Talk:2008 Giro d'Italia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2008 Giro d'Italia has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 27, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
April 6, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Italy (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cycling (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

teamname abbreviations[edit]

Should we use abbreviations for the team names, just like what has been done for the 2007, 2006 and 2005 Giro d'Italia entries, etc.? Maxcheung (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks ok as it is, the really long teamnames have been shortened already, for instance Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni-Androni Giocattoli becomes Diquigiovanni-Androni. --Pelotastalk 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No, shortening to abbreviations adds nothing. As they aren't familiar to most fans, let alone anyone else reading the article, so we should stick to team names. Abbreviations such as GCE or SDA are meaningless (and can be easily confused, SDA/SDV, THR/TCS/TSL). SeveroTC 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

adding Jersey Colour[edit]

When a rider is not leading in a classification but 'wins' the jersey because of his result in the stage, some people want to already add the background color of this jersey in the stage result. Others don't like it there. Examples are the race results of stages 2 (Ricco in cyclamino), 3 (Bennati in cyclamino) and 9 (Bennati in cyclamino). Personally I also think it should NOT be colored, as when crossing the line the rider is not wearing the jersey. It should ofcourse be added in the overall standings, because (and that is what it says) it is the result AFTER the race. Coloring it in the race results causes strange things, for instance if you look at the general standings after stage 8 it says Ricco is in cyclamino, but then if you look at the stage 9 result you see Bennati won the stage, apparently in cyclamino although he only got the jersey after the stage. I don't mind coloring it anyway although I think it's not right, but we should come to a concensus rather than changing it all the time. --Pelotastalk 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this too, because we have different ideas applied across different articles and it should be the same. I agree with you, the stage results should indicate what they were wearing when they crossed the line; the overall standing with what they were presented with after the stage. What about if a rider is wearing a jersey for another rider (i.e. are second in the classification but wearing the jersey because the classification leader is wearing something else)? SeveroTC 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you on that issue, and I tried to correct it, but it got reverted by User:Kevin McE. I also noticed Severo tried to correct it one time, but someone must have reverted that one aswell. lil2mas (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless an edit is clearly vandalism, or is perpetuating an edit war, it is not helpful to personalise these comments. As I explained in my edit notes, I reverted to a version of the age that had internal consistency: we are showing Vande Velde in pink in the stage 1 result, and Pellizotti on stage 2. There was no discussion here before Theilert (not lil2mas) made his/her changes, and I explained my reasons clearly in an edit note. Please note that this method is consistent with what happened, unchallenged, at the stage results pages of last year's TdF, and is consistent with the Jersey progress table, and therefore I assume that it is a long established way of showing results here. I certainly understand the opinion you have, and there might be grounds for discussion involving WP:CYCLING if you wish to propose a change to the convention, but it is somewhat arrogant to describe it as a correction. FWIW, I think it seems odd to have side by side boxes recording the same instant in time, and yet indicating different jersey wearers; what we display should be confirmed results, which might occasionally be different from the first past the post, and at the time of confirmation of results, the jerseys can be confirmed; and what we are interested in is the leaders of each classification, not the colour that somebody actually wore. Kevin McE (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you, it wasn't intentional. I thought Pelotas started this discussion before I made my change, so I started writing my comment, but got interrupted by a friend and posted it about an hour later. The reason I mentioned your edit, was because I were to try clarifying your edit summary in case you wouldn't participate in this discussion, but forgot when I came back to post.
I actually thought this issue had been raised before I made my change! I did some editing during last year's Giro and as I remember it; we did it the way Pelotas, Severo and myself think it should be done.
But back to the issue of the discussion: The two boxes doesn't "record the same instance in time":

  • The one on the left represents what happens in that stage, therefore the final time and top 5 standings.
  • The one on the right, General Classification, actually records a "summary" of all the stages up to the stage in question.

If we are to colour the left box, only wearers of the jersey during the stage in question, should be coloured. It would be wrong to colour the riders that received their jerseys after the race! So then the only question leads to colouring or no colouring in the left box? The colouring in the right box shouldn't be an issue, even though the wearers of the different jerseys after each stage anyway are summarized in the Jersey progress. The question Severo brings up is relevant, and should be discussed after this issue is resolved. lil2mas (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To say "only wearers of the jersey during the stage in question, should be coloured" is to beggar the question entirely: that is what we are discussing, and the fact that your preference differs from the tacit consensus in a bigger recent event (2007 TdF) is evidence that the issue is far from decided. I repeat that they do not show different moments in time, because the race results are subject to ratification; they show what is known when each stage is over, but was unknown before the stage. Any changes can easily be seen by comparison with the table for the preceding stage, which easily fits on the same views on all but the tiniest screens. As regards Severo's question, I have already given my opinion on that above. The nature of the different specialities is that the person gaining the sprinters' or climbers' jerseys will not feature in the top 5 of GC, but might be in the top 5 on the stage for 2 or more successive stages, and showing jerseys gained on the day's results would assist that. Undoubtedly there are advantages to either system: please present reasons for your suggestions, but don't say that one is right or wrong, or what "should be" as if this were uncontrovertible. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
But Vande Velde is not being shown in pink in the stage 1 result, but in the classification following the stage. They are recording two different moments in time. The result of the stage is the time as the stage finishes. The classification is made following the stage, i.e. a moment later in time. There is no particular, established. way of displayin results and things have been evolving, such as the disuse of team codes and increase in use of {{flagathlete}}. We can take this to WP:CYC but we'll only get the same people engaged anyway! SeveroTC 22:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


To clarify this issue for editors and readers, I propose we should add a legend like this:

What do you guys think? I'm open for modifications... lil2mas (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea. The only additions I'd make is possibly adding "Shows the rider wearing the pink jersey as general classification leader during the stage", and making it hidden when the page loads. This could also be made as a template so that it can easily be added to the other articles and an adapted version made for the Tour, Vuelta etc. I'll have a think because I'm quite sure we could do a very clever template with this. SeveroTC 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Teams, cyclists, withdrawals[edit]

I think we could reduce the lists in the "Teams and cyclists" and "Withdrawals" into List of teams and cyclists in the 2008 Giro d'Italia, replacing the lists in the main article with prose. Thoughts? SeveroTC 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationalities[edit]

If flags are shown, is there a need to give nationalities in an abbreviated form in brackets after the riders' names? Or conversely, if the riders' nationalities are indicated by an abbreviation, what purpose do the flags serve. And is there any reason why, on English language Wikipedia, Spain is abbreviated to ESP??? Kevin McE (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you've never been caught up in the war that is WP:FLAGS!!! Basically, flags are good but they can be confusing. For example, a quick glance can confuse these two: Republic of Ireland Ivory Coast. And how about New Zealand and Australia. The use of {{flagathlete}} (or {{flagIOCathlete}} as appropriate) mitigates against some of the problems and really is a best-fit solution. It provides a quick visual reference of nationality for those familiar with flags; provides standard country code (IOC-code, and I think UCI-code is matched in most cases) if you're not sure (with alt-text as the country name); and finally doesn't overemphasise nationality (since they are not representing a national team in the race). Lastly, I think it's generally a good thing to present the information in a similar way to Olympic articles (and there is a hell of a lot of discussion on flags and codes at WikiProject Olympics!), for example. SeveroTC 00:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sella[edit]

Is there any impending likelihood that he will be struck from the record like Landis, Petacchi, Kohl, etc..? If so, tenth overall would become  Vincenzo Nibali (ITA), Liquigas, + 20' 14", tenth in the KOM would be  Franco Pellizotti (ITA), Liquigas, 17 points, and tenth on points would be  Marzio Bruseghin (ITA), Lampre, 65 points. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Giro d'Italia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Well written, complies sufficiently with MoS. I made some minor copy-edits for style and grammar.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References to WP:RS, all check out. All salient points sufficiently referenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Focussed and broad in coverage
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV throughout
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Imgaes appropriatley licenced and with suitable captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am pleased that this article sufficiently meets the GA criteria to be awarded GA status. On aminor point, nothing to do with GA status, it would be good to give the Italian name of the pink jersey (maglia rosa) at the first mention, you could wikilink to General classification in the Giro d'Italia. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    Easiest GA pass ever :) Thanks for your review. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)