Talk:RideLondon

Merge
Yes merge with the London Freewheel article, it's the same thing under a different name. ProfDEH (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the text to try and reduce the copy that read like an advertisement. The text had been copied and pasted direct from the event website, and should have been re-purposed.

This has now been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaseKent (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 August 2009

Past rides
Why reverse chronological order? It would be more conventional to have the rides in order. Grim23 ★ 19:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The text builds the history of the event that way. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs major re-think regarding the name
First it was Hovis Freewheel, then for several years it was Skyride (sponsored by Sky) and now (2013) it's Prudential RideLondon. This is confusing a lot of people, including me as a regular ride leader! It's not at all clear that the name has simply changed.

This whole page really needs sorting out. I assume the plan is to keep the name as RideLondon and just change the prefix when the sponsor changes, so a better name might be RideLondon with redirects from other pages mentioning the sponsor (e.g. London Freewheel, Prudential RideLondon, Skyride and so on).

Fjleonhardt (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally - however it could just be subdivided as it has become a festival!


 * Moreover, how the article can read "The number taking part in the main ride peaked at 80,000 in 2010", how depressing and pessimistic. It sounds like something Ken Livingstone would write... -  Adam37   Talk  20:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

...i'm not sure why the nature of Ken Livingston's hypothetical wikipedia editing style is relevant, seems a rather political/POV point to make, speaking as an English language native, non-British person; rather confused by it Mpjmcevoy (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is very much POV, as is anything to do with name changes. The POV is that the whole event has become a major festival, featuring now, I see, its own article on the London-Surrey Classic!  Now it seems hard to resist the name change probably to drop Prudential.  But the point on emphasising with emotive language one negative feature about sheer number of participants in a non-comparable event is strong.  The point made on that score is that the event has been very diverse and evolved into many different forms. -  Adam37   Talk  10:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please can we change the name of the page to just 'RideLondon' after the event in 2015? This is because the sponsor will no longer be Prudential...thanks April from London & Parnters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.40.9.68 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've done some work to the article to reflect this. I'm waiting for a redirect to be deleted so that this can be moved to the RideLondon page. I've made it clearer in the lead that this began as the London Freewheel, followed by Skyride and then RideLondon, and included sponsors. I've also removed the results for events where there are already separate articles and the tables are merely copied here. There's more to do I'm sure, but this is a start. Cloudbound (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

separate 'festival' from 'race' alone
Is there an argument for having a separate page for the 2.1 category race itself, linked to, but separate from, an article on the wider cycling festival?
 * Separate articles for RideLondon–Surrey Classic and 2013 RideLondon–Surrey Classic exist and thus section entitled RideLondon London-Surrey Cycle Classic should be renamed to the correct name (since no articles now link to this section) and greatly simplified (removal of results, etc...). Perhaps the same could be done for the Grand Prix? Clivester1 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Article flags
Just a note to explain my actions. This article was tagged by in November 2016 as having  RefImprove, Advert and Conflict of Interest issues, those flags have twice been removed from the article, and restored on each occasion by me; I believe that the issues that caused Kleuske to add the flags have not been addressed. There is still a lack of references in the article. The article still reads like an advert, especially the origins section. There are still COI issues with an editor or editors from London & Partners ("The Mayor of London's official promotion agency") responsible for editing the bulk of article. - X201 (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Are the warnings on this page still relevant? The citations in the Origins section explain the creation of the new and expanded event during 2012 (first announced in 26 January 2012, followed by confirmation of the name of RideLondon on 10 August 2012). Any references to previous events including Freewheel, Skyride and the London-Surrey Classic Olympic text event in 2011 can be linked to the page as context, but are not the same event. (MissingEwe (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC))


 * They are still relevant, especially the Conflict of interest and Advert ones. London and Partners seem to be of the opinion that Wikipedia is a free space that they can plug their even on in the manner that they choose. They should not be editing the article, they are breaking Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest rules. I think the only way to fix this article is for it to be reported as a full blown COI breach. - X201 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)