Talk:1962 Tour de France

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 1962 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160902063444/http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/1962/partants.html to http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/1962/partants.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD02/HEM/1962/05/13/MD19620513-008.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD02/HEM/1962/06/25/MD19620625-007.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD02/HEM/1962/07/07/MD19620707-005.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD02/HEM/1962/07/11/MD19620711-003.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pages.rapha.cc/stories/tour-de-france-1962-6
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD02/HEM/1962/07/15/MD19620715-005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Edition?
I always think this looks funny and pretentious. Is the Tour de France, in some sense, a publication? Was there a first edition? Can you get signed copies? Will it ever come out in paperback? Maybe "staging" would be less hokey. But actually you don't need anything there at all. For this to be displayed as Wikipedia's finest work makes the project look amateurish. --84.64.251.19 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I too thought the same when I first got into cycling. I can assure it's very common language within cycling, just search the web for "Tour de France edition" to see for yourself. BaldBoris 12:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wording
I recently changed:



to:



Disappointingly, that has been reverted. I'm not precious about the exact wording, but repeating "Tour de France" in "The 1962 Tour de France was the 49th edition of the Tour de France" is awful; especially when the plural "tours" is then used immediately afterwards. And in the openings sentence, doubly so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a fair point about the repetition of "Tour de France", but I think there were problems with the other version too. I'm at work but will try to get back to this over the weekend and find better phrasing; or someone else may come up with something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Andy, I don't think anyone can deny that the close repetition of "Tour de France" is awkward. It has for a long time been a bug bare of mine which unfortunately has never been solved. This problem must have similar instances across Wiki due to the effort to embolden the article title within the opening sentence. All featured cycling stage race articles have used the same wording, using "edition" or "running". Your change to be honest doesn't sound right. I think we need a Shakespeare on this. BaldBoris 00:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If no one can deny that the close repetition is awkward, why was it restored? We don't need a Shakespeare, just competent writing. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored it because I thought the revision was worse. How about "The 1962 edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours, took place between 24 June and 15 July."?  I think this is an example of MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If this dreadfully clunky sentence is being reworked, maybe it's a chance to lose "edition" as well. I know this is a popular term among some sports fans, as noted in the above section, but it is unencyclopedic (a bicycle race is not a book), and it adds nothing. A Featured article should be better than this, surely? --84.64.251.19 (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not against rephrasing, and not against getting rid of the word "edition", but if you look at the dictionary entry for "edition", you can see that it does not exclusively mean something printed on paper, but more generally means something that is presented as part of a series . So bringing up that the Tour is not a book is not a very good argument. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me to the dictionary definition of "edition". I am well aware that this is a meaning that the word has: see above, but as your first link shows, "edition"'s first meaning is related to publications, things which are edited. A bicycle race, not being a publication, doesn't need this word in the way that a Shakespeare folio would. It's just a bit of pretentious jargon, and the article would be better without it. --84.64.251.19 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It must be noted that this issue isn't specific to this article, and that the majority of road bicycle races follow the exact same wording, or just swapping "edition" for "running" as I've mentioned above. Because of this I'm moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling. BaldBoris 00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)