Talk:Scuderia Ferrari/Archive 1

Archive 1

Scuderia Ferrari in sportscar racing

Why there is not article in their involvement in sportscar racing, in which they were involved until 1973, don't also forget, they were instrumental in the infamous Cobra Ferrari Wars during the 60's WilliRennen 18:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to be policed for POV/tone

Here are some of the worst examples of POV and inappropriate tone in the article that I've removed:

• "They managed to fight back to take some points home with them. "
• "the car working perfectly for the German. "
• "Monaco proved to be another strong point of the 248 F1"
• "Was this to be a one off, or the beginning of a Ferrari comeback? Ferrari answered this question at the French Grand Prix with a second consecutive one-two in qualifying"
• "From France the Formula One circus moved onto Germany"
• "However in the race, it was another Ferrari benefit"

Please to those committed to NPOV, please keep an eye out. And to those who think there's nothing wrong with the above statements please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Mark83 22:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Beginning

My understanding of it was that Ferrari started as a driver for Alfa Romeo, but proved a better race team manager. When they dropped their racing department, they outsourced it to the newly formed Scuderia Ferrari. Later, when they bought him out, the agreement was he could not manufacture cars under his own name for four years, after which Scuderia Ferrari was revived. This is heavily documented in Alfa Romeo history. That is from memory, but one could look up the details with Google. Seasalt 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

B-Class

Lots and lots of content (good). No references (bad), and writing could use polishing in places. General structure is OK (perhaps a bit repetitive?), but isn't balanced evenly across the whole of the history of the team, or across the F1 and Sportscar actitivies. 4u1e 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Default for Scuderia

I don't believe Scuderia should default to here. It means "racing team" and is now as applicable to Scuderia Torro Rosso as Scuderia Ferrari.

Scuderia has now been changed to a disambiguation page. DH85868993 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The record for longest gap between wins

The page says that Ferrari hold this record at 53 years, what is meant by this statistic, because it is on a Formula One related page, and their longest gap between wins is certainly nowhere near that figure.

I cited in a forum the records given in this article before being corrected with the same objection given above. If you read the story on wins there is no way this is true. I posted something on BillCook page, the person that included that record and I am deleting it right now. Can someone come with an explanation? I find credible that Ferrari holds the record for longest gap between wins, but being founded in 1929, this means that they did not win a GP until 1982, wich is untrue. Taking in account they won a GP in the 50's according to the article, there is no way this is accurate, no matter how you interpret it. Funny. Maybe it is a typo? --Ciroa 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what's meant is the longest time period between first and last/most recent win.--Don Speekingleesh 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Drivers' list

I have added some bits to it, but there is one thing missing or it seems to be heavily ignored, that is sportscar racing, so on this list why isn't Brian Redman, Sandro Munari, Willy Mairesse, Olivier Gendebien and Nino Vaccarella mentioned as they have been involved in factory drives, non-F1 of course. Willirennen 23:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, people keep adding Raikkonen and Massa. Perhaps it just needs to be changed to a list of drivers, rather than a list of former drivers? DH85868993

Or just deleted altogether? (can you guess it just happened again) -- DH85868993 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari IndyCar Project

I unfortunately don't have the full details, such as exact year, but in the mid-late 80s Ferrari had started an IndyCar project in order to force the FIA to implement a rule change they wanted. I know a Ferrari IndyCar, complete with engine, was designed, built AND tested(by Bobby Rahal, no less), but the FIA gave in to Ferrari's demands so it was never raced. I think if anyone has more information on this, it should be added to the atricle. Either in the 1980s section, or in its own small section of this page. Since the project was ultimately only started to effect a change in F1, I definitely feel in belongs in this article. But again, I don't have enough information to add it myself.

It already has a Wiki entry. It was the Ferrari 637 - you may find images of it readily enough if you Google it. --Amedeo Felix 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Types

The current type entry 412T is incorrect as it was the 412 T1 in 1994 and the 412 T2 in 1995. Two separate cars... --Amedeo Felix 17:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that this is so for too many of the types. The 312 T, 312 T2, 312 T3, 312 T4 and 312 T5 were all separate chassis designs. I'm not old enough to know if that is also so of the B3's, but Ferrari list them as separate entities and so I think they all should be here too - I think Ferrari knows best what their own cars are. I suggest someone have a good hard look on the Ferrari website (see above) and revamp this type list and the associated pages. --Amedeo Felix 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot you know to use the obvious example of why varuious years cars should be listed each on its own - take McLaren as example. One could do the silly thing of listing all post 1981 McLarens as one car called the MP4... --Amedeo Felix 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Car number

This hasnt got anything to do with this article but. I checked the 1993 F1 season, Ferrari had car number 27 and 28. So if they finshes 4th in the constructors which next year (1994) they would get car number 7 & 8. How come in 1994 they got 27 & 28? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.29.63 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The current scheme where car numbers are assigned based on the results of the previous year's Constructors' Championship didn't start until 1996. From 1975-1995, teams retained the same numbers from one season to the next, except that the World Champion carried number 1 and his team-mate number 2. So, for 1994, Ferrari just retained the numbers they had carried in 1993, which were 27 and 28. DH85868993 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm. It was actually more complicated than that. Now in 1974 as reigning Constructors Champions Lotus were give 1 & 2, and at a guess the rest were doles out according to place as well. Anyhow, from the following year, until this system ended as stated above, the team with the World Drivers Champion got to use 1 & 2 and whichever team had previously held those numbers now took the numbers previously held by the hom of the new Drivers Champion - e.g. 1974 Lotus 1 & 2, McLaren 5 & 6; 1975 McLaren 1 & 2, Lotus 5 & 6 and on and on. Ferrari got 27 & 28 in 1987 because Williams had had those numbers previously and so the teams exchanged when Alan Jones took No 1 to Williams in 1981.--Amedeo Felix 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sports Car Racing

Cross-posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Car Racing.

This article is in dire need of more sports car history. Scuderia Ferrari were officially involved in the World Sportscar Championship from its inception in 1953 to Ferrari leaving sports cars in 1973, and were involved in other sports car racing events and series prior and during this time. Yet this article seems to make only a few casual mentions of Ferrari's successful sports car campaign, and instead concentrate solely on their Formula One involvement.

I think this article is in desperate need of expansion of the full history of Scuderia Ferrari, in all forms of motorsport. The359 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more The359, until '73 sports car racing was a major part of Ferrari's identity. Indeed, the first Ferrari to bear the name and the first Ferrari car to win a race was the 125S sportscar. One thing that I think needs serious consideration is page length, however. This page is already >90MB in size, and is arguably too big already. I think that what we really need to think about is a rejig of the page structure. How about a general Scuderia Ferrari page, which would give an overview of the competition history of Ferrari, and then two sub-pages, Ferrari in Grand Prix racing and Ferrari in sportscar racing (just suggestions, feel free to suggest better names), to handle the single-seater (not forgetting their F2 cars, of course) and sportscar histories. Thoughts? Pyrope 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I too thought about the page length, and my thought initially was to simply trim down the Formula One history. But your suggestion of splitting the page in two does create some more possibilities: For one, the ability to have a more thorough history, while two, the ability to cover not just Scuderia Ferrari's efforts, but also Ferrari's customer car programs, especially in the period after 1973. The use of just Ferrari in X racing instead of Scuderia Ferrari works with this as well, since we can cover the marque history and not just the official team history. The359 16:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scuderia Ferrari Logo 2007.jpg

Image:Scuderia Ferrari Logo 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gilles Simon is not Italian

Near his name inside the box "Scuderia Ferrari Personnel" there is the Italian Flag,but he is obviously French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.85.105 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the Name

Scuderia is Italian for "Stable", and Ferrari is Italian prancing horse, thus the prancing horse being the logo of Ferrari, so the name is liberraly translated as "Stable of the Prancing Horse".

Ferrari is not the italian for "prancing horse", it is the family name of the founder. The prancing horse was Francesco Baracca (World War I Italian flying ace) logo, and his mother donated it to Enzo Ferrari, at the beginning of his racing activity. Enzo Ferrari put the prancing horse on the yellow background, as yellow is the color of his town, Modena.

--Vinci71 10:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.f1technical.net/glossary/s and Google's translator (http://www.google.com/translate), Scuderia means "Team".

125.5.144.90 (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse the translation with transliteration. Scuderia literally means "stable", but in common English usage the term that most closely approximates the commonly used meaning is "team". Pyrope 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that Babel Fish gives the translation as "stable". Pyrope 00:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Standard Engine and Ferrari's threat to leave F1

No section on teh possible loss to F1 of Ferrari if the FIA push ahead with a standard engine???--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in number of F1 races in 1950

Chilli Burger (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC) In the section on the 1950s it states that Alfa Romeo won all 11 races in the 1950 season. as can be seen on the Formula 1 website there were six European races (all won by Alfa Romeo) and the Indianapolis 500 (won by Kurtis Kraft-Offenhauser)

It is possible there were some non-world championship races with it being back then, though the win in indianapolis makes this look dubious. There are some guys lurking around with the annuals that can fill us in, I'm sure. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What it meant was that Alfa Romeo won all eleven events it entered (six World Championship events and five non-Championship races - see 1950 Formula One season). I've clarified the text. Thanks for mentioning it - it was certainly unclear how it was. DH85868993 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to reader, incomplete article

Yesterday I added "This article is about Ferrari's Gran Prix racing only. (needs link to their GT racing)" at the beginning article with the notation that "I came here looking for GT info and it took me a few moments to discover that only F1 was covered. I would have appreciated the mod I just made that says so. Timoleon (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)". Apparently, Apterygial "Reverted [my] edits" without explanation. I don't know the appropriate etiquette here, but it seems reasonable to me to redo my edit in the hopes that I will be told why it is inappropriate.

I'm sorry for not explaining myself. I removed it then (and will remove it now) because this is something that must be discussed on the talk page, not in the article. If you believe that the article needs a link to their GT racing, then you are free to add it, but signposting the article's flaws at the top of the article is not the way to go. Apterygial 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you prompt and insightful reply Apterygial. Now that I have read it I agree; I did 'singpost the flaws' and I should not have. So, how about a note just explaining that only F1 is covered? It seems to me as if the article was entitled "General Motors" and it discussed Chevy making no mention of any other brands, not even that there are other brands.Timoleon (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that my interest in Scuderia Ferrari is concerned almost entirely with F1. I have little idea about their GT racing. As far as I know, there is no article about their involvement in GT. The most appropriate thing to do, once you have made sure there is no article already, would be to create an article about it, and then put a message (there's a template somewhere) that says "This article is about Ferrari's involvement in Formula One. For information about Ferrari's involvement in GT, see Ferrari in GT." Or something. My suggestion is that you bring this up with the great guys at WikiProject Motorsport. They know a lot more about most stuff than I do, and would be able to tell you where to find that information. Cheers, Apterygial 04:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

See also the above discussion and the related discussion at WikiProject Sportscar racing discussing the possibility of splitting the article. DH85868993 (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the best solution is to create a GT page, etc. However, that is not the question. The question is what to do until then? Is it appropriate to leave the article alone? What about my General Motors analogy? I have seen articles in Wikipedia that have links to pages that don't exist and requests that someone create the missing page. How about something like that?Timoleon (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be any further objection, I have added a new note to reader. Timoleon (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the new hatnote as misleading because the article does not only cover F1 - a quick glance shows Ferrari's history for 20 years or so before F1 existed is covered, as is (albeit briefly) their post war sportscar programme. I'd certainly support modification of this article into a summary article covering all of the Scuderia's activities, including a short mention of the GTs, with the (currently excessive) detail on F1 hived off into a new daughter article. 4u1e (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The F1 section almost certainly could be chopped down five-fold. The last few years (2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008) needs to be cut down dramatically - currently it violates WP:RECENTISM. D.M.N. (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I just don't get you folks... Everyone seems to agree that this article does not cover GT but no one seems to be willing to tell the reader that. Why? If someone could respond to my General Motors analogy, maybe I would finally get it. Timoleon (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what they are saying is that it /should/ cover GT but currently doesn't. In other words, if you want it to cover GT, write the stuff, source it and put it in the article ;) --Narson ~ Talk • 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I know my boneheadedness is frustrating, so thanks for trying to explain it to me Narson, but I still don't get it. What is to be done now when there isn't a GT page? Timoleon (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is that GT should be covered here. If it gets too long as F1 has done, we can spin them off into daughter articles. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is cunningly set up so that problems can only be fixed if you take a day or two off to write huge amounts of information! In response to your General Motors analogy, in a couple of years there will be no General Motors, which will solve that problem. Apterygial 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the point has been made by the others. The best thing would be if you drafted up some words yourself covering the entity you think should be included in this article. Is there a suitable source of information (see WP:RS for more on this) that covers the topic? If so, could you post details here? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(Another question: I'm not sure which 'GT team' we're talking about here. Which series are we talking about? 4u1e (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Sorry - more thoughts. I've quickly skipped through the (highly irritating) Ferrariworld site and it seems from that that there has been no works Ferrari team outside F1 since the 1973 sportscar effort. Everything since then (including 'factory' cars like the 333SP) has been run by private teams. The cars currently racing in various GT series are also customer cars run by private teams, not the Scuderia, so I'm not sure what's missing here. I'm glad to be enlightened! 4u1e (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think, don't quote me here, that manufacturer teams were banned from GT in the 90s? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I’m feeling a little frustrated now and fear others are as well. I wish this wasn’t the case. If I continue to pursue understanding of the issues here, at least in the same way I have been, I fear an unpleasant result. Yet, I feel compelled to continue seeking understanding, perhaps because I love Enzo’s cars; a love that began when I was a child and received a ride home in a brand new 250 Lusso. So, this time I’ll try it without asking any questions. I’ll simply list the facts as best as I can.

1. Wikipedia contains an article on the winners of Le Mans List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners which reports GT wins by Scuderia Ferrari in ’54, ’58, ’60 and ’61. Each of these victories contains a link to Scuderia Ferrari.

2. The Scuderia Ferrari article barely mentions GT racing.

3. I came to the Scuderia Ferrari article looking for GT info. It took me some time to discover there wasn’t any.

4. I was disappointed there wasn’t any GT info.

5. I wished the article itself had told me of this omission right from the start, as many other Wikipedia articles do.

6. I added this info and it was removed. After some discussion I again added this info and it was removed again.

7. I have asked many questions in the hope of understanding, and you folks have been good enough to answer them. Thank you.

8. I still don’t understand why the article doesn’t inform the reader that there is much more to Scuderia Ferrari than F1.

Timoleon (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the information hasn't been added. As I've said, if you feel the article is lacking, add the information about Ferrari's GT past. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Narson, and if I may say so, I find this last post of your's to be unresponsive. Let's not continue in that particular circle...You suggest I produce an article and I ask what is to be done in the meantime. You suggest I produce an article... Timoleon (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing gets done in the meantime, Tim. We don't have things on articles saying what isn't in there, unless it is in the form of a hatnote or other disambiguation tool that directs users to annother article with that information. Adding in some information on GT shouldn't take too long, I'd imagine? I must admit, I wouldn't know where to start, I'm not a GT chap and never have been. You seem to be into the sport, there must be reliable websites that cover general history of the teams? Though, i must admit, I am slightly confused. When we say GT, are we talking about GT here, as in FIA GT Championship, or are we talking grand tourer class just at Le Mans? Or were they involved else where? --Narson ~ Talk • 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK Timoleon, I understand now what you feel is missing: GTs from the 1950s and 1960s. That's not an area I specialise in, so I don't know how much material is really missing. Surely the results described in the third para of the 1950s, and the victory by a Ferrari TR in the 1961 24 Hours of Le Mans mentioned in the first para of the 1960s are GT cars? While it should certainly be expanded, I'm not sure the material you are looking for is totally missing. Regarding your question about what is to be done in the meantime: the simple answer is nothing. Wikipedia is a constant work in progress. We don't mark up articles as incomplete, because the encyclopedia is full of incomplete articles, and I'm very surprised by your statement that many of them do this.

You've achieved consensus that more material needs to be added on this topic, and that the later F1 material needs to be trimmed down. I suggest that you could view that as a success! If you want to go further, I suggest you could work with the guys at WP:SCR to try and write the extra material needed. For my part, I'm happy to help trim down the F1 material. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed some of it down the other month, cut thousands of bytes out. It definatly needs an all over trim but I didn't want to anger tifosi, I am not savvy enough in Ferrari lore to know which bits are important to Ferrari as is. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Narson, 4u1e, thank you both. Because of your patience with me I see where my problem is: I have been operating under the belief that many other Wikipedia articles informed the reader that there was info that should be added and requested that someone add it. I am so often wrong, it's entirely likely that I am wrong about this. I will research this as best as I can and report my results here.

(Meanwhile, let's suppose I am in error, that Wikipedia doesn't mark up articles as incomplete. I don't know if any of us have the stamina to discuss that policy here, or even if this is an appropriate venue, yet the question that comes immediatly to my mind, of course, is why not?)

Timoleon (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine because it doesn't help and because it looks fugly. It is more stuff for people to fight over etc etc. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And because every article, no matter the assessed class, is irrevocably incomplete. Apterygial 02:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you all have had a wonderful Christmas, and my best wishes for the new year. As my first example of Wikipedia informing the reader that there was missing info and suggesting the reader create it is found on pages like List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 515. Notice that there are many links colored red which link to a blank page. If, as you suggest. Wikipedia doesn't advetise what isn't there, why so many Dead Links? Timoleon (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Red links are quite different to a big bit of text at the top. You also havn't really identified what you think is missing in the article. What GT aspect of SF isn't there? It goes into its production sports cars, its Le Mans success. I think 4u's suggestion of taking the F1 stuff to a seperate page is a good idea as it does swamp out the rest of the info (Though I wouldn't expunge all F1 data). --Narson ~ Talk • 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, or course Narson; pick any 2 things in the universe and there will be differences. And there will be similarities. The trick is to select the appropriate attribute-domain and then identify the significant similarities and differences. These red links are an explicit statement from Wikipedia that there is additional info but it has not been added to Wikipedia yet. In your view, what is "quite different" between red/dead links and "big bit of text at the top?"

Regarding what I think is missing; let's not return to that again as it is adequately discussed in this discussion page in my opinion. Let us deal with one thing at a time so as not to confuse the issues and get sidetracked, OK? Timoleon (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Red links are an implicit sign that /other pages/ don't exist/have information. Indeed, on many articles you will find people will remove red links. The fact that the information you think is missing might be in the article is hardly sidetracked. What you think is missing is not discussed at all. You just say GT but give no definition of what you mean by that, as you clearly don't mean the GT championships from the FIA, and the article includes Ferrari's Le Mans victories and such. So, what is there missing to advertise? As has been said before, if you think stuff is missing, add it. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I am getting a bit frustrated with your arguments Narson. Yes, I understand that you want me to add whatever I think is missing, you have made that abundantly clear. Please don't bring that up again as I don't know what more can be said about it. Regarding your discussion being "hardly sidetracked", I BEG you, let us settle one issue before adding another. Please!

In your last post you seem to agree that the red links are a sign that info doesn't exist. If I understand you correctly you are agreeing with me, that Wikipedia does "have things on articles saying what isn't in there." Timoleon (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite agreeing. Redlinks indicate that there is notable content /elsewhere/ that has yet to be created, not that content in that article is missing. A garish big sign at the top saying 'Some stuff is missing' just isn't helpful, nor pretty. Especially when that stuff may not be missing in the first place. Redlinks to information that won't be created is deprecated. A red link can also indicate a ton of other things (Broken link, typo, need for a piped link, etc). Redlinking to Scuderia Ferrari (GT), for example, would likely be inappropiate because there is little reason to believe there would be enough information for its own article outside of the Scuderia Ferrari aricle, indeed some touring car work is included in the article already. I am really struggling to see what you are trying to achieve with all this. A section of text saying what you think is missing at the top of the article, especially when you refuse to specify what it is that is acctually missing, is not going to happen that I cn see. What o we hope to gain here? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, if I follow the same logic as 4u in assuming it is the 50s and 60s GT results that are mentioned in here and you want that information expanded, there are several routes you can go down. Not sure if there is a GT project (infact I doubt there is) but you could put in a request to the Motorsport wikiproject for someone to expand the information. Even Wikiproject F1 might be able to help as I'm sure we have a few tifosi. It is one of those things that is best done in talk space. Thinking about it, the same route could be followed if the information isn't there at all. If you really thought there was enough info for its own page (I doubt this), and you didn't want to add it yourself, then you could request someone creates the page for you, though I forget the name of the wikipage for that --Narson ~ Talk • 12:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Narson, you win. I give up! I will no longer respond to your repeated suggestions that I supply what is missing; that dog won't hunt, and neither will I anymore.

To the issue at hand, you said "Redlinks indicate that there is notable content /elsewhere/ that has yet to be created, not that content in that article is missing." Perhaps if you review your statement carefully, you will see that both clauses say the same thing, i.e. that there is additional info that has not been created yet. You also said "A garish big sign at the top saying 'Some stuff is missing' just isn't helpful, nor pretty." As I am not advocating a "big, garish" sign, I believe you are falling into the fallacy of "the straw man". As far as being "unhelpful", I submit that is your opinion, with which I disagree. This should be obvious as it is the very reason this discussion is taking place.

Narson, let us try to reach a consensus here. But to do so, we must be scrupulous in separating fact from opinion, significant issues from digressions, and meaningful discussion from sloganeering. Are you game? Timoleon (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Timoleon, I fear this entire thing is a strawman. I mean, what acctually are we discussing here? If there a specific problem existing or are we engaging in theoretical abstract discusson? I am genuinely quite confused at this point. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the 1st paragraph of this section (Note to reader...) and the 8 points I posted on Dec. 22. Timoleon (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so if I read that right it is that this is linked to for Le Mans results et al an doesn't contain then? I must admit, when I first looked through the article last month I didn't see the Le Mans results, they are buried. They are, however, there. So, the issue becomes not one of 'How does one get the information there?' but a question of lay out, or 'How does one make the information accessible to the reader?'. I'd suggest we follow one of two options, we spin off a 'History of Scuderia Ferrari' article to contain everything pre a certain date or we spin off the F1 into its own article (Something like Scuderia Ferrari F1). Then some degree of restructuring needs to take places, removing everything but summations of the F1 season, and certainly not labelling everything based on F1 systems. My apologies for my confusion on the issue. I suspect this is something that WPF1 in general might be very interested in and 4u1e above is a very skilled editor, so I might wait for his opinion. But that would be my recommendation, de-clutter the article so those results are acctually easy to see. You raised a valid issue here of balance. I'll see if I can't pop to the Le Mans museum next time I am in Mayenne and can't grab some images of the ferraris there. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for hanging in there with me Narson. I like your suggestions and I originally had something a little different in mind. Using the General Motors analogy, I imagine a Wikipedia article called "General Motors", which begins with a brief description of GM followed by a list of all their divisions. So, someting like; Scuderia Ferrari was involved in the following types of racing; F1, GT, etc. and take it from there. Currently, out of 70,000+ bytes in this article, only a few hundred mention something other than F1 (see the Nov 2007 Sports Car Racing section above, and the 2006 section Scuderia Ferrari in sportscar racing). In such a scheme, this article would keep the title of "Scuderia Ferrari", contain info on Scuderia, and contain links to details about their various racing venues, F1, GT, etc. Timoleon (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be any further objection, I have added a new note to reader. Timoleon (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Which I have replaced with an {{expand}} template, because (a) your note was inaccurate (the article does contain some information about Ferrari's participation in sportscar/GT racing) and (b) as has been explained above, a note such as the one you added is not the correct way to indicate that an article could be improved by the addition of extra information. The correct way is to express your concerns on the article's talk page (as you have already done). The {{expand}} template in the article serves as a pointer to the discussion. As for a solution to the lack of GT racing info in the article - one possible solution would be to add a "GT racing" section into the article. But that wouldn't fit too well with the current "chronological" structure of the article. So, perhaps reorganising the article into separate sections for F1/Grand Prix racing, sportscar/GT racing, etc with the possible creation of daughter articles for "Ferrari in Formula One", "Ferrari in sportscar racing", etc. is a better way to go. I'll start a new section to discuss that idea, and bring the discussion to the attention of potentially interested parties, by advertising it at WP:F1, WP:SCR and WP:MOTOR. DH85868993 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for working so long with an ignorant newbie such as myself. Because of your patience I believe DH858... has a solution we can all appreciate. My very best to all of you! Timoleon (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne Grand Prix

I couldn't find it on a summery of the 2007 season, shouldn't something mentiuon the illeagal car run in the Melbourne grand prix, as it is one of the big complaints the critics bring up in the media (At least on ITV) Narson 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Especially as McLaren were excluded from the WCC and fined $100m for breaching Article 151(c) of the ISC, while Ferrari's actions in Australia breached Article 151(b) and nothing was done. Odd disparity that. Pyrope 14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Only FIA can declare a car illeagal at check after the race, not ITV. And Ferrari F2007 passed the test after the Australian GP. --Sporti 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm... if by the FIA you mean Charlie Whiting, then no, it didn't pass. Pyrope 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think Whiting is the one checking if cars are legal after the races, he has a much nicer job. --Sporti 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He is the technical delegate,and so is the best man to judge what is and is not within the rules. My copy of Motor Sport reads along the lines of "Charlie Whiting confirmed that the Ferrari's movable floor was not in accordance with regulations. However, Kimi was allowed to retain both his victory and points from Melbourne." I'll get the precise ref as soon as I dig out the full copy. Pyrope 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferraries type of movable floor became illegal only after the first race, when FIA changed the bodywork tests, on basis of drawing sent to them by McLaren (which McLaren found out about by espionage).--Sporti 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. The floor was a movable aerodynamic component and as such has been illegal for years. Yes McLaren were alerted to its presence by a Ferrari employee (as said employee was not comfortable running such an obviously illegal component), but that was entirely separate from the recent espionage issues. Pyrope 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall it went something along the lines of Ferrari ran it, McLaren requested a rules clarification from the FIA on it, FIA made it clear it was illeagal, Ferrari removed it with no sanction. Similar to the Renault mass damper incident, the clarification of which made it clear moveable parts that affected areodynamic properties while being outside of the normal air flow are still illeagal. If you have a source there, thats great Pyrope. If not I'll star digging through the ITV F1 and BBC archives. Narson 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Motor Sport's current issue contains a very detailed article (written by Nigel Roebuck, so probably absolutely accurate), which includes a complete reprint of the ruling against McLaren, and discussed all of the issues surround the season's goings on. I'm afraid that I'm not at home for the next few days, but when I do I'll dig it out and get the precise wording. Pyrope 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In F1 something is allowed if it isn't forbiden, and team get advantage by searching for holes in the rules. Same way Michelin used wider tyres as allowed in first half of 2003 (as the tyres untill then weren't beeing measured after the races, only before) and didn't loose point for previous races, or Renault for using mass damper last year. There was no such devise as mass damper or spring with moovable floor before, so only after FIA declares its illegal, it's illegal (it was in the rules - yes - but rules can bu interpretated in more then one way, only when FIA declared what interpretation is on order here, it was illegal and Ferrari was forced to changed it) (1). --Sporti 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari hid the fact that the floor moved by chosing spring rates that wouldn't show up in the test. The movable floor was a moving aerodynamic component, that was actually affecting the path of the airflow by over the permitted 5mm range. Just because it passes a garage test does not mean that it was legal beforehand. Tyrrell "unusual" coolant passed most tests in 1984, but when the FIA disciovered that it was loaded with lead shot they banned them from the entire season. The method was illegal at all time, but was only discovered to be so late in the season. Equating a movable floor with the mass damper is disengenous at the very least, as one component was a passive system that only indirectly affected the wing position and tyre contact patch relative to the road, and was developed on the understanding that it did not contravene the rules (the FIA later "clarified" that it did); the other was a cynical attempt to hoodwink the scrutineering committee, as evidenced by the fact that a Ferrari engineer shopped them in the full knowlege that the team understood the system to be illegal from the outset. Pyrope 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The autosport article reports the FIA person as saying any such device was prohibited and they were altering the tests to stop circumvention. It doesn't say they were banning the device, merely altering the tests to detect an already illeagal device....I defer to Pyrope's superior knowledge of such matters as I didn't pay much attention to the hub bub at the first couple of Grand Prixs due to RL reasons. Narson 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again you say in two words what it takes me fifty! Pyrope 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well what we are talking about are actually McLaren's drawings, which is hardly any proove of illegal car of Ferrari, which passed the tests, was declared legal and that is what it counts as a fact. But I understand you Brits must be still in shock after an icy finish of the season and will try to find illegal stuff where there isn't one to find some conford... --Sporti 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting your information from Sporti, but whoever it is is completely wrong. The movable floor was nothing to do with drawings; the tip-off came in a direct, face-to-face conversation, well before any dossier arrived in Mike Coughlan's posession. And as I said above, just because a component passed an inadequate test does not mean that it was legal! Think of Marion Jones. She passed hundreds of tests, yet she was using illegal drugs the whole time. Both the Motor Sport and Autosport articles - written by experienced, knowlegable and trustworthy journalists - make it plain that the floor was illegal from the moment it was designed, it was just that the FIA were using test methods which did not detect it. This is nothing to do with being a Brit (I've always quite liked Ferrari actually, ever since Mansell drove for them). Pyrope 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The drawings I was talking about are those sent to FIA by McLaren with a question if such a concept would be legal to use (1), but we can only speculate if Ferrari used the same concept in the Australian GP. Just because a component passed an inadequate test does not mean that it was legal, no it doesn't nececerly, but until FIA rules a car illegal, it is legal. --Sporti 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But you see, the problem is that Charlie Whiting (the head of the FIA's technical department) said that it wasn't. Now if he doesn't speak for the FIA on technical issues then nobody does. Pyrope 09:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But he was refering to the device that was in the McLaren's drawing sent to FIA, not actually to Ferrari F2007 which was used at Australian GP (of course not, he couldn't know if it is the same as FIA cleared the car on first race with out paying any attention to it and Ferrari may or may not changed it before next race).--Sporti 10:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then we should start altering the Honda article. That passed basic tests for several grand prixs before anyone declared its fuel system illeagal. Also please remember to AGF (And for the record, I'm a Honda fan, not McLaren. Not a huge fan of Hamilton either, not that it wouldn't have been nice to have him win, mind). Please remember to AGF, ignoring people's views based on their nationality could be seen as a tad rude. (Damn you Pyrope, you beat me too it ) Narson 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] are some good ones. Narson 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The device used in the drawing WAS the device used on the F2007. The reason the car was passed at the end of the Australian GP was because McLaren didn't notify the FIA about it till after the Australian GP, and the FIA (surprise surprise)chose not to alter the result of the race. Also McLaren where alerted to it by word of mouth, it had nothing whatsoever to do with what was in the dossier that was sent to Coughlan. If Ferrari wern't up to anything dodgy, could one of their fans explain why they suddenly changed the floor mounting design of the car was fundamentally changed between the Australian and Malaysian GP's. It royally amuses me that Ferrari fans are always the first to shout cheat at McLaren, yet they always try and deflect the blame when Ferrari are caught out. Regardless of how McLaren got the information however, it is the duty of anyone who knows that a team is acting against the rules to report it. The device WAS illegal, so much so that not only did Ferrari alter the design of their car once caught out, it also prompted the FIA to make changes to their floor mounting tests. A lot of fuss to make for something that is apparently a non-issue don't you think? As for arguing that because the cheat wasn't uncovered the car was legal... That is a pretty fallacious argument. If I murdered someone, and never got arrested would that make my actions legal or acceptable? Hell no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.244.60 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible restructure

As has been identified above, this article is currently very F1-centric, and contains only minimal information about Ferrari's participation in other categories (e.g. sportscar/GT racing). In order to facilitate the addition of extra information about Ferrari's non-F1 participation (which has been identified as being desirable), what do people think of the idea of restucturing the article along "racing category" lines rather than "chronological" lines, i.e. having a section for F1/Grand Prix racing, another section for sportscar/GT racing, etc noting that this may prompt the transfer of the F1 information into a separate article. DH85868993 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is preferential to me, as it makes more sense to group similar types of racing rather than simply grouping by year. Each section (or page, as it might be necessary to create Scuderia Ferrari in Formula One and Scuderia Ferrari in sports car racing or something similar) can then be chronological.

Just thinking outloud, has Scuderia Ferrari been involved in anything other than F1 and sports cars? Did they have an F2 and such? The359 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(Whoops, I should have read above, didn't notice that there was a new discussion here since the last time I brought this up) The359 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, if this article were to be split into multiple articles, Scuderia Ferrari in Formula One makes sense, but as noted above, Scuderia Ferrari in sports car racing might be short since, as noted above, Scuderia Ferrari as a team only participated until 1973. Therefore it might be best to leave the sports car history here. On the other hand I have to wonder if it might be best to create a Ferrari in sports car racing to cover the history of what Ferrari has built, but not actually raced with their own team. Especially as this is not just post-1973, but very much pre-1973 as there were numerous privateers using their cars (NART, Scuderia Filipinetti, etc) with some factory blessing. Ferrari certainly still has factory interest in sports car racing, as they employ factory drivers to assign to various GT teams just as Porsche does.

At the same time, a Ferrari in Formula One would be a bit useless as there's been little history of Ferraris outside of Scuderia Ferrari on F1. The359 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the possible splitting off of the F1 information into a separate article:

• if we are going to do it, the off-season is probably a good time to do it.
• There are a lot of links which will need to be updated (not necessarily an insurmountable problem)
• It may take a while to educate editors to link to <new article name> instead of "Scuderia Ferrari"
• We need to consider the scope (and hence title) of the new article, i.e. should it be:
  • "Scuderia Ferrari in Formula One" (i.e. only covering works team entries), or
  • "Ferrari in Formula One" (i.e. also covering privateer entries), or
  • "Ferrari in Grand Prix racing", which could include non-F1 Grand Prix racing (e.g. F2 racing in the 1960s [i.e. the answer to The359's question is "yes"] and possibly even the period from 1929-1948 when Scuderia Ferrari campaigned cars made by other manufacturers (notably Alfa Romeo))

DH85868993 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Grand Prix racing makes the most sense to me, especially as the other suggestion is for the broad sports car racing rather than the likes of just the World Sportscar Championship. The359 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari has long been associated with other categories too that fit none of the above describers, like Formula 2 in the 1960's (not covered by Grand Prix racing, A1 Grand Prix supply, Tasman Series. Personally I think Grand Prix racing would encompas 1952-3 F2 but not 1960s F2. --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not sure there's a need to split off this article, unless they stop being Scuderia-centric and cover different levels of involvement by Ferrari (the Ferrari 333 SP and current GT1/GT2 cars were never raced by Scuderia Ferrari, there was only factory support for project development by contracted companies, and cars were meant to be raced by privateers). If the articles are to be split, we may need three: Ferrari in Grand Prix racing, Ferrari in sports car racing and Ferrari in other formulae, which would encompass Formula 2 (both 1950, early 1960s and late 1960s periods, even if there is some overlap with the Grand Prix article), Tasman Series, A1GP and the still-born Indy project. --Pc13 (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I thínk it would be best to make own section for different type racing :F1/Grand Prix racing, sportscar/GT racing etc. and no split until there is enough information --Typ932 ^T·C 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the decision we make will be influenced by the amount of information available. Maybe we should keep the Scuderia Ferrari article just for F1, then have a separate article for all other motorsports? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the best option. If only because if we do it the other way around we have issues with the primary usage (Which I think is undoubtedly the F1 team). It wouldn't be a huge article, covering SF in other racing, though perhaps we could move most of the history etc there too? Call the article 'History of Scuderia Ferrari'? Is SF involved in any other motorsport these days to make that title unworkable? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from suppying engines etc., I don't think so. The History article sounds like a good idea. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too, and neatly avoids all the issues I raised on the 9th! Would we put some of the F1 history (e.g. 1950-1999?) in the "History" article, or leave all the F1 stuff together in the main article? DH85868993 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd put all the pre-F1 grand prix in it, but once codified, lets leave it in to start with, see how big the article is If necesary we can put all the pre 70s stuff over? And if thats too big, pre 80s etc. Lets try to keep things together as much as is feasible. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've created History of Scuderia Ferrari and transferred the sportscar racing info and most of the "Early history" section from this article to there. Feel free to expand/improve! DH85868993 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the current changes. Scuderia Ferrari is a racing team, and a full explanation of their efforts since their inception should definitely be included in the main article, without the massive slant toward recent years in F1. This article should be an overview of the team's past and current activities, with in-depth analysis of activities in each branch of motorsport being kept in separate articles. I believe it should start with their involvement with Alfa Romeo, extend into their efforts in Sports Car racing, their parallel efforts in Grand Prix racing, F1 from 1948 onwards, their cessation of all non-F1 activities in 1973, their IndyCar prototype, and their current F1 activities, along with the existing sections (headquarters, name and logo, sponsorship, etc). F1 would clearly be more in-depth, since they have been involved in F1, uninterrupted, since 1948; however, that should not cause the near exclusion of their efforts in other forms of motorsports, such as at Le Mans against Ford in the 60s and Porsche in the 70s. The length of the '00s decade for F1 should be no more than that of the 50s or 60s, and should not branch off into individual years from 2005 to 2009. Basically, I think the purpose of the main article should be to provide an overview on the team, and then to redirect to other pages with more information. Anyone else share my point of view? :-) Malcolm33 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I absoluteley agree with you, Malcom33, and have been meaning to get around to making some major changes to this article for ages. There doesn't seem to have been a particularly logical approach to the division of information between here and the History of Scuderia Ferrari, and there's way too much detail about the last decade. How can an article about Scuderia Ferrari include sentences like "Hamilton was still sixth as he came up to the second-to-last corner, but passed Timo Glock, who was struggling for pace with the rain that had been falling during the last few laps on the dry tyres, moving Hamilton into fifth. Hamilton crossed the line get fifth position and the World Championship." but barely have anything about the Le Mans victories, sports prototypes, etc. Lots of work needed. I'm willing to get stuck in. Who's with us? Tubefurnace (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Major re-write needed. Opinions please

I think this article needs sorting out badly. The restructure above was a reasonable way of dealing with the size of the article, given what content there was. But the problem of content was never really adressed. There seems to be a ridiculous amount of detail here for the past few years' racing. To take a random example, there are for example 152 words about Ferrari's performance in the 2009 Turkish Grand Prix! This is clearly over the top when one considers that Scuderia Ferrari have competed in almost all of the 820 World Championship Grands Prix that have taken place, plus their entries in other championships, Le Mans, non-championship events, etc, etc,. I propose stripping this article of a lot this detail, so it can be restructured in a way that reflects all aspects of Scuderia Ferrari. It's probable that the overlap with History of Scuderia Ferrari will change, and perhaps it'll be apparent that the History article isn't needed. I'd like to know what other people think. So first of all, can we agree that a description of what happens in a race can go in the article about that race, e.g. 2009 Turkish Grand Prix, and not be covered again in every related car, driver, team page? Tubefurnace (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right - there's way too much detail on the past few seasons. Slash away! DH85868993 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that slashing has already been done before, it bloated out again. It takes a good old while and be brutal, but bon chance! --Narson ~ Talk • 22:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right - hack away! The 2009 Turkish GP - a minor points-scoring race for the Scuderia - needs no mention at all in this article. Having had a quick look at the History of SF article, it's actually 'Ferrari in Pre-War GP racing' and I would think all of it could be brought into this article. 4u1e (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll get started. Things might look a bit messy while I'm working on it, but I'll get stuck in.Tubefurnace (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for the lack of references in the stuff I'm adding. I do have books and magazines that will help fill in some gaps, but for now I'm just trying to improve the content of the article.Tubefurnace (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Raikkonen/Scheckter

The box at the bottom of each Ferrari-related article lists Jody Scheckter before Kimi Raikkonen in the World Champions part. Since everyone else is listed alphabetically, shouldn't Raikkonen be listed first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.89.112 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good spot. Simple fix. Done. Thanks! Pyrope 02:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

24 hours of Le Mans

Ferrari won the 24 hours of Le Mans 6 years in a row from 1960 to 1965, but there's no information on the cars or drivers that won in those years. Can that be added by someone privy to this information?--Subversive Sound (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check

Ferrari is also the most successful F1 engine manufacturer, with 214 wins. 213 or 214? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.121.161 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

214 = 213 in Ferrari chassis, plus 1 in Vettel's Toro Rosso-Ferrari in the 2008 Italian GP. DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Grand Prix racing / Formula One

If the article is about Scuderia, the Grand Prix racing / Formula One section is missing many years , Scuderia started GP racing well before 1947...this is now written like this would be Ferrari not Scuderia article -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Marlboro Removed From Team Name

Technically now the team is only called Scuderia Ferrari and it should be stated as such in the article.

Source? They clearly said Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro on the press conference yesterday. / F1 fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.105.81.22 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Oppose, the first paragraph clearly states the F1 team is called "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro", while "Scuderia Ferrari" used to be a broader division. Currently all "Scuderia Ferrari" activities are reduced to F1. In fact, I suggest the article be renamed to "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro" since it deals mostly with F1.Root up (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

According to these current websites (as of December 2010), the team name still includes Marlboro. Ferrari's own site and F1's own site. I reckon that's probably fairly solid. http://www.ferrari.com/English/Formula1/News/Headlines/Pages/101124_formula1_ferrari_com_publishes_Scuderia_Ferrari_Marlboro_2010-Season_Review.aspx

http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/3/ danno 17:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Gilles Villeneuve

We're having a push to get the Villeneuve article up to GA standard. Any Villeneuve fans want to come over to Gilles Villeneuve and help out? References and pictures would be most welcome, for example. Cheers 4u1e, 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Races started/completed

According to the infobox Ferrari have completed 885 races but only started 883. How is that possible? Eckerslike (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Competed, no "L". In other words, they have entered 885 races but for one reason or another they have only actually started 883. Pyrope 21:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scuderia Ferrari. 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/20090105081013/http://www.fudzilla.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7271&Itemid=35 to http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7271&Itemid=35

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} 02:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Scuderia Ferrari 90th Anniversary

This anniversary, while important in the context of Ferrari, doesn't have enough sources to merit a separate article. – Teratix ₵ 00:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss or, indeed, to bother with merging. Corporations celebrate with great fanfare pretty much every time they hit an anniversary that is divisible by five. A few logos and a car name (if an alphanumeric string can count as a name) are pretty thin gruel to justifiy a whole article. Page has been redirected. Pyrope 03:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

So, given that Teratix has actually restored this worthless cruft, are we going to actually get an explanation? Pyrope 00:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Pyrope I don't think this is anything more than worthless cruft, it's just that an IP user unblanked the page and I wasn't comfortable restoring the redirect on a two-editor consensus. – Teratix ₵ 00:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough Teratix. If they don't chip in here in the next day or so I'll repeat the redirect with a note to discuss here if they feel it has merit. Pyrope 01:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It has been four days with no sign of discussion so I have reinstated the redirect. – Teratix ₵ 23:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice work. Pyrope 00:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Teratix: It looks like discussion isn't effective: Scuderia Ferrari's 90th Anniversary. Also adding the IP address is most likely the same user who created this. – The Grid (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Reinstated redirect. – Teratix ₵ 07:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)