This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
I realize this is a featured article, but the additional table seems to be a good addition. If this addition is controversial, perhaps we should have a vote to check what the consensus is?
Legion211 (
talk)
21:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Its not only a featured list but a featured topic, therefore consensus as already been reached. Anyway, the main reason why I don't think the table is a good idea is because it is repeating information already in other lists. If readers want to find out who won the Giro or the Tour they can check the relevant list. It serves no purpose to have the three races side by side in a table. The primary function of this list is to tally the winners of Grand Tours hence list of Grand Tour winners. That is why the table is not relevant as its just listing the winners of the races which is already done. It should be removed not just because of this but because it fails MOS as well.
NapHit (
talk)
22:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Although this is a cycling article and cyclists tend to track victories by country and racer, most people do not follow sports statistics like that. The average lay person would expect to see the races listed in numerical order from first to last. It instantly shows who won any particular year, allows the reader to see who won consecutive years without having to hunt for a rider by the number of wins he had and shows the total number of wins he had. This list is arguably more relevant and useful than the list ranked according to total wins. The additional table does not make the article excessively long or unwieldy. How dose this table fail MOS?
Legion211 (
talk)
07:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't think you understand the point. Read the lead of the list its geared towards the by rider table. The by year table is copying information from two places, the separate lists for the individual races and the Grand Tour page itself. There is no point in having a table like this. The premise of the list is to tally the winners to reveal who is the most successful in Grand Tours. There are other lists like this such as
List of UEFA club competition winning managers,
List of UEFA club competition winners and
List of men's major championship winning golfers, not once was there a request when these lists passed FL AND FT for a year by year table because it is repeating information, already in other lists. On that basis I'm going to remove it because it is replication of information. The table also fails
WP:ACCESS.
NapHit (
talk)
15:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
List of Grand Tour general classification winners. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.