Talk:2009 UCI World Ranking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allan Davis[edit]

Um...how did Allan Davis become the leader after the Volta a Catalunya, when Davis is racing the Giro d'Italia? Nosleep break my slumber 19:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By gaining 20 points, so far, in the Giro (1 second place, 2 thirds, and 2 fourths): as the footnote says "all points from the Volta a Catalunya, and stage points from first 15 stages of the Giro, factored in" Kevin McE (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, good footnote. Nosleep break my slumber 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm tracking these statistics as much as the next guy, but it is still inaccurate to say he is the new leader when the UCI decide the rankings and they say Heinrich Haussler is still the leader. Same with the rankings after the Vuelta al Pais Vasco, these were not updated by the UCI till after the Paris-Roubaix was finished, so really Heinrich Haussler was the leader after the Vuelta. 86.150.208.40 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are we saying that points are not awarded until they are posted on the UCI site? They have already been won, and it is simply a matter of how soon UCI get around to updating their sites. Are we not permitted to be more efficient than them? Kevin McE (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree here. I'd go against updating until the UCI update. The FIFA Rankings and the ATP Rankings are not updated mid-tournament and we shouldn't do the same. It is the UCI's rankings, not ours, so we aren't permitted to be more efficient. I think we should revise these to official updates only, unless you can persuade why these should be treated differently to rankings in other sports? --Pretty Green (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards other sports, league tables in football are updated by TV stations and reliable websites (BBC etc) effectively from the blowing of the final whistle, but the organisers of the league might not have anyone in their office at the time to ratify the results. This is possible because the formula is clear and simple. Cycling doesn't have the same sort of coverage, but the full facts are available to us, so why not add points that we know are to be added? Given that points for the like of Colom are still posted, it's not as though the UCI have any apparent grounds for not ratifying points, and the results are published as stage results by multiple reliable sources before any change is made on this article. At the point in time at which the Volta finished, Allan Davis had earned more UCI ranking points than anyone else: as I type this, Alberto Contador has more points "in the bank" than Alejandro Valverde, whether or not that "bank statement" has yet been printed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comparing leagues though; I'm comparing rankings. I suppose if we take this to be a league system then updating is fine, just as we can update a race ranking before the official websites have been updated, for example. But as I read this the competition is a ranking system and rankings are traditionally released by an official body (eg UCI) on periodic occasions. Again, then, I'd compare this to the FIFA Rankings and not the Premier League. I don't disagree with you that Contador, for example, currently has more points 'in the bank', but at the moment he is not the leader of the UCI World Rankings as I read it and won't be until the UCI deigns to release a list. As I said above; the list is the UCI's, not Wikipedia's. As far as I can tell, manually adding the points theoretically gained by each rider as a race is ongoing to their previous total is original research. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Shouldn't this article be assessed as a list, maybe? All it does is list all standings? There aren't much opportunity to write much prose in this article, other than trivia facts. lil2mas (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Poland/Rutkiewicz disqualified?[edit]

Can anyone find a reference for the rule under which the points gained by Marek Rutkiewicz have not been credited by UCI either to him, or to the team, or to his country? 6th place overall and 5th on one stage should have earned him, his team and his country 41 points. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation 2.10.002:
SeveroTC 11:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. Now, any idea why the anonymous space with Serrano's points has been removed from the UCI list, while those blanks referring to Di Luca, Pfannberger and Landaluze are still represented, although not by name? My guess was that they still make a contribution to their team's or nation's score, but Landaluze's single point did not put him in the top 5 for either Spain or Euskaltel. Kevin McE (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this but can't find a definitive answer. The only reason I found for names being removed from the classification is if they are no longer a member of an eligible team i.e. in this case have been sacked by their team for doping. SeveroTC 11:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until UCI publishes[edit]

The rankings as they are currently in the page do not correspond to the source. The source on the uci website shows the ranking before the Vuelta a España, but on this page the results of the Vuelta stages have already been factored in. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the way I understand that policy is that we should wait until the UCI updates their rankings, before we update the ranking on this page. At this moment, Cavendish is ranked above Valverde, and this won't change until the next update, so the Wikipedia article should reflect that. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion above: my argument is that the points have been won, and the fact that they have been won is verifiable. Just because the UCI don't bother updating their site every time points are won doesn't mean that we can't: greater efficiency than the UCI is not crystalballing. But if people want to have a !vote, let it be. Kevin McE (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I hadn't read the discussion above. It is verifiable that if you follow the method of the UCI, and include all the results that they have not included yet, the current ranking would be the one that is in the article. But the ranking is not the "UCI World Ranking" unless it is done by the UCI, I think. If this is not crystalballing then it may be original research.
(By the way, I don't mean to throw policy rules at you. I just have the feeling that this should not be in Wikipedia, and I use these policies (CRYSTAL and OR) just as a way to express my thoughts. I feel that one should not use policy to enforce something unless you are in a real wikipedia fight, and if I see a fight coming up I just leave the arena.)
Anyway, I think I made my point that I think it is unnecessary to update the ranking every day. If you enjoy updating the rankings after every day, then who am I to stop you ;) I changed the introduction to the table, to make it more clear in the text, in stead of only in the footnote. If you object, you can change it back.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all over[edit]

Valverde's not riding the Giro di Lombardia. So Contador is our champion (everyone who's surprised, raise your hand...yeah, didn't think so). Does this bear mentioning in the article before the Giro di Lombardia is run? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Alberto Contador assumed the lead in the individual rankings after his victory in the Tour de France, and was assured of finishing the season as individual winner when the only rider who could have overtaken him, Alejandro Valverde, decided against competing in the final ranking event, the Giro Lombardia. Or something like that. Kevin McE (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it was Valverde's decision or CONI's (which kind of propels this into the "duh" realm), but that's good wording otherwise. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 09:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 UCI World Ranking. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 UCI World Ranking. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_UCI_World_Ranking&oldid=1196551555"