Talk:1960 Tour de France

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Tour de France task force.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Winner of 19th stage

The winner of the 19th stage in this article used to be Rolf Graf. Recently, it was changed into Nencini, with the edit note

Nencini won the final ITT, not Graf. This is a confusion with 1959 - Graf won the 19th stage in 1959, and his name has been copied over to 1960, it would seem.

While Graf indeed won the 19th stage in 1959, sources indicate that he also won the 19th stage in 1960: memoire du cyclisme. The Tour de France database indeed lists Nencini as winner, but they list him as winner of ten stages in a row, and most likely confused 'stage win' with 'leading general classification'. Newspapers from 1960 also clearly listed Graf as winner: [1]. For this reason I reverted the change, so now the article lists Graf as winner of the 19th stage. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, that'll teach me to jump in without doing enough research. I saw that the page conflicted with the Tour database, and that Graf had won the exact same-number stage the year before, and thought it was unlikely that a) the Tour database was wrong, b) Graf did indeed happen to win stage 19 two years in a row, and c) a rank GC-outsider like Graf would have won the main TT at the Tour (by my count that happened only four other times before 2000).

But yes, your sources seem better (and it turns out the tour database has a LOT of problems) (bikeraceinfo.com also agrees with you, although I don't know if that's got an independent source of facts or is just copying memoire-du-cyclisme or somewhere similar). So I guess that what seemed like a massive coincidence did indeed happen.

Anyway, yes, you're right. Sorry.

[Thanks for correcting my error, and thanks for letting me know you'd done it, also] Wastrel 7 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to apologize for an attempt to improve Wikipedia. You did everything the right way: you saw that some information on Wikipedia did not agree to information on the official Tour database, so you corrected the information on Wikipedia, even with an edit note that explains why you did it. That's perfect. No one can blame you that the Tour database is filled with mistakes. Unless by a ridiculous coincedence you work for the Tour de France organisation and are responsible for this database. ;)--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1960 Tour de France. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvccbike.com/tour/top_ten.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627210659/http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/DrgsTdeF.html to http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/DrgsTdeF.html

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) 06:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivière accident

I can appreciate trying to make sure information is verified and that no nonsense is included in an article but I was under the impression that if information about a rider was already cited within that writers article it is not necessary to cite it again. Perhaps I am mistaken about this but I don't think that I am.... If it is necessary to add the link to the rider where the information is mentioned then I will do that but there is also the thing about once a link is provided to a rider early in an article it is not necessary to do so again? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what is linked in the rider's article, it does not say that anyone (or no-one, as you have written) thought he was dead, that the drop was fifty feet (or should be reported in a different set of units than used in the rest of the article), or that any conclusion was drawn from his lack of vocalisation. No verification that Nencini was one of the best discenders, so it should be qualified as a consideration: he was 4th at the top of the col, so was not "making the pace". Stick to facts, and encyclopaedic tone, not your own interpretation in retelling anecdotes: that is why this is Wikipedia, not Wikistoryteller. Kevin McE (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]