Talk:2012 UCI World Tour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cycling (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Points removed[edit]

I removed Pozzato's points: (80 pts). Riders of continental teams don't receive points earned in World Tour races, so their points don't "exist". I chose to delete them in order to adapt the table to UCI regulations. I added a note now. For my part, you may undo the changes once again if you don't agree. --Heunir (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I had reverted this the first time it was done, as there was no explanation, and no editnote. I've tweaked the edit note, and shown it as 0 points, rather than a deleted 80 pts, which looks like a sanction. In Feb 2012, UCI suddenly decided that non ProTeam riders were indeed eligible for 2011 points, and added them in while deleting Contador's results: who knows what they'll do this year: they surely don't. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris Anker Sørensen - missing points[edit]

Chris Anker Sørensen finished 5th on stage 4 of Volta Catalunya, which should have earned him a point. It's just not there. I would have added it without asking here, but since it isn't on the official list either, I'd much rather ask: Does anyone know why he didn't get those points ? Golas got 4 points for his second place on the same stage, so Sørensen should be getting some points for his 5th place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.106.250.94 (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The stage was neutralised. --Pirker (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
And what about the points Golas earned, finishing second on that stage? I know they're not listed (anymore), but they're still there. The problem here, I know, isn't with Wikipedia. It's with UCI, being that inconsistent. 2.106.250.94 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Same anon as before.
UCI are in a right mess over this: they have given Brajkovic and Golas 6 and 4 points respectively, Carrara who came 3rd on the stage has only been given 1 point instead of 2, Cherel extraordinarily has 2 points for coming 4th, and Sorensen has nothing for 5th. If they invite you to a party in a beer production plant I'd be inclined to decline. Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
A bit more investigation, and it turns out that the UCI are reporting two different results for this stage. They report the results that we have, per the Volta website, on the World Tour site, but on the main UCI sire they have a different top ten. Points issued are consistent with this set of results (1 Janez BRAJKOVIC SLO AST 29 2 Michal GOLAS POL OPQ 28 +0 3 Mikael CHEREL FRA ALM 26 +0 4 Matteo CARRARA ITA VCD 33 +0 5 Thomas ROHREGGER AUT RNT 30 +0 6 Chris Anker SÖRENSEN DEN SAX 28 +0 7 Christian VANDEVELDE USA GRM 36 +0 8 Johann TSCHOPP SUI BMC 30 +0 9 Steven KRUIJSWIJK NED RAB 25 +0 10 Romain BARDET FRA ALM 22 +0). I've e-mailed them. Kevin McE (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
And they have replied to the effect that the results were changed (no reason given as to why) some time after they were first published. They rather snootily point out that the organizers' site has failed to make the correction, but handily ignored the fact their own uciworldtour.com site is equally guilty of the same omission: I'll watch with interest to see whether they amend it in response to my prompting. In the meanwhile, the answer to the OP's question about Sorensen's points is that, having come 6th on a recount, he didn't earn any, and our results column for stage 3 should probably be adjusted (now done). Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Frankly Kevin, you should be doing this job for them! Pretty Green (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I could cope with living by Lake Geneva and watching bike races all day... Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Nice work! It always amazes me how little effort they put into this kind of thing - and their online archives are even worse... They could do a lot worse than pay someone to keep on top of it all! SeveroTC 20:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Turns out there is video of the finish on youtube, and Sorensen clearly actually finished 9th. As to whether the UCI will be interested in having results that reflect the truth... Kevin McE (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Points as a separate column[edit]

An editor has made the cosmetic change today of placing the points for podium finishers, placing the points in a separate column rather than under the rider's name in the same box. I don't think there is any particular encyclopaedic point of preference, and although I find the previous presentation clearer (but there again, I designed it), any difference is very marginal. It is essentially a matter of aesthetic impression: anyone with strong opinions? Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was interested in the points allocations and found the previous layout slightly difficult to read, being in contiguous columns. But I won't be fussed if you want to revert back - its mainly aesthetics. Moondyne (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


Contador's points[edit]

Just highlighting an error in this page; apparently any points he scored don't count for his team, but do for his nation. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-points-count-for-nation-ranking-but-not-for-team — Preceding unsigned comment added by XyZAn (talkcontribs) 15:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it means that the points don't count towards the "sporting criterion" team total that decides the allocation of 2013 UCI World Tour licenses. This is different from the 2012 UCI World Tour team total.--Racklever (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Presentation of WTTT points[edit]

Another essentially aesthetic issue, but let's not continue doing this by undiscussed editing. I prefer CS Wolves' presentation, or perhaps that with the WTTT points in the first column to avoid the large empty space before it in the table for some teams. I don't like the current version, as the meaning of WTTT is unclear unless the reader has read the Team Sky entry, and interspersing this initialism among the names of people looks odd (yes: I know that it is what is on the UCI site: I think it looks daft there too). Kevin McE (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me right now, maybe we should put the reference with the note and not directly in the table? In the team rankings I prefer to have the separate WTTT column as it looks weird putting it in between the riders... Pelotastalk|contribs 11:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)