Talk:2008 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11

Jersey Colouring in Standings
Looking at previous corresponding articles, (2006 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 11 + 2007 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 10) it seems that the colours have been used to represent the leaders after the race and not who was wearing the jersey during the race, except where the jersey wearer is the second placed rider. I'm not sure I quite agree with this practice, following the changes made over the last 10/15 mins to the first stage article, I'd rather keep the same format running across tours than change it on a whim; any changes, then, need to be approved more generally. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, have a look at the discussion here, which happened during this year's Giro. It was decided that it's better NOT to add the jersey colours in the stage results except when the rider was already wearing the jersey. -- Pelotas talk  16:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to stage articles
There was a problem with the links from the "Stages" table to the stage sections at 2008 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11 and 2008 Tour de France, Stage 12 to Stage 21. As the section headings in the subsidiary articles had the date embedded into them, the links only worked iif the user's date preference matched that in the wikilink in the "Stages" table. As I'm sure I've read that any wiklink in section headings is frowned upon, I have amended the section headings in the subsidiary articles to read simply "Stage 1" etc. with the date and stage details in bold immediately below. I hope this is O.K. --Bikeroo (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Side-by-side tables
They really look ugly at the point when the GC time is six digits (stage 3 and beyond), making it such a fat box. Is it really necessary that they be side-by-side? Nosleep1234 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it's the length of "Team Garmin-Chipotle" doing this, not the GC time. But I still don't really care for the side-by-side tables. Nosleep1234 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the standard I know is being used for all the other "road bicycle race"-articles. It also prevents excessive scrolling, as the article grows longer every day! lil2mas (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, damn
I've tried to be less verbose in writing stage summaries, after putting out some true monsters last year (which, by the way, still exist). If I'm just to be "abridged" anyway, why should I write anything? Nosleep (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if any offence caused. I think that there should be some sort of consensus on the expected length of these summaries.  My preference would be that it should be possible to see at least most of the result and standings tables on screen at the same time as the summary.  Short-lived attempts at breaks are not of lasting significance.  We should be reporting for an encyclopaedia, not a journal of cycling. Kevin McE (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a knee-jerk reaction on a bad day, pay it no mind. :) Nosleep (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I will say it's kind of hard to have one standard across stages. On a flat stage, you can probably summarize everything in three sentences - "Ludovic Turpin, Juan Antonio Flecha, and Michael Boogerd broke away at the 10 kilometer mark. They were caught with 7 kilometers to go. Robbie McEwen won the bunched sprint to the line." In a mountain stage, a lot more happens. There's considerably more strategy and tactics, and physical action as well. As I said, I've tried to tone down my verbosity, and I think I've done all right at it (still should not have reacted the way I did). If no record of those strategy and tactics and physical action belongs in the article, well then fine. I'd be disappointed as hell if that were the case, but fine. Being that yesterday was the first mountain stage, I had a few kinks to work out, but I think today's report is better (it's only 3 paragraphs). Nosleep (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)