Talk:2000 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.

Lance Armstrong and vacated wins[edit]

I know a lot of people were angry over Armstrong's admission of doping, especially from outside of the United States, the idea being that had he not doped, it might have given their countries' representatives a chance for the gold. That said, from a historical perspective, it makes not so much sense to list the winner of the Tour de France as "none" -- there is a precedent for vacated wins in which the name of the individual or team is listed and then (vacated) is placed alongside it. To emphasize that the win has been vacated, I've also seen a strikethrough across the individual or team. I'd like to propose this as a standard, as no such standard has seemingly been agreed upon. Shiggity (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to imply that the winner is listed as "none" because non-Americans think Armstrong stole their chance of seeing someone of their country win. I don't think that is the reason; I think the reason is that the relevant cycling authorities (UCI, ASO) said that these Tours would have no winner. I am not aware of the precedent you refer to, can you show an example of where that happened? Anyhow, this discussion could probably better be done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform. Think about this from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the events described in the article. Listing Armstrong as the winner crossed out with a note that he was (after a large lapse of time) disqualified, allows people to quickly understand what happened. Obliterating references to historical events results in confusion. Armstrong stood on the podium in the yellow jersey. He was regarded as the winner for many years. Then he was disqualified. You should be able to quickly understand this from the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.122.120 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and this is already done in the articles for the latter Tours, so I'm doing this. Shiggity (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2000 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/20130209134934/http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/tour-de-france-demystified-part-1.html to http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/tour-de-france-demystified-part-1.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: 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) 01:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]