Talk:2004 Tour de France

Any reason to not link to individual time trial ? AHands 19:53, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * The rule on Wikipedia seems to be that there shouldn't be duplicate links; there is already an ITT link in the introduction. Eugene van der Pijll 20:04, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the tour, but I must question the appropriateness of such a detailed account.

For example:

However, around 15:00, with 100 km raced, ten men made it away, coalescing from a number of smaller breaks - they were a sufficient mix of teams (nine!) and low places (the best placed was 43rd) that there was no team wanting to chase. The ten quickly pulled away, gaining a 2'50" advantage in the next 15 minutes of racing. After a hour in the lead and with 50 km to go their advantage was 10'50". The peleton was 'policed' by Brioches la Boulangere and the ten men kept working together into the final 15 kilometres, leading by 13'19".

Is this really of genuine historical value? Sure, I'd be interested in reading about it in the sports page tomorrow, but 2 years from now, much less 20, who'll care?

What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories"

-John R. Daily


 * While it is arguably over-detailed, and more than the other main contributor would write, I will offer some counter-arguments.


 * First another 'not', the #1 on the list - "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." And I'd rather see detail than a sub-500 byte stub.


 * Second, genuine historical value is not a Wikipedia criteria - if it was I feel some 50,000+ articles should be cut (hmmm... tempting).


 * Detail has its value, especially in a sporting context. The bald list of times and winners - the historical facts if you will - suffers from being barely contextualized... it is sterile, lacking in the essential spirit of a competitive endevour. While my descriptions are in no sense perfect, in twenty years they will be better than a simple list - a stage is not just its winners, it is the twists and turns of escapes, the breaks chased down or getting away, the tactics and the route. I feel it is preferable to 'see' the race - now or in 20 years. TwoOneTwo 20:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Detail is good
I have to agree that I would rather have more detail than less for each stage. Because of the nature of the Tour - the strategy, the different "races within the race", and the fact that you can look at each stage as an individual event - reading through the day's results encapsulates, and adds depth, to a legendary event.

Agree with level of detail
I'd also agree with TwoOneTwo. Why not give a little play by play for extra "color". It IS fact, it IS accurate. It might have a bit too much "fanboyishness" in it, but that's 99% of the people reading it, too.

peleton/peloton
this article has two spellings for peleton/peloton (and a few occurences of pelton). For consistency, I changed them all to peloton, since peleton isn't in my dictionary. peleton is a redirect here at wikipedia to peloton.

Mountains
Rasmussen and Basso both finished with 119 points in the Mountains classification, so isn't Basso considered third because of a higher GC finish? I changed it; please let me know if I'm wrong. Nosleep1234 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Photos
Lots of good photos of the tour licensed CC-BY available at. I uploaded a few to Commons already, but I can't identify the cyclists and the photographer doesn't really have any notes. Perhaps some of the cycling experts here can make good use of them.  howcheng  {chat} 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.velonews.com/tour2004/results/articles/6666.0.html
 * In 2004 Tour de France on 2011-05-25 07:48:46, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Tour de France on 2011-06-11 12:15:20, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)