Talk:Roland Ratzenberger

Untitled

I would prefer a less graphic/sickening description of the accident —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrosty (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit late but wikipedia is not censored and shouldn't be censored. see WP:NOTCENSORED Tamoraboys (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Karts

Regarding the sentence "He began in karts at 7 winning the FIA CIK at only 13 years of age" - what exactly did Roland win at 13 years of age? The "FIA CIK" is (as I understand it) a governing body, not something a driver can win. If it means he won the World Karting Championship, then this article would suggest he didn't. DH85868993 03:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this was only just added and it was badly written, so I'm going to remove it until we get a reference. Cordless Larry 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SimtekS9411994.jpg

The image Image:SimtekS9411994.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Senna.

As it stands I think Senna's Death the day after Ratzenberger's has been written into the article too much in a way which is slightly disrespectful. The opening of the article makes it seem like his most notable feat was dying the day before Senna so I'm taking it out of the header.(Morcus (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

I disagree. There's nothing in the wording that suggests it was Ratzenberger's most notable feat, although sadly it is what he is most famous for. It's important to the lead paragraph to provide context for his accident, in my opinion. I'll leave a link to this discussion at the WP so others can have thir say. I've reverted your arbitrary removal of a succession box, a removal on the apparent grounds that you didn't like it. Removing one of a string of succession boxes is unhelpful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing that trivialises the opening sentence is the lack of a comma between the words "driver" and "who". Without the comma is makes it sound as though his only notability is his death; with a comma it implies that his death was a notable event in the life of a man who was notable for being a racing driver. Once you add that in, the following clause referring to Senna establishes why his death was particularly notable. Pyrope 16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When I removed the box it didn't have a predeccessor or sucessor on my computor, which is why I removed it. I still think it's disgusting to list it as if it were an acheviement and don't see that the order in which these sportsmen died is note worthy enough. Just to confirm why I removed it though, it was only because it appeared on my computor with just Roland Ratzenberger in the middle and noone else listed, why that happened is beyond me but I think that given those circumstances there didn't seem need for discusion.(Morcus (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Point taken about why you thought the box was broken, but there's no suggestion that death is an achievement - it's simply a method of putting these events in chronological order for ease of navigation. This is an encyclopedia, and it isn't part of its function to tiptoe around tragic events. Regarding the lead paragraph, I suggest a re-insertion of the Senna clause, along the lines of what Pyrope said. Senna's death is notable in the context of Ratzenberger's and vice versa, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Morcus, the co-incidence of Ratzenberger's death and Senna's death is given undue prominence. Items of a co-incidental nature, even when famed, are still essentially trivia. Senna's death had no bearing on Ratzenberger's death, except in how it was perceived in aftermath, a false effect this lede is encouraging. If anything the co-incidence works in the other direction because Ratzenberger's death and Barrichello's accident were, according to anecdote, weighing upon Senna. The accidents themselves were not connected, 24 hours apart and at different points of the track.

I have no problem with Senna being mentioned in the article lower down, just not in the lead. Senna's death did not define Ratzenberger's life. --Falcadore (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's reading too much into the whole thing. I think it's very notable that Ratzenberger's death occurred at a meeting at which another driver died. If it were trivia, then it would be left out of the article altogether, which would be verging on manipulating the facts. There's nothing in the lead that suggests Senna's death defined Ratzenberger's life - that's a gross exaggeration and a synthesis of the text. Without wishing to speak ill of Ratzenberger, it's hard to argue against the fact that his death was more notable than his career, which with the best will in the world, was not a particularly notable one before it was sadly cut short. It's a notable fact that his death was part of the most tragic weekend in F1 history, and it's unencyclopedic to ignore that and distance his death from that weekend. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I also don't have a problem with Senna being mentioned in the introduction (in fact, I think he should definitely be). Perhaps the problem is that the lead is currently very short, which gives the appearance that the Senna mention is undue. If the lead were to be expanded to properly summarise the article, then it would seem more proportionate. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roland Ratzenberger. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041024224640/http://f1rejects.com:80/centrale/ratzenberger/index.html to http://f1rejects.com/centrale/ratzenberger/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roland Ratzenberger. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070510180240/http://f1rejects.com/centrale/ratzenberger/index.html to http://f1rejects.com/centrale/ratzenberger/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roland Ratzenberger. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503133010/http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnz69u_3-f1-1994-gp-saint-marin-qualifications-2-r-ratzenberger-simtek-accident-mortel-en-anglais-eurosport_auto?search_algo=2 to http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnz69u_3-f1-1994-gp-saint-marin-qualifications-2-r-ratzenberger-simtek-accident-mortel-en-anglais-eurosport_auto?search_algo=2

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) 07:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Crash image.

Ratzenberger's crash is an extremely important event with a large section of the page dedicated to it. There are multiple iamges of the crash available through wikipedia commons and I beleive one should be included. An image of the crash was orginally present, it was removed then reinstated with a justification that it has encyclopedic value (which i agree with) however the image was later removed by an IP address edit with zero justification present. I know that many people find the image objectional however wikipedia is uncensored (see WP:NOTCENSORED). If anyone has good reasons that it should be included other than it is ojectional (which is not a good reason on this platform) then they should post them here and see if consensus can be reached otherwise if there are no other reasons i think I will re-instate the image after giving people some time to debate. Tamoraboys (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)