This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1903 Tour de France article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1903 Tour de France has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 21, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the
1903 Tour de France often required riders to cycle through the night? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 19, 2013, July 19, 2016, July 19, 2018, and July 19, 2023. |
If somebody is wondering why I am making small modifications to this article that do not show up when you look at the page: I am trying to make the article look good as a pdf. (See menu on the left somewhere.)-- EdgeNavidad ( talk) 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling I have been working for a long time now on early Tours de France, and I think it's time now to see what I have achieved. I am thinking to propose 1903 Tour de France as a Good Article. Who knows, maybe Tour de France will one day become a Good Topic... Before that, I am going to get it Peer Reviewed. But before that, I thought it might be useful to have an informal project review. If you would like to have a quick look on the article, and tell me what you think about it, it would be great. In particular, I have the following questions, of which I can use your answers to improve all early Tour de France articles:
If you have any more detailed comments or improvements, feel free to tell me/change the article. Also if somebody wants to help getting it to Good Article, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks in advance! -- EdgeNavidad ( talk) 10:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've given it a fairly substantial copyedit: I understand that Edge is not a native English speaker (although I envy his polyglot abilities), and some phrasing didn't really scan. I moved a few elements that seemd to belomng better elsewhere without changing the overall structure, and dealt with a few repetitive pieces. Hope these were welcome edits. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I as mentioned on my talk page, the first 10 riders showing makes logical sense, after the courteous editor explained that some races have ~100 finishers.
The only contention I have is the grouping of the icon where possible. It seems that the only reason this is objected is that results in a perceived clumping of the stages.
This does not seem so, to me, because only the icons are clumped, which actually helps to convey the similarity of the stages. Only consecutive stages are clumped. That is why I merged them together. This is the useful function of merging (in regards to tables). 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have the tables merged. Is there anyway to show the first 10, but collapse the rest?
174.3.98.236 (
talk) 08:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
After looking at the citation for the table, the column "rank" seems redundant because:
Well, I guess the only issue we disagree with is the icon clumping. I'll give it a bit more thought. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 10:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
But still make the table sortable. I can wait...... 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 10:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The stages themselves are obviously separated from one another. The only reason I didn't make separate columns for the flags and for the polity is because the name was grouped in a template. Since these pictures are loose, it makes the most sense to group them together.
174.3.98.236 (
talk) 10:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yay! Yahoo! We don't need to merge them anymore, because the table is sortable! (You can't sort any merged cells.) Everything works great, but just the problem with the table-combining-and-row-hiding. So hopefully, that can get fixed.
Also, I fucked up the color. I'm sorry I can't fix it.
Also, for future reference, this is how you make a sortable table:
Instead of wikitable, you put sortable
{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}
{| class="sortable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}
174.3.98.236 ( talk) 10:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me: I know how to make a table sortable, the problem was that I don't know how to make a table, for which only first ten rows can be seen, sortable. What you did was make two separate tables, and make them sortable. That is useless, I would say, why would you want to sort riders 1-10 on their name and riders 11-21 separately? If you want to sort them, you should sort all riders, 1-21. I therefore changed the final classification table back to the last functioning version.-- EdgeNavidad ( talk) 11:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I also doubt if we need the sorting in the stage table, but at least it does not break anything, so I'll leave it there and have the GA review decide. -- EdgeNavidad ( talk) 11:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Current, with the tools we have, this is the best version. Please take note for the GA review. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The stage table should be sortable: that would enable comparison of the stage lengths. This should be applied across relevant articles. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 04:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Overall this is a good article, though I do have a few concerns:
I'll put this article on hold and will pass it upon everything being fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1903 Tour de France article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1903 Tour de France has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 21, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the
1903 Tour de France often required riders to cycle through the night? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 19, 2013, July 19, 2016, July 19, 2018, and July 19, 2023. |
If somebody is wondering why I am making small modifications to this article that do not show up when you look at the page: I am trying to make the article look good as a pdf. (See menu on the left somewhere.)-- EdgeNavidad ( talk) 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling I have been working for a long time now on early Tours de France, and I think it's time now to see what I have achieved. I am thinking to propose 1903 Tour de France as a Good Article. Who knows, maybe Tour de France will one day become a Good Topic... Before that, I am going to get it Peer Reviewed. But before that, I thought it might be useful to have an informal project review. If you would like to have a quick look on the article, and tell me what you think about it, it would be great. In particular, I have the following questions, of which I can use your answers to improve all early Tour de France articles:
If you have any more detailed comments or improvements, feel free to tell me/change the article. Also if somebody wants to help getting it to Good Article, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks in advance! -- EdgeNavidad ( talk) 10:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've given it a fairly substantial copyedit: I understand that Edge is not a native English speaker (although I envy his polyglot abilities), and some phrasing didn't really scan. I moved a few elements that seemd to belomng better elsewhere without changing the overall structure, and dealt with a few repetitive pieces. Hope these were welcome edits. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I as mentioned on my talk page, the first 10 riders showing makes logical sense, after the courteous editor explained that some races have ~100 finishers.
The only contention I have is the grouping of the icon where possible. It seems that the only reason this is objected is that results in a perceived clumping of the stages.
This does not seem so, to me, because only the icons are clumped, which actually helps to convey the similarity of the stages. Only consecutive stages are clumped. That is why I merged them together. This is the useful function of merging (in regards to tables). 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have the tables merged. Is there anyway to show the first 10, but collapse the rest?
174.3.98.236 (
talk) 08:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
After looking at the citation for the table, the column "rank" seems redundant because:
Well, I guess the only issue we disagree with is the icon clumping. I'll give it a bit more thought. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 10:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
But still make the table sortable. I can wait...... 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 10:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The stages themselves are obviously separated from one another. The only reason I didn't make separate columns for the flags and for the polity is because the name was grouped in a template. Since these pictures are loose, it makes the most sense to group them together.
174.3.98.236 (
talk) 10:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yay! Yahoo! We don't need to merge them anymore, because the table is sortable! (You can't sort any merged cells.) Everything works great, but just the problem with the table-combining-and-row-hiding. So hopefully, that can get fixed.
Also, I fucked up the color. I'm sorry I can't fix it.
Also, for future reference, this is how you make a sortable table:
Instead of wikitable, you put sortable
{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}
{| class="sortable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}
174.3.98.236 ( talk) 10:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me: I know how to make a table sortable, the problem was that I don't know how to make a table, for which only first ten rows can be seen, sortable. What you did was make two separate tables, and make them sortable. That is useless, I would say, why would you want to sort riders 1-10 on their name and riders 11-21 separately? If you want to sort them, you should sort all riders, 1-21. I therefore changed the final classification table back to the last functioning version.-- EdgeNavidad ( talk) 11:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I also doubt if we need the sorting in the stage table, but at least it does not break anything, so I'll leave it there and have the GA review decide. -- EdgeNavidad ( talk) 11:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Current, with the tools we have, this is the best version. Please take note for the GA review. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The stage table should be sortable: that would enable comparison of the stage lengths. This should be applied across relevant articles. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 04:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Overall this is a good article, though I do have a few concerns:
I'll put this article on hold and will pass it upon everything being fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)