Talk:2009 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
I think we need to remedy the odd mix of using s.t. and listing out the individual times. Could we get a consensus on this? Both methods are even used on the same table in stage 8:
Rider | Team | Time | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
Caisse d'Epargne | 4h 31' 50" |
2 | ![]() |
Française des Jeux | s.t. |
3 | ![]() |
Euskaltel–Euskadi | s.t. |
4 | ![]() |
Ag2r–La Mondiale | + 3" |
5 | ![]() |
Caisse d'Epargne | + 1' 54" |
6 | ![]() ![]() |
Ag2r–La Mondiale | + 1' 54" |
7 | ![]() |
Team Milram | + 1' 54" |
8 | ![]() |
Cofidis | + 1' 54" |
9 | ![]() |
Française des Jeux | + 1' 54" |
10 | ![]() |
Bbox Bouygues Telecom | + 1' 54" |
Malo0178 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs "remedying" at all. It reflects typical usage in results given by cycling websites. Bunch arrivals with the stage winner are given the same time as the winner, but that notation is not used beyond the stage winner (other bunch arrivals all list the actual time). If the textual stage summary above the tables doesn't mention that Casar and Astarloza finished with Sanchez, thus explaining the notation, that's the problem. We do need to explain things fully, yes, but not the same thing repeatedly on the same page. break my slumber 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)]
Unable to understand "s.t."
Could this article either provide an explanation of what "s.t." means or give a link if it is explained elsewhere. I didn't understand it. Manning (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I am guessing it means "same time" based on what I read at Tour_de_France#Mass-start_stages. This article forces an unfamiliar reader to dig around in order to interpret the results. While I don't think this article needs to explain the rules from scratch, a brief explanation and a relevant link might be beneficial. Manning (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is something we've been looking at in the past few months - we're aware of the problem and looking at the best way to fix it! Thanks, SeveroTC 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- In fairness, we recognised the potential for confusion a few months ago, suggested a few ways around it, and then abandoned the discussion without conclusion. Time to revisit it perhaps. Kevin McE (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Easy enough to include a note like appears in
break my slumber 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
]