Talk:2013 UCI World Tour

Sources' formatting
( and all) Having refereces linked to some actual text


 * Source: source-name

as after my edit

looks much better, in my opinion, than having a floating reference number lost in space



if older pages use the later style, then they could, and should, be improved; reverting a good edit for the sake of a poor consistency is a waste of efforts, mine and yours. Please help, by improving the older pages, or suggesting something even better, or at least let this one be and I'll get to fix them later. Thank you. - Nabla (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sadly the user Cs-wolves chose to revert without explaining anything other than it has been so before. So I ask which formatting does look better?
 * style A - floating reference number, no text (on page example)
 * or
 * style B - short text + reference (on page example)
 * Source: source-name
 * or... what?
 * Whatever style, I do agree that we should get all the previous pages using the same, I did not at first simply because I have not remembered to check them (also it is best not to engage in mass changes)
 * Thank you.- Nabla (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: asked for input at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling&diff=prev&oldid=568129674 WProject Cycling] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=568129991 wp:MoS]] - Nabla (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PPS: asked also a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=569349718&oldid=569299266 third opinion] - Nabla (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PPS: asked also a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=569349718&oldid=569299266 third opinion] - Nabla (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)