Talk:Cofidis (cycling team)

Fair use rationale for Image:Equipe cofidis pub.gif

Image:Equipe cofidis pub.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

'Released' or 'Dropped'?

This is in reference to the sentence: "Armstrong was released from the team because of his cancer diagnosis." The word released does imply that Armstrong strongly wished for his $2.5 million Cofidis sponsorship to be ended, and the kind people at Cofidis 'released' him of such funding. In reality, as his autobiography reveals, all of his other sponsors kindly stood by him and maintained their original deals, except for Cofidis, which sent executives to visit him in hospital during his chemotherapy and threaten to make him take a physical exam, which seems more like being 'dropped' to put it most diplomatically, certainly not released. I know its just one word, but it really does change the meaning entirely, and puts Cofidis in an undeservedly good light. Tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.43.106 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Words do that, eh? And do us a favor - sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) so SineBot doesn't have to sign them for ya. Either way, I don't know Armstrong or Cofidis that well - do as you wish. From what you're saying, I agree. IceUnshattered (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem to have that symbol on my keyboard...sorry SineBot, I owe you big time. --89.138.35.146 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The symbol is to the left of the "1". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cofidis (cycling team) → Cofidis, Le Crédit en Ligne — While this name does seem a little advertise-y, it appears on the UCI official website and it gets rid of the parenthetical qualifier, which is something I almost always support. — Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 00:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. The argument in favor of the proposed name is not supported by WP policy, guidelines or conventions. The argument in opposition to the proposed move is consistent with WP policy, guidelines and conventions, as follows. The most commonly used name for this team is Cofidis, and that is also the most easily recognized name. The cycling team information in parenthesis is the standard WP method for adding precision per disambiguation rules. The current name is a model for others to follow. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Mild oppose, on grounds that the avoidance of the parenthetical disambiguator is not going to be complete: consider Rabobank/Rabobank (cycling team). Kevin McE (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current name is the correct one by my reading of WP:DAB and WP:NC. And I think the four slogan-like redirects eg Cofidis, le Credit Par Telephone should be kept, just so any further move proposal will come back to WP:RM, but they probably should be redirected to Cofidis rather than to here. Andrewa (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as the others. I would also add that we would end up changing teams a lot if we included sponsor stuff, not to mention teams are so rarely called by it (TO take a racing example, we refered to Honda in F1, not LuckystrikeHonda) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, from me as well, sorry... Since I found out that Cofidis had changed its slogan, I have tried to find out when they actually started to use the "le Credit par Téléphone"-slogan, with no result. So in my work of making the cycling team templates, I will simply use Cofidis as the team name since 1997. lil2mas (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 00:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just one question then - why is "Credit en Ligne" used in {{UCI ProTour teams}} and UCI ProTour then (and the old "Credit par telephone" on 2008 Tour de France, 2008 Giro d'Italia, 2007 Tour de France, and probably numerous other pages)? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 17:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should know the answer to your first question, since you were the one to update the teams for the 2009-season... =) ...which is right, since they (according to the UCI-website) are no longer using the "credit par telephone"-slogan. But I think us here at Wikipedia should withstand from such advertising, especially since this is not a name of common use. It only makes our tables wider, and it does not add any more value. That's my opinion, though... FYI: "credit par telephone" are currently used on 43 articles, while "credit en ligne" are only used on the two you mentioned. I can start the process of removing the slogan using AWB, to obtain consistency, if requested? lil2mas (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To provide a comparison, Cofidis without it's slogans is currently used on 207 articles, almost everyone of them is about the cycling team... lil2mas (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I only updated the ridership on team articles and templates. I didn't edit that template or article that I linked above. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And definitely I think that if this isn't going to be an article title, having [[Cofidis (cycling team)|Cofidis, Le Crédit en Ligne]] in our articles is the utmost of silliness. And, just to clarify, the UCI's use of the slogan-y name [1] [2] has no bearing? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cofidis (cycling team). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314025734/http://sports.yahoo.com:80/sc/news to http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=Al08HqTE2q4Lygrrlu3_mRw5nYcB?slug=ap-tourdefrance&prov=ap&type=lgns

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)