't save any space either. Sorry, I can't see any reason to remove these. Britmax (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that an empty result indicates that the driver did not participate in that race. We include the full season because some drivers may race on and off during the course of a season, and simply skipping from race to race gives the false impression that they either participated in the full season, or that the full season was that short. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about removing the square or blanking it, just breaking the blue link and reducing it to simple unlinked black text. --Falcadore (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask Manning, why is this being raised on three article talk pags? This article, Talk:Marco Simoncelli, and Talk:Shoya Tomizawa. As you seem to have this problem with tables which are in use in a variety of biographies across many forms of motorsport, which is this not being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport? You also state that "we" are working on a proposal, but I see no proposal being submitted for community-wide consensus. It would be best if a practice used across all motorsport articles was discussed by the entire motorsport project. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was involved with the same discussion on Talk:Marco Simoncelli. It ought to go to the WikiProject. One thing I will say is that with F1 you're lucky in that there is a complete set of results, so a blank cell is a definite non-participation. With Grand Prix motorcycle racing there isn't a complete set of results, so a blank cell is either a non-participation or simply that we don't know what the result is, or even if there was a result! Readro (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to keep it how it is and include all races, even if a driver does not participate in them. For example, if a driver only competed in six races of the season and finished on the podium every time, a reader would wonder why he is at 9th in the drivers' table, because they assume that there were only six races in the season. If a driver did not participate in a race the best thing to do is just leave it blank, because they achieved no result whatsoever. And surely do not add why they missed the race; that would really over-complicate things. It is a very simple system now, one that is easy for the readers to comprehend without much thought, why would we want to change to a more complicated, needless system that would be difficult for readers to understand? Editadam 12:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The table key adequately explains that a "natural" background (perhaps we could rename it "Buff" or Pale brown/grey"?) to an event cell means that the driver didn't participate in the event. The fact that there is no result - or a "DNS", "PO", "WD", or whatever - also strongly indicates this. That one editor either didn't see the key link or didn't check it is not an indication that the format is flawed. I agree that the key link needs to be made more obvious; indeed, when I was converting many of the tables from the old format to the new one I habitually bolded the link to highlight it. Someone then later went though and debolded them all, and to be honest it wasn't an argument I could be bothered to have. How about we create a version of the legend that results in a transcusion such as this...

Key
Colour	Result
Gold	Winner
Silver	2nd place
Bronze	3rd place
Green	Points finish
Blue	Non-points finish
	Non-classified finish (NC)
Purple	Did not finish (Ret)
Red	Did not qualify (DNQ)
	Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ)
Black	Disqualified (DSQ)
White	Did not start (DNS)
	Race cancelled (C)
Light blue	Practiced only (PO)
	Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards)
Blank	Did not enter
	Did not practice (DNP)
	Excluded (EX)
	Did not arrive (DNA)
	Withdrew entry before the event (WD)

This could simply replace the current key link above the results tables. This would make the key more visible, and would provide a way to view both the key and the table on the same page. Would that please all parties? Pyrope 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The above would make a driver's non-participation abundantly clear if it is not so already, with no need to go around changing all the tables in any way. With regard to removing the links to unattended races - even if the reason for non-attendance is explained in the driver article, it's still easier to click the link and read it in the race article, rather than trawl through the text in the (sometimes rather long) driver article, if indeed it is mentioned. Not all missed races are important enough to be mentioned in the driver article text. Anyway, I just don't see a good enough reason to remove the links, when there is clearly some benefit in having them there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a great improvement to me. Mighty Antar (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget this template is for all of motorsport. What happens in a case such as in Grand Prix motorcycle racing, where we simply don't know the result or if a rider participated at all? According to the key, they would not have participated when we can't be certain of that. Readro (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought separate ones were used, like Template:F1 driver results legend 2 for F1, and a general one for GP bike racing. There's no reason why different templates could be used for different disciplines, is there? A "one size fits all" template would include a number of irrelevant elements, depending on which series you're looking at. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We had our own one but it got merged into Template:Motorsport driver results legend. Readro (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of an expandable (rather than linked) key. Consider whether a landscape layout, like this:

Key
Colour	Result		Colour	Result		Colour	Result
Gold	Winner		Red	Did not qualify (DNQ) Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ)		Blank	Did not enter
Silver	2nd place						Did not practice (DNP)
Bronze	3rd place		Black	Disqualified (DSQ)			Excluded (EX)
Green	Points finish		White	Did not start (DNS)			Did not arrive (DNA)
Blue	Non-points finish Non-classified finish (NC)			Race cancelled (C)			Withdrew entry before the event (WD)
			Light blue	Practiced only (PO)		bold	Pole position
Purple	Did not finish (Ret)			Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards)		italics	Fastest lap

might be preferable, to minimise the likelihood of the results table scrolling off the screen when you expand the key. DH85868993 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I tweaked it slightly to distinguish the three main columns from one another. Apart from that, I'm all for this solution. Pyrope 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tweak away! I'm in two minds whether "bold=pole position" and "italics=fastest lap" should be included in the template, since:

• that would make replacing the existing linked keys less "automatic", i.e. we would also need to remove the existing "(Results in bold incicate pole position; results in italics indicate fastest lap)" text from the articles, and that text varies slightly between articles so we probably couldn't just do a simple "replace" operation,
• it possibly restricts the template to F1 use only, since I'm not sure if those conventions are used for the results tables for other series,
• it leaves no empty cells for "future expansion", and
• strictly speaking, "bold" and "italics" are not "Colours".

DH85868993 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the results key continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#F1_results_key. DH85868993 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Video Games

I think video games in his name should be included. They are Ayrton Senna's Super Monaco GP II and Ayrton Senna Kart Duel (series). --slippyfoster 02.29.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.66.50 (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayrton Senna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the author of the article has been asked about this. Quick Fail. ⇒TAP 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias

It's okay to mention MSC and ALO "one of the greatest drivers of all time", but Senna "THE greatest driver of all time"? Hopelessly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.203.139.100 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No it's not and that's why I keep taking it out. But please do not mistake the inconsistencies inherent in an encyclopedia written by "everybody" as bias, it ain't necessarily so. Britmax (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The construction "one of the greatest" has inherently a very different implication to "THE greatest". Plenty of people get cited by many many sources as "the" best driver of all time. Fangio, Ascari, Clark, Moss, Senna, Prost and Schumacher are all popular choices, and I've seen Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Villeneuve, Hamilton and many others handed the accolade in different publications down the last couple of decades. I don't think anybody would argue that Senna, Schumacher and Alonso are each "one of the greatest drivers of all time", that's not terribly controversial, but for anybody to claim that an individual was/is "THE greatest driver of all time" is far more so, and is very subjective. Another term for subjective is "from your point of view", and as you rightly point out we try to avoid things like that. Pyrope 17:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So... anyone else? Pyrope 13:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it, but I think it scrapes by on the "widely regarded" supported by references. Otherwise I'd have taken it out by now. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem I have with the "widely" construction is that although a strict reading of it does indicate "many, but not all", the tacit implication is "most". That sticks in the craw a little as there are plenty of very eminent people who do not regard him as THE greatest. What I think we need are reliable sources that support the whole statement, not the OR aggregation work that exists at present. Pyrope 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very unencyclopedic. It does not say who regards him as the greatest, or why, and just provides a few references, some rather weak. I don't think any F1 driver article should be talking along the lines of "some say he's the greatest" - it's journalistic. I also object strongly to the addition of "despite trailing far behind Michael Schumacher in most statistics", which shows a desperate lack of understanding of the statistics - and use of the words "trailing" and "far" are not only inaccurate, but like something out of The Sun. Any kind of direct comparison with another driver has no place in the lead anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, enough. Did you see that 'sources' that were cited? A blog, a wiki, interviews with BCE where the interviewer asserts that he considers him 'one of the finest', and not one of them supporting this 'widely' claim. POV and inflammatory peacocking, and an encyclopedia does not need it. If someone wants to add in something about him being considered among the best then fine, but the source must support the claim as made, not an editor's interpretation. Pyrope 17:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Date of Death

His death is the most recent driver fatality in Formula 1.

Unfortunately this sentence is no longer accurate, as Senna was killed in 1994. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

John Dawson-Damer of the UK was killed in 2000 and Fritz Glatz of Austria was killed in 2002. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dawson-Damer was Ausralian. Spencer Flack I think was British when he was killed in a BRM P25 at Phillip Island in 2002, however these were all Historic Formula One cars, no longer eligible for Formula One and not competing in Formula One events. You might as well claim someone dying driving a 1950s Kurtis Kraft in a hillclimb in Austria and claiming its the most recent Indianapolis 500 death. --Falcadore (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics

I have removed this from the Personal Life section:

"Regarding politics, Senna disliked giving statements about avoiding revealing votes in elections. He maintained a position that was considered more conservative, having been an admirer of the notorious leader of right-wing politician Paulo Maluf, who was governor of São Paulo and mayor of the state capital at the time of Senna's death."

Anyone who replaces it should source it more comprehensively, particularly the opinions expressed about the politician involved, and tease out the structure so that any meaning it may have is clear. Britmax (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)