Talk:2008 Tour de France

A news item involving 2008 Tour de France was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 July 2008.

Wikipedia

Cycling: Tour de France Mid‑importance

	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.

Stage Profiles

What's the best way to include information on stage profiles? Most tour fans love to look at the stage profiles each day of the tour. I can link to each stage's profile on www.letour.com on the list of stages. What is the right way (formatting) to do that? DocOctopus (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odds

How about a list of race favourites? Although, Im not sure if there are any betting odds available yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.245.177 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be better to take the odds from a meta site like oddschecker.com or BetBrain.com.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I included the skybet source here, but the meta sites are better. Whoever wants to change it, should change it. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree before we get started

There has been inconsistency between races about what jersey is shown in the daily results box: the jersey worn on the day (as per 2008 Giro), or the jersey won by the end of the day (as per 2007 TdF). I marginally prefer the latter, on the grounds that the results shown are those after confirmation by the authorities, and the jerseys are determined by then, but I understand the counter-arguments. But either way, we should decide by 4:15 today, to avoid later inconsistency and disagreement. Kevin McE (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your preference on showing the the jersey they won on that day. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey awarded at the podium at the end, absolutely. Nosleep1234 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stage lengths

I have amended the stage lengths to agree to the stage details on the official website[1]. Several were out by 1 or 2 km, but stage 3 was out by 13 km and stage 14 was out by 12 km. Bikeroo (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jersey progress" table

As the Tour didn't have a prologue this year, the axis on the left should reach from 1 to 22, not 0 to 21. I don't know how to change this. Aleph Kaph (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to stage articles

There was a problem with the links from the "Stages" table to the stage sections at 2008 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11 and 2008 Tour de France, Stage 12 to Stage 21. As the section headings in the subsidiary articles had the date embedded into them, the links only worked iif the user's date preference matched that in the wikilink in the "Stages" table. As I'm sure I've read that any wiklink in section headings is frowned upon, I have amended the section headings in the subsidiary articles to read simply "Stage 1" etc. with the date and stage details in bold immediately below. I hope this is O.K. --Bikeroo (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Table

Maybe this can't be helped, but the text used in the table that recaps the leader of all classifications after each stage isn't that pleasing to the eye. It is too pixelated and kind of looks like it used to be bigger and has been shrunk. And the font is like the default Appleworks one. Overall, it adds an unprofessional look to the article. Does anyone else agree? PN 57 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I've always disliked this part of the annual TdF articles. As often, the French do it better - see here. --Bikeroo (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree and think we should replace the current table with the one used for all other "road bicycle race"-articles.

E.g. 2008 Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré#Jersey progress or 2008 Giro d'Italia#Jersey progress:

Stage (Winner)	General classification Maillot jeune	Mountains classification Maillot à pois rouges	Points classification Maillot vert	Young rider classification Maillot blanc	Team Classification	Combativity award Prix de combativité
0Stage 1 (Alejandro Valverde)	Alejandro Valverde	Thomas Voeckler	Alejandro Valverde	Riccardo Riccò	Caisse d'Epargne	Lilian Jegou
0Stage 2 (Thor Hushovd)	Alejandro Valverde		Kim Kirchen	Riccardo Riccò	Caisse d'Epargne	Sylvain Chavanel
0Stage 3 (Samuel Dumoulin)	Romain Feillu			Romain Feillu	Team Garmin-Chipotle	William Frischkorn
0Stage 4 (ITT) (Stefan Schumacher)	Stefan Schumacher			Thomas Lövkvist		no award
0Stage 5 (Mark Cavendish)	Stefan Schumacher		Thor Hushovd			Nicolas Vogondy
0Stage 6 (Riccardo Riccò)	Kim Kirchen	Sylvain Chavanel	Kim Kirchen			Sylvain Chavanel
0Stage 7 ()
0........
0Stage 21 ()
0Final

Jersey wearers when one rider is leading two or more competitions

On stage 2, Philippe Gilbert wore the green jersey
On stage 4, Andy Schleck wore the white jersey
On stage 7, Thor Hushovd will wear the green jersey

lil2mas (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but I have asked User:Nosleep1234 for his comments as he has been keeping the charts up to date. Bikeroo (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can acclamate myself to the wikicode (and if nothing else, that'll give me something to do today), I'm agreeable to anything. Go right ahead. Nosleep1234 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not going to be around as much when the stages are happening live, starting on Monday, anyway. Nosleep1234 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White jersey

Yes, the jersey is white, but it's useless to have a white background when all of wikipedia already has one. We need to be able to see who's indicated as holding it, especially in the GC table where it's not obvious. A white background doesn't accomplish this. Nosleep1234 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the white bgcolour is hard to spot, and it is important to be able to see it in the GC table. But for non-experienced wiki/cycling-readers it wouldn't be obvious that the blue colour represents the white jersey. So this should be noted somewhere, at least in stage results where it isn't obvious. lil2mas (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would perhaps bgcolor=lightgray be better than light blue? Have a look. Nosleep1234 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When comes to alternative colouring, I think the lightblue colour you had is the best alternative. Too bad wikitable-headers have offwhite colouring, or else this would be a good option. =( lil2mas (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how about WhiteSmoke or FloralWhite? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried them in my sandbox, and they're invisible to my monitor. But my monitor sucks, so they might work. Have a look anyway at the link above, again. Nosleep1234 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The white background for the white jersey marginally stands out from the background of the other riders, which is a light grey. But maybe the light blue is best for obvious standing out. After all, the background for the mountains jersey isn't polka-dotted. PN 57 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for the light blue option, I think it looks very smart. The argument about people not understanding what it means, could also be applied to any other colour. I did have an idea to make a standardised key which I will look at doing over the weekend. Severo^TC 12:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teams classification

Are we not going to indicate with highlight in the teams table which teams hold the individual jerseys? That's fine by me, I'd just like to know. Nosleep1234 (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be too many colours in a table to keep track of. At least when a team holds multiple jerseys, like Team Columbia at the moment. This might also be unnecessary since the four tables above states the different holders with their respective team! lil2mas (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money

Is this really a "complete list of all monetary prizes"? What about the mountains competition, or the aforementioned "first rider over the highest point of the tour"? I'm just confused. Also, should the money be included in the article? I need advice on this one. PN 57 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it ought to have a citation. Nosleep (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Odds section

While I can understand how the existence of a pre-race odds section seemed to invite the publication of in-race odds here, I'm not sure where this is going.

Is it intended that we have this updated daily, with the previous day's prices deleted? If so, such short term information seems unencyclopaedic. Are we going to have an update on the day before Paris, when someone will be at 1.0005 and nobody else under 25/1?

What is intended to stay on the page after the end of the race? If nothing, then this section is surely recentism? Alternatively, if we are to have an incremental chart, so that a rider's varying favour in the predictions of the punters can be tracked, then a different format will be necessary, because by stage 20 it will certainly not fit across the page. Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to have odds in this article at all, and would be quite happy if this section were got rid of. I don't think it's a necessity to publish odds which predict the winner etc., because the race should be about watching what happens in reality and appreciating the excitement of this. Also, odds relate to money and betting, and that isn't really an encyclopedic necessity either. Unless the article is about odds, money and betting. PN 57 09:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say ditch it as well. The pre-race odds are of some interest and should stay, but anything as badly dated as "current odds" isn't going to matter a week from now, let alone a year from now. Seems vaguely like WP:NOTNEWS, or something along those lines. Nosleep (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and did the ditching myself (probably should have mentioned here when I did it, ah well). Nosleep (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the pre-race odds came about at some point because it was a way of verifying who were the fancied riders, especially before the pre-race guides and previews come out. I don't think it's necessary during the race as we have the top of the GC after every stage. Severo^TC 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must honestly say I haven't been a fan of the odds-section, but I like what Severo pointed out; it is useful for knowing who were the pre-race favourites. But as of now it contains 3 different odds, I think this is a bit confusing. Wouldn't it be an idea to only include the last odds before the race-start or maybe an average odds for the last three months? Then it would become some kind of pre-race ranking, not just a listing of the odds... lil2mas (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the odds from May and June, because they are not so important. I also removed Thomas Dekker and Michael Rogers from the table and put them in the lead. I think this is better, but maybe the 'Notes'-column should also be removed. I can not give a good reason why it should be there.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling Terms and French Words glossary

On the Tour's English website (http://www.letour.fr/us/homepage_courseTDF.html) are cycling terms which are confusing for Lay-people and also are sometimes in French (even on the English site!), such as Attardés, Poursuivant, Peleton, Tête de course, and Relative time gap, Absolute time gap, etc, etc. Could the Wikipedia site add a glossary of such terms? I can't find anything of the kind on the above site unfortunately. Thanks. Sem boy (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there's perhaps scope for a general article on them all (similar to tennis score perhaps, but we do have articles such as peloton, autobus, domestique etc.) --Pretty Green (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually, try Bicycling terminology! --Pretty Green (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea for visually representing leaderboard stage by stage

I admit I don't know a lot about the Tour de France, but when looking at the top 10 riders, I came up with an interesting idea to show how the riders progressed stage by stage:

A graph, with "stages 1 to 21" on the x axis and "time behind current leader" on the y axis with 0 at the top. On each stage, the top 10 riders could be plotted. The graph could be colour-coded on the x axis for the stage types (flat, mountainous etc) which would also easily show how the different riders coped with different stages and whether they came from behind or fell back, etc. Obviously one issue would be a number of riders only being in the top 10 briefly and then disappearing, but depending on the final results, I think that could be worked around without too much trouble. Any ideas? Comments? Reasons why it wouldn't work? Volunteers? ;-) I'd be willing to have a go but I'm not great with graphs, just the one with the initial idea! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: see the discussion of last year for some ideas.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had no idea it had already been discussed, albeit not very conclusively. Well, he had the same idea as me, but it didn't seem to be followed through to conclusion as it wasn't/isn't used on the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work it up in your userspace and see if it's doable, and if doable if it would be a helpful addition, and if a helpful addition, if it would be visually pleasing (like the old jersey table wasn't). We already keep this information (the daily GC, and beyond the top ten is certainly information that can be found), so it's not like this is too trivial or anything. Nosleep (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime?

Why is that important? They look exactly the same as ' and '' (or " for that matter) and will it make it ~~harder~~ more time-consuming to revise the tables after each stage. Nosleep (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what does prime mean? PN 57 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ' and '' or " for the times in the GC, white jersey, and teams tables were replaced with wikicode with the word prime in it. Naturally, it takes a lot more time to type that, especially when it's unfamiliar, like it is for me, or to work around it. However, when no one updated the tables for this page after today's stage for several hours (I did it easily 12 hours after the stage ended), it might not actually be an issue. I just thought, at the time I wrote this, of the sometimes-frenzied editing by a bunch of us that occurs right after a stage ends. Nosleep (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is important. Use what you're comfortable with. Lympathy ^Talk 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the not-so-edit-friendly &prime and &Prime with their respective symbols. Prime is actually the right symbol to use, one cannot clearly see the difference here on wikipedia, but I don't think it's really necessary! So feel free to use the apostrophes, if you ask me! =) lil2mas (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Liggett said...

that Vladimir Efimkin is now a stage winner in this Tour (he was second to Riccò in stage 9). Is this something official, or was Phil just opining at this point? It probably will be official, but I notice we didn't demarcate Vinokourov's tainted stage "victories" last year being struck until they absolutely, positively, officially were, which was only a few weeks ago. Nosleep (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's official yet. They still need to do a test on sample B before the Tour will come out and strip the wins. We should keep him as the winner until it's official. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy if a note is placed that the winner has tested positive to a banned substance and may be stripped of the victory Lympathy ^Talk 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should say that it is liable to be stripped, unless the Tour organisers say that. We must remember that thus far we do not even have official news of a B sample, and that it took more than 18 months for Landis' title to be removed from him. An editor has added a note that the stage victory is "contested", which invites the questions "by whom?" and "in what format?" Kevin McE (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced "contested" with "in doubt" as in similar situations, the win is stripped from the record books if the violation is officially confirmed. Lympathy ^Talk 12:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up Cycling

Cleaning up the image of cycling doesn't mean the censorship of doping. I get the feeling that some editors are at pains to omit such information to protect the image of cycling. I personally think cycling is one of the cleanest sports in the world at the elite level due to it's intense testing and harsh penalties. Let's remain objective when editting and ensure that the full story is given whilst remaing encyclopedic and referenced. Lympathy ^Talk 17:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, so editorial effort should not be slanted towards any campaign. You are not specific about what edits you are unhappy about, but it is not necessary to give the same information (eg the reason that Ricco was withdrawn) several times, and it is necessary to be accurate about the nature of a withdrawal (the only rider told by the Tour directly that he cannot continue was Baeksted). Kevin McE (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Jersey

I believe Mark Cavendish should be taken out of this leaderboard now, due to his Olympic-influenced withdrawal. I don't know who to put at number 10 though, so can I have some help with this? PN 57 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely nothing should change until today's stage is finished. Bikeroo (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, he is still listed in yesterdays results and will disappear after today's finish. Arnoutf (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cavendish Retirement

I'm still not 100% sold on the reason for his retirement, currently listed as 'fatigue'. While he states in the reference that he could've continued, he felt there was no point and it would possibly hurt his career. That says to me that whilst he was somewhat fatigued (who isn't at that stage of the TDF) it doesn't seem to be the reason he left. I'm hoping we can come up with a more accurate reason for his retirement, I'm just not sure what it should be. Lympathy ^Talk 13:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several other riders have the same, or equally vague, reasons given. A desire to record more detail for Cavendish than for Facci/Devolder/Renshaw/Chavanel etc does not seem to be equal treatment to all riders. The article cited seems to specifically exclude listing Olympic preparation as his reaon, and several of those who reached Paris will also be in Beijing. Kevin McE (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have my doubts about the Devolder retirement. Although he has been noted ill in the first days of the Tour, that presumably isn't his reason of quitting. Devolder's excessive racing before the Tour (winning the Ronde van Vlaanderen, Tour of Belgium and doing well in the Tour de Suisse) was pointed as the reason for wearing him out. Jellevc (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No time bonus

The second paragraph says there are no time bonuses in 2008. That would be interesting if it was possible to determine what a time bonus is. It is not at all obvious.Eregli bob (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link in that sentence, General Classification (which goes to Yellow Jersey, you'll find in the section How it's won the description "From or to this total can be added bonuses or penalties, for winning individual stages or being first to top a mountain or for breaking the rules." Is this clear, or is the information too difficult to find? --David Edgar (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it relatively easy to find if you are seeking meaning of a pretty descriptive title.Lympathy ^Talk 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two results tables at the top

Personally, I think it is ugly, and disruptive to the layout of the page, to have two different results templates at the top of the page. My preference would be to stick with the results in the main template, and do away with the brightly coloured bow, although I acknowledge that this is in TdF articles stretching back some time. Thoughts?

While I'm on the subject of the aesthetic qualities of additions, do others consider the article improved by the little pictures of mountains and stopwatches on the list of stages? I think the column describing the stage does the job more than adequately without these. Kevin McE (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. The rainbow banner is an old design which gives too much detail in some areas (third place team?) yet omits other interesting facts. That's why {{Infobox Cycling race report}} was designed to replace the rainbow strip. It remains in articles stretching back because they haven't yet had them replaced. Severo^TC 11:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly, the rainbow banner can be removed. I will do this now.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final GC

Is it really so horrible to have it in one column? Making it two causes the boxes to get all fat and numerous rider and team names to go on two lines, which looks really ugly. What's the harm in pushing "PgDn" three or four times to get past the table, if that's what you wish? Nosleep (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the 2 column format. I hate articles that scroll to long and it makes it difficult to navigate. The more colums the better. If you're worried about look, you could fix the height of each box. Lympathy ^Talk 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could alternatively be a separate article or could only list top 10 with a link to the official results for everyone else. I think that Wikipedia should focus upon quality of the offering rather than quantity. Severo^TC 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could just be collapsable (outside the top 10) to save space? Lympathy ^Talk 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ That's a terrific idea, but is it actually possible? Nosleep (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a shot at it in my sandbox here. I've also made it sortable so as to make it easier to find a specific rider or team. If anyone can improve upon what I've got in there, please do so (just go ahead and edit my sandbox). I think this is a really good idea, and comes as close as possible to pleasing everybody, so let's try to work it out. Nosleep (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the collapsed full table. If there's a better way to arrange it all, go right ahead. Nosleep (talk)

Well, obviously it needs some fixing. I've tried a few things (particularly to get the two columns on the same horizon), but it's not working, so hopefully someone can dive in and fix it. Nosleep (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed But if we were to have a complete GC result on this page, I don't think it should be next to the "Top 10"-list. I think the best option is to make one GC table, complete, which shows the top 10 and hide the rest of the list. Is this possible? lil2mas (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is possible, I'm not leet enough to do it. Feel free to move the elements around, if you feel there's a better way to present them. This is really the only way I could think, though, to have the top 10 and then the collapsed full list. Nosleep (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that, unless someone is going to create 145 lines in the formatting of <span style="display:none">Sastre, Carlos</span>[[Carlos Sastre]], and likewise with the times column, it is not worth having a sortable table. Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Look at the change I made, I think it came out okay. We can now make a similar one for the remaining 10 teams in the "Team Classification", since this is a short list, and there is free space beneath the table =) Thougths? lil2mas (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed sorting as requested by Kevin.

The sorting still makes it easier to find a particular team or rider. Just because you'd be looking for "Giampaolo Cheula" and not "Cheula, Giampaolo" doesn't make the sorting useless. But if I'm the only one who thinks it's worthwhile, we don't need it. Nosleep (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love it. Not a fat box on the page. Well done. Nosleep (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completed chart for the 2008 race

Hi guys, as per my intention half way through the race, I have created a chart of the standings by stage for what I saw as the 7 most influential cyclists of the tour. Obviously by this I mean the overall race, not the individual stage winners or other jersey winners.

Just wanted to post it here first to see if anyone had any objections/suggestions to it being added to the article? Unfortunately it is less legible as a thumbnail than I would have hoped, but I think if I increased the font size too much, it would look a bit cartoonish when viewed full size. I still have the original MS Excel file if changes need to be made though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way it has turned out. I think you've done a fantastic job. This can definitely help us improve the quality of the article. Lympathy ^Talk 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I'd suggest is to put the trema on Fränk Schleck's name. Good work. Nosleep (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, but won't your ideas about 'most influential' be slayed as pov. If I visit this page in 10 years time, when everybody except zabel will have retired, I will probably be more interested in the top 10. Autodidactyl (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I did think about rounding it out to the top 10, but including those extra riders means the chart's scale increases significantly, and discounts Stefan Schumacher who was winning at the start of the race and then dropped out of contention. Sure, 'most influential' is POV, but essentially what I've done is chart only those riders who remained within 5 minutes (600 secs) of the yellow jersey for the majority of the race. Stating it that way makes it less POV. Obviously there were more than 7 during the first couple of stages though, but I don't think it is unreasonable to discount them in the chart. Perhaps we just need a better explanation in the image text. Aside from the above issues, is it ready to be included in the article? If so, where? As I've not been an active contributor to the article, I'd rather let you guys place it appropriately, as the tables could make it awkward to insert. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to put the trema on Schleck's name? The correct spelling of his name is not "Frank," it's "Fränk." Nosleep (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And is it also possible to not have this table cover up the other one in the same section (perhaps remove that other one, I don't know)? Nosleep (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anybody home? SOMETHING needs to be done with that section. I'm just gonna go ahead and take it out. It's of absolutely no value in its current state. Nosleep (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reason why you removed it. Why was it of no value in its then-current state? What do you mean with "And is it also possible to not have this table cover up the other one in the same section"? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in this section of the talk page was right on top of the text-based "top ten" progress table (with each of the top 10's placing after each stage). You couldn't read beyond stage 16 in the text-based table, the picture covered it up. Feel free to add one or both elements back to the article, but not with the picture covering up the text-based table. That's just dumb. Nosleep (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it looked like. Not of great use Nosleep (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is overlapping (it wasn't in my browser), there are tags you can insert which will force the image to move into its own space. Better to find a better place for the image than remove it entirely, surely? And I will change the spelling of Schleck's name in the image soon - I just haven't had a chance yet. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the problem. On my browser it was also not overlapping. I don't know which tag Diliff is referring to, but try to use that. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the tag is { { - } } (without the spaces). If you place it below the image tag, it will force all other content below the image, but this will mean extra white space next to the image. At least, I think that is how it works. I'll try it myself - the trick is to find the best place to put the image. See what you think anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've re-added the image. On second thoughts, it might be better at the bottom of the tables, but if as you have mentioned, Nosleep, that it doesn't work when alligned to the right of the tables, it would need to either be placed above or below them in its own space. As such, I think it would be best off being larger so that it is more readable and so that less space is wasted on either side of it, but I have no doubt the placement could be fine tuned. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the chart to the bottom of the tables, because it was too large on top. Which made it steal the attention from the result tables. I also moved the picture of Freire next to the green jersey table, because it is more relevant there and so that we wouldn't get two picture beneath eachother! I added a {{clear}}-tag under each picture to prevent overlapping aswell. Please shout if it interferes with someone's layout! lil2mas (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great to me. Nosleep (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I will say I liked it better when the green and polka-dot jersey standings were together. Putting the white jersey next to the polka-dot makes the boxes in the rightmost table squished and fat. But it's a minor concern. Nosleep (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ITT) in Jersey Progress table

Why exactly does it need to be noted that stages 4 and 20 were ITT's in the Jersey Progress table? Surely all necessary information was provided in the table about the stages? I feel it's confusing, as I consider it equally important to point out which stages are set in the mountains, for example. But then again, that's already noted in the Stages table...
I thus think it would be best to simply remove the "(ITT)" from the jersey progress table. Any thoughts? Jellevc (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't need the letters ITT, we certainly don't need that pic of a stopwatch, or a pair of overlapping triangles to show mountains. Are we to assume that the time intervals on other stages were guessed rather than measured using timing equipment? Kevin McE (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to be stupid Kevin, the stopwatch is a renowned symbol for time trials in cycling, just look at the official site. And if you hover your mouse over the symbol, it says what the symbol means! The reason for removing the letters ITT here, was because it messed up the stage numbers. Putting a stage symbol before the stage winner, simply shows e.g. why Stefan Schumacher has two stage wins. lil2mas (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need an explanation of why Cavendish has four stage wins? A bunch of bananas, perhaps, to indicate a bunched finish? Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop acting silly, please contribute with some useful info instead of making ridiculous comments like; "time intervals were guessed rather than measured using timing equipment" or the "banana symbol"-comment you just made! lil2mas (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

Done It seems that the pics aren't necessary as they're in the above table and consensus is removal. No need to squabble, we can all debate and come up with a result that suits the majority. Lympathy ^Talk 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new images

They're lovely (are they all free, by the way? I somewhat doubt it), but I don't care for the picture of Riccò in the withdrawals section. His information is available in the table, and the picture is squishing the table. You all know how I feel about that :p Nosleep (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen the picture of Riccò was not interacting with the table at all... But I removed it anyway. I wasn't so happy about it anyway, because it was taken at the Giro, not at the Tour. For the copyrights: I was very careful while searching for the images, and these images were free enough to be used on wikipedia. I found many images that would suit the article better, but they weren't free! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. 140.160.128.193 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (nosleep on a public computer)[reply]

Moved the Freire picture

Putting it next to the white or polka-dot jersey tables, which contain the long team name "Team CSC Saxo Bank," make it so the white and polka-dot jersey tables don't get squished for page size. It is a lot more visually pleasing to have the tables all in their natural sizes, and since there's no long names in the green jersey table, this can be accomplished by putting the Freire picture with the white or polka-dot jersey table and having the green jersey table next to the other one. Now, having the picture near the green jersey table is a fair point, so I moved the green jersey table to the right side of the screen, putting the Freire picture directly below it. I think that's satisfactory to that concern. The only thing is they're not lined up, and if someone who's a little more adept with wikicode than me could line up the green jersey table and the Freire picture, that would just be terrific. Nosleep (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no wikicode expert, but I tried to line them up. Is this good on your screen? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks exactly the same, actually. I'm satisfied with how it looks, though. Nosleep (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see I was actually looking at Theilert's revision and not yours. Yeah, moving the picture to the left does squish the white jersey table, which was the very point of moving the Freire picture in the first place. If we can agree on how the page looks now (and hey, if I'm outvoted and the consensus is to have the Freire picture beside the green jersey table, I'll grit my teeth and bare it), I don't think any further revisions (stylistically anyway) are necessary. Nosleep (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the image looks way out of place on wide-screen computers. I'm not sure where it should be placed to suit both. Lympathy ^Talk 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the compromise would seem to be to put it below the tables entirely, or simply not include it in the article. Nosleep (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualification of "positive" cyclists

Every time a cyclist has a positive doping test, it seems that somebody wants to remove his results. Although I can understand that desire, I think we should be careful with that. At this moment, the newest doper is Bernard Kohl. He was tested positive, and also admitted that he had used doping. But still, as far as I can find, he has not been disqualified. Most probably he will be, but it might take a while. Putting a note next to his name is in my opinion a good solution. But we are not the ones to disqualify Kohl, the ASO (I think) should do that. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-rating

Looking at this article, I thought that it satisfies the six criteria for B-class. Therefore, I made it B-class. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview Tour progress

There is now a lot of information on this page, but shouldn't a general overview be included about the way the Tour progressed? The stages where Castre took the lead, the sudden emergence of Cavendish as a top sprinter, etc. In sum, the important information that forms the backbone of the history of the different Tours. This would help this article to move beyond the mere display of tables. Blancefloer (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Blancefloer[reply]

Absolutely. There is a stage-by-stage review in 2008 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11 and 2008 Tour de France, Stage 12 to Stage 21, but an overall-progress of the Tour would improve the main article a lot. I started with adding sourced info about the Tour de Frances, but I started at the 1903 Tour de France, so it will take a long time before I reach 2008 (if I don't abandon my project sooner). If you want to improve this article: please! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohl

A recent editor has put that Kohl has no longer won the polka-dot jersey and third-place GC finish. I can't find if this is true or not. He has bee banned for two years, but no sources mention whether he has been stripped of the placements or not. Can anyone shed any light on this? Severo^TC 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.letour.fr still lists Kohl in polka dots: that seems authoritative enough to me. No reports of revision of results on cyclingnews.com, which would surely have mentioned it if such a decision had been reached. Pre-emptive and presumptive edits reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, remember how long it took with Landis? It'll probably be a little quicker this time around, since Kohl isn't fighting it, but it took over two years for the Landis matter to be fully resolved. It'll be a while yet before Kohl is. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohl has been found guilty and banned for two years, but there's nothing about the results being stripped. They are usually done together... strange. Severo^TC 15:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very strange. I tried to find if there is something in the Tour de France rules about disqualifications. This is what I found:

“

En cas de disqualification d’un coureur avant l’homologation du résultat de l’épreuve, le classement individuel est modifié. En cas de disqualification d’un coureur après l’homologation du résultat de l’épreuve le classement individuel est modifié, au besoin, pour les 20 premières places uniquement. Pour le reste, la place du coureur disqualifié restera vide.

”

— Articles 3-37, 4-30, 2008 Tour de France rules

As far as I understand French, it means that Schumacher's, Piepoli's and Riccò's stage victories can still be changed to the second-placed finishers. Moreover:

“

En cas de disqualification d’un coureur avant l’homologation du résultat de l’épreuve, tous les classements sont modifiés. En cas de disqualification d’un coureur après l’homologation du résultat de l’épreuve, le classement général individuel est modifié, au besoin, pour les 20 premières places uniquement. Si un coureur est disqualifié pour une infraction commise lors d’une étape qu’il a gagnée, le deuxième coureur prend la première place de l’étape. Si le vainqueur d’un classement annexe est disqualifié, le deuxième de ce classement prend la première place. Pour le reste, la place du coureur disqualifié restera vide.

”

— Article 6-29, 2008 Tour de France rules

It explicitly says here that the victories go to the second-placed finishers, and that the mountains classification from Kohl can go to the second-placed finisher. The rules also have an English section, where it says:

“

As far as prizes are concerned, the consequences of a positive drug test, or of any other violation of anti-doping rules (refusal to take a test, fraud or attempt at fraud, etc.) are as follows: An offence is registered during or following a stage: the rider loses all prizes obtained during that stage; Disqualification: the rider loses all prizes won since the day the offence occurred or the day the test was taken.

”

— Article 28, 2008 Tour de France rules

Reading this, it looks like the involved cyclists lost their victories already. I don't understand why this hasn't happened yet, for example with Kohl who admitted everything. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the legal (legalistic?) distinction is that none of them were disqualified. The protocol was that any doping cases would withdraw, which is what Ricco and the rest of Saunier Scott Duval did (and Beltran and Duenas), and of course Piepoli, Schumacher and Kohl weren't unmasked until after the race. So effectively it seems that judgement and sanction have been announced, but that sanction does not (yet, at least) include retroactive disqualification. Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read German, see this source, the announcement of the two-year ban by the Austrian anti-doping agency. I will quote the most relevant section:

“

Weiters wurden die vom Athleten Bernhard Kohl nach dem 3.7.2008 erzielten anderen Wettkampfergebnisse für ungültig erklärt bzw. wurde dieser von diesen Bewerben disqualifiziert bzw ausgeschlossen.

”

My translation which will not be 100% accurate:

“

Additionally, all results from athlete Bernhard Kohl after 3 July 2008 are declared invalid, he is to be disqualified or removed from the results.

”

This seems pretty official. Still, the tour-site still ranks him on his page, and on the page of the 2008 Tour de France. Kohl confessed everything, so I don't know why they are still waiting with changing the results. We now have a conflicting situation: the doping agency says he is removed from the results, but the tour organisation has not done it. I still think we should follow the tour organisation on wikipedia, but in my personal archive I removed him (as if anybody cares about that...). --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is who has the authority to remove these results from this race. It has to be the ASO. And they've, to my knowledge, said nothing. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this posted here previously? Letour.fr has definitely removed Kohl from both the polka-dot jersey and the third step of the podium. They just haven't yet upgraded Sastre or Menchov. I don't think we need to wait for their webmaster to update pages like [2] to at least edit to reflect Kohl's removal from his results. Gonna be bold and do it. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UCI seem to have removed Kohl: as found by Bizkaino. But it's not an event under the auspices of UCI, so is that definitive? What a mess: was a doping incident really so unthinkable that they would not have a contingency in place? Kevin McE (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be repetitious, but...The question is who has the authority to remove these results from this race. It has to be the ASO. Also, [3] at least confirms that Kohl (and, for that matter, Schumacher) has been removed, but it stops short of saying Menchov and Sastre (or Kirchen and Cancellara, in Schumacher's case) have been upgraded. It doesn't say that Piepoli or Riccò's wins have been stricken from the record, either. It also says Danilo Di Luca has been removed from second in the Giro, which is news to me. [4] also repeats that Kohl has been removed from the podium, but does not say that Menchov is now on it. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place excuses because I don't speak very well English. That information took it out of several forums where they put that page of results: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]... I cannot assure that it is an official page but for example in other articles, for example in the references of Steve Peat is indicated as official page of the UCI. It is also the same design that uses the UCI for the results: [11] ¿maybe infostradasports it does copy the results that it publishes the UCI? Finally in this document: [12] appears this e-mail: infostradasports@uci.ch that it coincides with the uci.ch of page of UCI. --Bizkaino (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those carry the authoritativeness of the ASO (this race was not conducted under the auspices of the UCI; they can say you or I won the polka dot jersey if they want to, but that doesn't mean they have the power to say so). I'm not sure why you linked to that other rider, but his results are from races that were conducted under the auspices of the UCI. If we were talking about the Volta a Catalunya or some other UCI ProTour race, then yes, the UCI would have the power to remove a result, but they don't. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasons. That it is clear that the UCI.infostradasport is an official page of the UCI I add so that he to that appears the page only it is necessary to open any page of UCI ranking (for example in this page: Europe Tour 2009 link) with secondary button of the mouse (open option) appears this page. Other similar example, if you open with secondary button 2009 link on this page appears this page: [13]. And this with all pages of Continental rankings of UCI.

Apparently that it page appears all the races. For that reason it is normal that the Tour 2008 appears in that page. --Bizkaino (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riccò's stage wins stripped

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2009-11-12-3858155819_x.htm

Do we take this to mean that Valverde and Efimkin have been promoted? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 04:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ASO-document confirms this, so I changed it in the article, also for Piepoli and Schumacher. The ASO document makes clear that (at the time of writing) Valverde and Efimkin had not been promoted yet.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2008 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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} 11:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Tour de France. 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/20080620011914/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxwWIhZ6kC1VbnHNkea3oWGXJonQD9180C7G1 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxwWIhZ6kC1VbnHNkea3oWGXJonQD9180C7G1

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} 15:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 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:

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

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) 19:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 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:

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) 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008 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
Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gd1Z4lZt9KeuTey0Ml33U-B7wCIw
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805045346/http://www.velonews.com/article/81057/andrew-hood-s-tour-de-france-notebook---sastres-tour to http://www.velonews.com/article/81057/andrew-hood-s-tour-de-france-notebook---sastres-tour
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005032446/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2008076751_tour28.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2008076751_tour28.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportinglife.com/others/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=others%2F08%2F07%2F27%2FCYCLING_Tour_Fofonov.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) 05:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 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:

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) 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: pre-race favorites

There seems to be a table missing. Firestar47 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]