Talk:2004 Tour de France

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cycling: Tour de France Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Tour de France task force. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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?

Wikipedia: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)