text:
Bernard Hinault

Bernard Hinault (born 14 November 1954) is a French former professional road cyclist. With 147 professional victories, including five times the Tour de France, he is often named among the greatest cyclists of all time. In his career, Hinault entered a total of thirteen Grand Tours. He abandoned one of them while in the lead, finished in 2nd place on two occasions and won the other ten, putting him one behind Merckx for the all-time record. No rider since Hinault has achieved more than seven.

Hinault started cycling as an amateur in his native Brittany. After a successful amateur career, he signed with the Gitane–Campagnolo team to turn professional in 1975. He took breakthrough victories at both the Liège–Bastogne–Liège classic and the Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré stage race in 1977. In 1978, he won his first two Grand Tours: the Vuelta a España and the Tour de France. In the following years, he was the most successful professional cyclist, adding another Tour victory in 1979 and a win at the 1980 Giro d'Italia. Although a knee injury forced him to quit the 1980 Tour de France while in the lead, he returned to win the World Championship road race later in the year. He added another Tour victory in 1981, before completing his first Giro-Tour double in 1982.

After winning the 1983 Vuelta a España, a return of his knee problems forced him to miss that year's Tour de France, won by his teammate Laurent Fignon. Conflict within the Renault team led to his leaving and joining La Vie Claire. With his new team, he raced the 1984 Tour de France, but lost to Fignon by over ten minutes. He recovered the following year, winning another Giro-Tour double with the help of teammate Greg LeMond. In the 1986 Tour de France, he engaged in an intra-team rivalry with LeMond, who won his first of three Tours. Hinault retired at the end of the season. he is the most recent French winner of the Tour de France. After his cycling career, Hinault turned to farming, while fulfilling enforcement duties for the organisers of the Tour de France until 2016.

All through his career, Hinault was known by the nickname Le Blaireau ("The Badger"); he associated himself with the animal due to its aggressive nature, a trait he embodied on the bike. Within the peloton, Hinault assumed the role of patron, exercising authority over races he took part in.

Early life and family
Hinault was born on 14 November 1954 in the Breton village of Yffiniac, the second oldest of four children to Joseph and Lucie Hinault. The family lived in a cottage named La Clôture, built shortly after Hinault was born. His parents were farmers, and the children often had to help out at harvest time. His father later worked as a platelayer for the national rail company SNCF. Hinault was described as a "hyperactive" child, with his mother nicknaming him "little hooligan". Hinault was not a good student, but visited the technical college in Saint-Brieuc for an engineering apprenticeship. He started athletics there, becoming a runner and finishing tenth in the French junior cross-country championship in 1971.

In December 1974, just before turning professional, Hinault married Martine, who he had met at a family wedding the year before. Their first son, Mickael, was born in 1975, with a second, Alexandre, in 1981. Hinault and his family lived in Quessoy, close to Yffiniac, while he was a professional cyclist. After his retirement, they moved to a farm 64 km away in Brittany. Hinault had bought the 48 ha property near Calorguen in 1983. Martine later served as mayor of Calorguen.

Although they share the same birthplace and surname, he is not related to the younger cyclist Sébastien Hinault.

Amateur career
Hinault came to cycling through his cousin René, who rode weekend races. At first he had to use the shared family bike, which he rode devotedly. He received his own bike when he was 15 as a reward for passing his school examinations, and used it to travel to college. During the summer of 1971 he made training rides with René, who had problems keeping up with the sixteen-year-old Bernard, even though he was an experienced amateur rider. Hinault received his racing licence from Club Olympique Briochin in late April1971 and entered his first race on 2May in Planguenoual. Advised only to try to stay with the other riders, Hinault won the event. Hinault won his first five races, amassing twelve wins from twenty races by the end of the year. Also during the summer of 1971, Hinault was at odds with his father about his choice to pursue cycling as a career. Joseph Hinault relented only after his son ran away from home for three days to stay with his cousins, sleeping on straw in the barn.

For 1972, Hinault was allowed to race with the over-18s. At a race in Hillion, he and René escaped from the field and reached the finish alone. They crossed the line together to share the victory, to the dismay of the race organisers. The young Hinault was heavily influenced by his trainer at the Club Olympique Briochin, Robert Le Roux, who had earlier worked with 1965 World Champion Tom Simpson. Hinault won nineteen races in his second season as an amateur, including the national junior championship against opposition a year older than him, such as future professional Bernard Vallet. He was conscripted into the military at age 18, and did not race throughout 1973. He was unable to join the army's training centre for young athletes and instead served in Sissonne with the 21st Marine Infantry Regiment. Returning to competition overweight, Hinault managed to win his first race of 1974. This was his last season as an amateur and again was highly successful, including a victory in his home town of Yffiniac towards the end of the year, where an alliance formed by four other riders was unable to hold him back. He also competed in track cycling, winning the national pursuit championship. On the road, he took part in the Étoile des Espoirs, a race open to amateurs and young professionals. Hinault finished fifth overall, and second on the time trial stage behind reigning pursuit world champion Roy Schuiten. Towards the end of the season, Hinault turned down an offer to race with the prestigious Athletic Club de Boulogne-Billancourt, instead deciding to turn professional in 1975.

1975–1977: Gitane
In January 1975, Hinault turned professional with the Gitane–Campagnolo team, run by former World Champion Jean Stablinski, on a lean wage of 2,500francs per month. The decision to turn professional relatively early was in part taken as, had Hinault raced the 1975 season as an amateur, he would have likely been prevented by the French cycling federation from turning professional before the 1976 Summer Olympics to be part of the French team there. Early on, he showed no interest in adhering to the unwritten rules of the peloton, whereby younger riders were expected to show respect towards older ones. At a criterium race in August1975 he went up against a coalition of senior riders, who had decided to divide the prize money between them. Hinault won all the intermediate cash prizes until five-time Tour de France winner Eddy Merckx declared that Hinault was included in the pact. His results in his first season were impressive, with a seventh place at Paris–Nice and a victory at the Circuit de la Sarthe, earning him the Promotion Pernod, the prize for the best new professional in France. However, Hinault showed little willingness to learn the basic trades of cycling from Stablinski, often escaping early in the race instead of learning how to ride inside the peloton. Together with Stablinski entering Hinault into too many races, this led to conflicts between them.

For 1976, Hinault stayed with Gitane, as former professional Cyrille Guimard, who had just retired from cycling, took over the team and became directeur sportif. Guimard and Hinault got along well, and the latter was kept out of the high-profile races for 1976, instead focussing on a steady improvement in lesser known races such as Paris–Camembert, which he won. That year, Guimard spurred Lucien Van Impe to his only win in the Tour de France. Hinault's progress was visible, with a second consecutive victory at the Circuit de la Sarthe, a third place at the Grand Prix du Midi Libre and a win at the Tour de l'Aude, ensuring him the Prestige Pernod, the award for the best French rider of the season. In total, Hinault won 15 races in 1976. At the end of the year, he came sixth at the World Championship Road Race, being beaten to the line for fifth by Eddy Merckx.

During the spring classics season of 1977, Hinault left the Tour of Flanders before it had even started, not wanting to risk his health in a rain- and cold-affected race on cobbled roads. This drew him a formal warning by Guimard for his conduct. Three weeks later, Hinault won Gent–Wevelgem in a solo effort after an attack 30 km from the finish. Five days later, at Liège–Bastogne–Liège, Hinault followed an attack by favourite André Dierickx, and beat him in the two-man sprint to take his first victory in one of cycling's "monuments". In accordance with Guimard's plan to build Hinault up slowly, he did not enter the Tour de France. He did however start the Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré, seen as the most important preparation event for the Tour. While in the leader's jersey on the penultimate stage to Grenoble, Hinault attacked up the Col de Porte, leading Van Impe and Bernard Thévenet by 1:30 minutes when crossing the summit. On the descent, he misjudged a hairpin corner and crashed down the mountainside. A tree saved him from falling far down, while his bike was lost. Hinault then climbed back onto the road, took a new bike and without showing any hesitation, continued on. Up the finishing climb in Grenoble, he briefly dismounted, still shocked from the near-death experience and pushed his bike for about 20 m, before remounting and winning the stage eighty seconds ahead of Van Impe. This also secured him the overall victory ahead of eventual Tour winner Thévenet.

This incident was mentioned from a semi-pro rider's perspective in the Tim Krabbé book De Renner (The Rider) when the main character is about to descend a Col in the Tour de Mont Aigoual: "Curves. I'm afraid, and for good reason. Only three weeks ago, during the Dauphiné Libéré, the young up-and-coming Hinault flew out of a curve, into a ravine. Gone. At that moment the French TV audience had every reason to assume that he was lying down there with a broken back. Then he climbed up, was given another bike, rode on, won the stage and went on to win the Dauphiné Libéré. A star for ever. Hinault had gone into that ravine a rider, but came out a vedette, and the entire operation lasted no longer than fifteen seconds.'"

At the end of the season, Hinault won the Grand Prix des Nations, an individual time trial, with a substantial margin of 3:15 minutes ahead of favourite Joop Zoetemelk.

1978: Grand Tour breakthrough
At the beginning of 1978, the Gitane team was taken over by its parent company, the state-owned car manufacturer Renault, becoming. Hinault started the season with second place at Paris–Nice. He then competed in the Critérium National de la Route. Trailing Raymond Martin by more than two minutes before the final 22 km time trial, he made up his significant deficit and won the event.

Hinault then competed in his first three-week Grand Tour, at the Vuelta a España, then held at the end of April. He won the opening prologue time trial in Gijón, but then let the leadership switch to Ferdi Van Den Haute. He won stage 11b, a mountain time trial in Barcelona, and regained the race lead the next day, when he won the stage to La Tossa de Montbui after an escape with teammate Jean-René Bernaudeau. He ensured his overall victory by winning stage 18 to Amurrio. On that stage, he bridged over to escapee Andrés Gandarias, who had earlier asked for Hinault's permission to attack. Hinault claimed to have been annoyed into attacking by one of Gandarias's teammates and offered to carry him to the finish. However, the Spaniard was unable to follow his wheel, saying: "This guy has made me suffer like a dog, he's tougher than Eddy Merckx!" In all, Hinault won five stages of the Vuelta. A sixth win was prevented on the final day of the Grand Tour, on which a short time trial was raced in the afternoon, held at San Sebastián in the Basque Country. The stage was marred by protests and obstructions by supporters of the Basque separatist group ETA. Hinault himself had sand thrown into his eyes, but won the stage nonetheless, only to find that the results would not count due to the surrounding circumstances.

Ahead of his first Tour de France, Hinault raced in the Tour de Suisse, where he did not feature prominently. He then travelled to the French Road Race Championship, held at Sarrebourg. He launched an escape, on which he rode 55 km solo, leading the rest of his competitors by more than six minutes by the start of the last lap. However, he had forgotten to eat enough and suffered from hypoglycemia during the last part of the race, crossing the finish line to take the title severely weakened. His victory allowed him to wear the French tricolore jersey for the following year.

In the Tour de France, Hinault fell behind early to challenger Zoetemelk when Renault lost two minutes to Mercier during the team time trial. On stage 8, the first longer individual time trial, Hinault gained back 59 seconds on Zoetemelk, while the previous two Tour winners, Van Impe and Thévenet, lost so much time that they were now counted out from chances of an overall win. Hinault rode conservatively in the Pyrenees to stay within striking distance of Zoetemelk. On stage 12a, from Tarbes to Valence-d'Agen, he firmly imprinted his authority on the race, although not by riding. The riders had been complaining about split stages, where more than one would be held on one day, as was the case on 12July. When they reached the finishing town, they dismounted their bikes and walked to the finish line in protest. Hinault was chosen by his fellow competitors to be the spokesperson of the strike. Journalist Felix Magowan wrote: "Before today's strike, people were asking if the Tour had a boss. Today that was answered. His name is Hinault." Following the strike, Hinault had trouble sleeping and was caught out the next day, a stage in the Massif Central, forcing his team into a long chase. Thus weakened and slowed by spectator interference at a bike change, he lost 1:40 minutes to Zoetemelk on the following day's uphill time trial. Hinault countered the next day en route to Saint-Étienne during stage 15, breaking away with Hennie Kuiper. By the finish, the two had been reeled back, but Hinault contested the finishing sprint, winning the stage. The following day, stage 16 to Alpe d'Huez, ended with Zoetemelk, Hinault and the temporary leader of the general classification and thus yellow jersey wearer Michel Pollentier separated by only 18 seconds. However, Pollentier was disqualified for trying to cheat his doping test, leaving Hinault and Zoetemelk to fight out the overall victory. On the final mountain stage, Hinault put his rival under pressure, but was unable to make up any time. He then clinched the yellow jersey in the final time trial, gaining more than four minutes to win his first Tour de France with an advantage of 3:56 minutes. Following his Tour win, he finished fifth at the World Championships, before once more winning the Grand Prix des Nations, this time ahead of Francesco Moser.

1979: Second Tour victory and Classics success
The 1979 season started slowly for an off-form Hinault. He bounced back at the La Flèche Wallonne classic in April, when he caught up to a breakaway by Giuseppe Saronni and Bernt Johansson, outsprinting the former to win the race. He then beat Zoetemelk to victory at the Dauphiné Libéré, winning four stages. He won the race by over ten minutes, also taking the points and mountain classifications. In the coming weeks ahead of the Tour, he proved his willingness to assist his teammates to ensure their loyalty, helping Lucien Didier win the Tour de Luxembourg and finishing second behind Roland Berland in the National Championship race. The Tour de France was again a two-way battle between Hinault and Zoetemelk. In the prologue, Hinault was fourth, on the same time as the Dutchman. The mountain stages started immediately thereafter, with Hinault winning the mountain time trial on stage 2, taking over the yellow jersey. He also won the next stage into Pau. The team time trial on stage4 again went Zoetemelk's way, as his Mercier team took back 41 seconds on Hinault's Renault squad. Zoetemelk now was only 12 seconds behind Hinault. On stage 8, in another team time trial, Renault fared much better, and Hinault extended his advantage to 1:18 minutes. The next day however, on a stage containing cobbled sections, Hinault suffered two punctures, losing almost four minutes and the race lead to Zoetemelk. He took back 36 seconds on the time trial in Brussels on stage 11 before regaining the race lead after another time trial, uphill to Avoriaz on stage 15. At this stage, he led Zoetemelk by 1:48 minutes, with third-placed Kuiper already more than 12 minutes behind. Hinault gained another minute on stage 16, before Zoetemelk regained 47 seconds up Alpe d'Huez three days later. The final time trial of the Tour went Hinault's way once again, extending his advantage by a further 69 seconds. He also took the next stage in a slightly uphill sprint finish. On the final stage towards the Champs-Élysées in Paris, traditionally a ceremonious affair without attacks, Zoetemelk and Hinault broke away, with both gapping the field and Hinault taking another stage victory. Zoetemelk finished 3:07 minutes behind Hinault, but then had ten minutes added to his time for failing a doping test. The next finisher, Joaquim Agostinho, was almost half an hour behind the winner.

Towards the end of the season, Hinault won his second cycling monument, the Giro di Lombardia. He had escaped from the field 150 km from the finish, but was later joined by some other riders. Only Silvano Contini finished with him, with the next group more than three minutes behind. The victory also secured that Hinault won his first of four consecutive Super Prestige Pernod International competitions, the award handed to the best rider of the season.

1980: Attempt at the Triple Crown
As was often the case, Hinault started the season slowly in 1980, withdrawing from Paris–Nice. He then entered Paris–Roubaix, partly to prepare for the cobbled sections in the upcoming Tour de France, and finished fourth. A week later, he scored one of his most memorable wins at Liège–Bastogne–Liège. As soon as the riders left Liège, snow began to fall, soon turning into a blizzard. Hinault wanted to abandon, as had many others, including all but one of his teammates. He was convinced to carry on until the feeding station at Bastogne, where the snow had turned into rain. Only 21 riders were left by this point. Hinault removed his rain cape and attacked, catching up to the leaders and carried on by himself, winning with a margin of almost ten minutes ahead of Kuiper. The victory came at a price, as his right index and middle fingers took weeks to recover from frostbite, and caused him pain for several years.

Hinault and Guimard then turned their attention to the only Grand Tour he had not won yet: the Giro d'Italia. They hoped that Hinault would be able to reproduce a feat Eddy Merckx had achieved in 1974, winning the Giro, the Tour and the World Championship in the same year. This is commonly referred to as the Triple Crown of Cycling.

Hinault started the Giro d'Italia as odds-on favourite, pitted against local riders Francesco Moser and Giuseppe Saronni, who had the home crowd on their side. Following a fourth place at the prologue in Genoa, Hinault made a spontaneous visit to Fausto Coppi's home of Castellania, paying respect to the first rider ever to have won Giro and Tour in the same year. On stage 5, a time trial to Pisa, Hinault took over the race leader's pink jersey. He then relinquished his lead to Roberto Visentini, who was not considered to be a contender for the final victory. On stage 14, he attacked when the peloton relaxed after an intermediate sprint, winning the stage ahead of Wladimiro Panizza, who took the race lead. Hinault then made the decisive move of the race on stage 20, when he attacked on the tough climb of the Stelvio Pass. He caught up with his teammate Bernaudeau, and both carried on for the remaining 80 km of the stage together. Hinault gifted the stage victory to his teammate, while he clinched the overall victory almost six minutes ahead of Panizza.

In the Tour de France, Hinault was once again set to duel with Joop Zoetemelk, who had moved to the dominant squad. Hinault won the prologue in Frankfurt, Germany, five seconds ahead of Gerrie Knetemann. On stage5 from Liège to Lille, which contained cobbled sections used in Paris–Roubaix, conditions were poor with rain and heavy winds. Hinault called for the field to take a slow tempo, but when Zoetemelk's teammate Jan Raas attacked, he went after him. He eventually found himself in a group with several other riders, while Zoetemelk was distanced. At 20 km from the finish, he followed another attack from Kuiper and won the sprint at the line. The next stage was set to contain more cobbled roads, but on Hinault's protest, most of the worst parts were taken out. Hinault had however suffered damage to his left knee on the stage to Lille. Hinault finished only fifth on stage 11's individual time trial, won by Zoetemelk. While he regained the yellow jersey, Zoetemelk was second, only 21 seconds behind. With his tendinitis worsening, he carried on until the end of stage 12, just before the race was headed for the first high mountains in the Pyrenees. That night, Hinault and Guimard told the race organisers, Jacques Goddet and Félix Lévitan, that he would abandon the race, while still in the lead. He left the race at night, not informing the press, which led to a fallout with the media that took years to recover. In Hinault's absence, Zoetemelk duly won his only Tour de France. Insinuations that Zoetemelk's victory had been a gift through Hinault's absence were countered by Hinault himself: "My problems were of my own making. It is always the absent rider who is at fault. I was absent and he took my place."

Hinault returned from the disappointment of the Tour to start at the World Championship road race, held on a very tough parcours in Sallanches, France, often named the hardest course in the history of the event. Hinault had broken away about 80 km from the finish with several riders. On the last lap, he dropped his last companion, Gianbattista Baronchelli, on the steepest part of a climb and soloed to victory. It had been a race of attrition with only 15 out of 107 riders reaching the finish.

1981: Winning a third Tour de France
Hinault had never made his dislike for riding on cobbled roads a secret. The most prominent race of this character, Paris–Roubaix, was met with particular disdain, even though he never finished lower than thirteenth. After the 1980 edition, he had said to organiser Goddet: "You will never see me in this circus again." However, he returned for 1981, saying that he did so out of respect for his stature as World Champion. He suffered seven crashes and tyre punctures, but reached the finish at the velodrome with the lead group, where he outsprinted favourites Roger De Vlaeminck and Moser. One and a half weeks earlier, he had already added a victory at the Amstel Gold Race. Furthermore, he also won the Critérium International and again dominated the Dauphiné Libéré, winning by twelve minutes ahead of Agostinho.

At the Tour de France, Hinault took an early lead by winning the prologue, then relinquished the yellow jersey to Knetemann and later to Phil Anderson. On the time trial to Pau on stage 7, he regained the lead and never lost the jersey, beating Van Impe by almost a quarter of an hour. He won five stages, including all four individual time trials. Amidst media criticism that he was riding too defensively in the mountains, he also took victory in the Alps on a stage to Le Pleynet.

At the World Championship in Prague, Czechoslovakia, Hinault failed to defend his title. Having bridged a two-and-a-half-minute gap to a strong lead group on his own, he came third in the final sprint, behind Freddy Maertens and Saronni.

1982: Achieving the Giro-Tour double
Hinault returned to the Giro in 1982. He looked set for victory after the first two weeks, having taken a significant lead after wins in the stage3 time trial and stage 12 to Campitello Matese. However, on stage 17 to Boario Terme, Guimard and the Renault team misjudged the toughness of the climb and Hinault lost the lead to Silvano Contini. He hit back the next day, winning the stage to Montecampione, turning the race in his favour.

In "his most uneventful Tour", Hinault never looked in trouble on his way to completing the Giro-Tour double at the Tour de France. He won the prologue in Basel, Switzerland, before the lead briefly turned to Ludo Peeters and Phil Anderson. Hinault regained the yellow jersey after the first time trial and won the overall classification easily. He took four stages, including again the final one on the Champs-Élysées, this time from a bunch sprint. His participation in the final-stage sprint was seen as an answer to critics, who had once again lamented that Hinault had ridden the Tour without panache. Zoetemelk was again the runner-up, more than six minutes behind Hinault. Later in the season, Hinault added another victory at the Grand Prix des Nations.

1983: Second Vuelta and the ascent of Fignon
Since 1981, Hinault had been joined at Renault by two young talents, Laurent Fignon and the American Greg LeMond. Both joined Hinault for the Vuelta a España, where he faced stiff competition from local riders like Marino Lejarreta, Julián Gorospe, and Alberto Fernández. Six days before the race started, he had won La Flèche Wallonne for a second time. On stage4 of the Vuelta, Fignon attacked and won, but Lejarreta, the defending champion, had followed him and gained time on Hinault. Hinault came back and took the lead the following day on the mountain stage to Castellar de n'Hug. However, a day later, the Spanish teams jointly attacked and Lejarreta moved ahead of Hinault, who was 22 seconds down. At the uphill time trial at Balneario de Panticosa, he suffered and finished more than two minutes behind Lejarreta. Hinault joined forces with Kuiper and Saronni to attack on stage 10 to Soria, affected by crosswinds. He was in trouble again on stage 14, affected by returning pain in his knee; at one point he trailed his rivals by more than five minutes, but regained contact. In the time trial around Valladolid on stage 15b, Hinault won, now just ten seconds behind Gorospe, the new leader in the general classification. The following day brought the last mountain stage and Renault put pressure on Gorospe from early on. Hinault, joined by Lejarreta and Vicente Belda, escaped for 80 km, distancing Gorospe by over twenty minutes with Hinault taking victory in Ávila, sealing his second Vuelta victory. Due to the tightly fought battle between Hinault and his Spanish competitors, the 1983 race is described on the Vuelta's website as "one of the most beautiful and spectacular" editions.

During the Vuelta, Hinault's tendinitis returned. After the race, he made two failed attempts to get back into racing, but eventually announced that he would miss the Tour de France. In his absence, teammate Fignon won the event on his first attempt. Hinault tried another comeback at a post-Tour criterium, but the pain returned and he did not race for the remainder of the season.

1984: Defeat at Fignon's hands
By 1983, the relationship between Hinault and Guimard had deteriorated to a point where the former described their relationship as "war". Hinault forced a choice on the Renault team to either release him or oust Guimard. The team decided to stick with their directeur sportif, leading Hinault to search for a new team. He joined forces with businessman Bernard Tapie to form the new squad. Their directeur sportif became Swiss coach Paul Köchli, who had made a name for himself with innovative and effective training methods, leaving Hinault a lot of freedom while at the same time scientifically measuring his progress. As part of his connection with Tapie, Hinault also contributed to the development of the clipless pedal, created by Look, another company owned by Tapie.

Hinault returned to racing at the Volta a la Comunitat Valenciana, where he won the final stage. He then took victory at the Four Days of Dunkirk. But his spring campaign lacked major successes. At the Dauphiné Libéré, he came second to Martín Ramírez, who later claimed that Hinault and his team had tried to intimidate him during the final stage of the race. A memorable episode occurred during the Paris–Nice, a race he finished third overall. During stage5 to La Seyne-sur-Mer, Hinault was descending in a lead group with several other favourites. As they reached the valley, the road was blocked by protesters, unhappy with the announced closure of a dockyard at La Ciotat. While the other riders stopped, he drove into the group head-on, dismounted, and punched the protester closest to him. In the ensuing fist fight, Hinault sustained a broken rib.

The Tour de France was made out to be the big duel between Hinault and Fignon, who had just won the French National Championship. Hinault won the prologue, but Renault took the team time trial, 55 seconds ahead of La Vie Claire. He lost another 49 seconds to Fignon in the first long individual time trial, a discipline he had previously dominated. Following the second time trial, Hinault was only seventh on general classification, two minutes behind his adversary. The next stage led to Alpe d'Huez. Hinault attacked on the Rampe de Laffrey, but Fignon was able to respond. The two exchanged attacks on the way up the climb, but it was in the valley that Hinault was able to draw out a gap of about a minute. On Alpe d'Huez itself, he was first passed by eventual stage winner Luis Herrera. When he started to slow, Fignon caught up to him and eventually dropped Hinault, who lost a further three minutes. He ultimately finished the Tour in second place, a significant ten minutes behind Fignon.

Hinault managed to bounce back from his Tour defeat in the fall. In late September, he took his fifth and final victory at the Grand Prix des Nations, riding the 90 km time trial at a then record speed of 44.19 kph. Fignon could only manage fourth, more than two minutes behind. Next, he won the Trofeo Baracchi, a two-man time trial, in which he competed with Moser. He then won the Giro di Lombardia for a second time, breaking away from the group of favourites 10 km from the finish.

1985: The second Giro-Tour double
For 1985, Greg LeMond switched teams from Renault to join Hinault at La Vie Claire. Together, they entered the Giro d'Italia. During the race, Hinault was met with hostility from the home crowd, who supported local rider Francesco Moser. On the stage 12 time trial, Hinault took the pink jersey and opened the decisive gap to Moser, who would eventually finish second. During the stage however, Hinault was spat at by spectators and almost knocked over, even though his team car rode behind him with the door opened the entire time to ensure that bystanders would have a harder time impeding him. Hinault won his third Giro with a margin of just over a minute.

In the Tour de France, Fignon did not take part due to an Achilles heel injury. Hinault therefore entered the race as the favourite. He took victory in the prologue in his native Brittany. La Vie Claire won the stage3 team time trial by over a minute. The next day, Hinault's teammate Kim Andersen took over the yellow jersey. Hinault supported him over the next days, even going so far as dropping back when Andersen punctured to lead him back into the peloton, showing his loyalty to riders who would later have to assist him. On stage 8, a time trial to Strasbourg, Hinault took back the race lead, winning the stage by more than two minutes ahead of Stephen Roche. While the race travelled through the Alps and in a second time trial, he consolidated his lead, building an advantage of five and a half minutes on LeMond, who was now second overall.

On stage 14 to Saint-Étienne, LeMond finished two minutes ahead of a group containing Hinault. Involved in a crash with other riders, Hinault crossed the finish line with a broken nose. Around the same time, he started to experience symptoms of bronchitis. On stage 17, he showed signs of weakness and was unable to stay with the other leaders on the Col du Tourmalet. LeMond meanwhile followed an attack by Roche, but was forbidden by the team to cooperate to distance Hinault. LeMond would later claim that the team had deceived him by telling him that Hinault was closer behind than he actually was. Hinault eventually finished the stage just over a minute behind LeMond. The time LeMond waited may have been enough so that the two teammates would have contested the Maillot Jaune in the penultimate time trial. In the penultimate day's time trial, LeMond won the stage, but only five seconds ahead of Hinault, not enough to surpass him. This secured Hinault a record-equalling fifth Tour victory, by just under two minutes over his younger teammate. After the finish, he publicly pledged that he would support LeMond's bid for a first Tour victory the following year.

1986: The final season
In January 1986, Hinault was given the Legion of Honour by French president François Mitterrand. He had, already in 1982, announced that he would retire from cycling on his 32nd birthday, in November 1986.

Even though Hinault had pledged support for LeMond for the Tour de France, a lot of public attention was given to the possibility of him winning a record sixth Tour. Their La Vie Claire team was seen as dominant, with Laurent Fignon as the most likely challenger. Hinault finished third in the prologue, two seconds ahead of LeMond and Fignon. In the team time trial on stage 2, Fignon and gained almost two minutes on La Vie Claire, partly due to Hinault deciding that the squad would wait for two struggling riders, Niki Rüttimann and Guido Winterberg. Hinault then won the time trial on stage 9, gaining an additional 44 seconds on LeMond, who suffered a broken wheel and had to change his bike. Meanwhile, Fignon fell behind and later abandoned the race. On stage 12, from Bayonne to Pau, Hinault attacked with Pedro Delgado. The pair gained more than four and a half minutes on LeMond, with Delgado taking the stage win. Hinault was now in the lead of the general classification, 5:25 minutes ahead of LeMond. Even though his lead was significant, he attacked again the following day, on the descent of the Col du Tourmalet, the first climb of the day. By the top of the next climb, the Col d'Aspin, he led the rest of the field by two minutes. However, joint effort behind brought him back before the final ascent up to the ski station of Superbagnères. Hinault then cracked, coming in ninth, 4:39 minutes behind stage winner LeMond. He now led his teammate by only forty seconds in the general classification.

The race then moved over to the Alps. On stage 17, Hinault got left behind on the Col d'Izoard and lost the yellow jersey to LeMond, falling to third in the overall rankings, 2:47 minutes behind his teammate. Stage 18 featured three major climbs, the Col du Galibier, the Croix de Fer and the final ascent up to Alpe d'Huez. Hinault attacked repeatedly, but reached the bottom of Alpe d'Huez with LeMond. He led the way up the climb, lined by approximately 300,000 spectators and crossed the finish line hand in hand with LeMond, in an apparent display of comradery. Urs Zimmermann, who had been second overall at the start of the day, lost more than five minutes. Any signs of appeasement between the rivalling teammates was shattered by Hinault in a television interview shortly after the stage finish, when he declared that the race was not yet over, even though he trailed LeMond by 2:45 minutes.

Stage 20 saw the final time trial and the last chance for Hinault to overcome LeMond's advantage. Aided by a crash from LeMond, Hinault won the stage, but gained back only 25 seconds, conceding defeat after the stage. He lost an additional 52 seconds on stage 21. In his last Tour de France stage into Paris, he took part in the final sprint, taking fourth place. He ended his final Tour de France second overall, 3:10 minutes behind LeMond. He won the mountains classification and was also given the super-combativity award. Hinault's repeated attacks during the race and refusal to concede defeat irritated LeMond, who felt betrayed by Hinault's lack of loyalty.

After the Tour, Hinault won the Coors Classic race in the United States, ahead of LeMond. He rode the World Championships Road Race, held in Colorado Springs. He aimed to win, showing a lot of effort in his preparation. However, he finished the race in 59th place. On 19 September, he won his last competitive race, a criterium in Angers, France. Hinault's retirement from professional cycling on 14 November 1986 was celebrated in Quessoy with a symbolic race of 3,600 riders, a concert and fireworks. A total of 15,000 people attended the event.

Retirement
After his retirement from professional cycling, Hinault moved to his farm and bred dairy cows, assisted by his cousin René, who had become an agricultural engineer. Just two weeks after he ended his career, the Tour de France organisers, Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), approached Hinault and invited him to join the race management team. He held several positions, including race regulator and route advisor. After Jean-Marie Leblanc took over the role as general director, Hinault was named the Tour's ambassador. Included in his duties was being present during podium ceremonies. During the podium for stage3 of the 2008 Tour de France, a protester jumped on stage and disturbed proceedings. Hinault leapt forward and shoved him off. He stepped down from the role after the 2016 Tour de France. His role as ASO's brand ambassador was taken over by Stephen Roche, winner of the 1987 Tour de France.

Unlike many of his competitors, Hinault never became a directeur sportif (team manager) after his cycling career. Offers from Bouygues Télécom and a Chinese investor in the mid-2000s fell through. He was the selector of the France national team from 1988 to 1993. Hinault took a role as "patron" with the British squad for the 2014 season. In June 2020, Hinault became part of a group of businessmen investing into saving the cycling equipment company Mavic, who are a long-time sponsor of the Tour de France. Mavic was put into receivership earlier in the year due to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Riding style and legacy
During his active career, Hinault was known as the patron of the field, meaning the rider with the highest authority. His biographer William Fotheringham has described him as "the last of the sport's patrons". In this role, Hinault would use his influence with race organisers, control the pace of the peloton, and allow or refuse other riders the chance to attack. The riders' strike at Valence d'Agen in the 1978 Tour is cited as the first instance in which Hinault assumed this role. His fellow riders stated that he, even though he did not talk much, was able to exert a high amount of certainty and therefore strength, which brought him respect and sometimes fear from his competitors. To signal his authority, Hinault often symbolically rode at the front of the field, instead of in the slipstream of his teammates. His riding style has been described as "fighting, full of aggression", and he stated that when he did not feel good in a race, his reaction would be to attack. Hinault described his own role as follows: "You are like a soldier, a general who dominates, who imposes his will on the others. I believe that you are born like that. Some are born to be workers, others to be in charge. I could have been a warlord. I would have waged war to win castles and land if I'd been born in the Middle Ages."

Hinault was however not always successful in his endeavours. During the 1980 Tour de France, he sought to remove the rule which excluded riders outside the time limit on each stage. He urged the riders to protest and ride slowly, but some did not follow his example, forcing Hinault to chase them down before he eventually left the race. His enigmatic exit from the 1980 Tour created tensions with the press that would persist during the rest of his active career. By 1982, debates about his personality started to appear more and more in the media. Particular interest was given to an alleged lack of panache during his Tour wins and his behaviour towards fans and officials, whom he treated with open disgust. Fotheringham suggests that Hinault only regained popularity with the French public after his knee problems and his Tour defeat in 1984. Fellow racer Robert Millar suggested that in 1986 in particular, Hinault attempted to win over the French public by riding aggressively.

Hinault was not known to particularly enjoy going on training rides, unless he was specifically preparing for an event. He would often greet his training partners in a night gown when they arrived on time for training or have an easy day of training that included stops at a bakery for cake. His distaste for training became even more evident in the winter, when he would gain a lot of weight. Laurent Fignon described the first training camps of the year as follows: "He looked as if he had been inflated. If you didn't know the Badger you would wonder how long it would take for him to get back to what he had been. You would be making a huge mistake." Hinault was capable of suffering through the training camp and returning to winning form within a month. Unlike a rider like Eddy Merckx, Hinault would not aim to win every race he entered. Millar described his approach as such: "Hinault either cared or he didn't. When he didn't care about winning he'd bumble round and hurt you now and again just to remind you he was there."

With a résumé of victories that includes all three Grand Tours (all of them more than once), the World Road Championships and a number of classics, Hinault has often been cited among the greatest cyclists of all time. The Historical Dictionary of Cycling describes him as "one of the best riders ever". Comparisons are often drawn with Eddy Merckx, against whom Hinault rode at the beginning of his career. Lucien Van Impe commented: "Merckx was the greatest, but Bernard [Hinault] was the most impressive." A study conducted in 2006, ranking Tour de France riders from 1953 to 2004 by different performance indicators, put Hinault as the top Tour rider of that period, ahead of Merckx and Lance Armstrong.

Prior to the start of the 2022 Tour de France, L'Equipe held a poll to vote on the greatest French cyclist of all time. The third and fourth places were Louison Bobet and Raymond Poulidor both of whom were a good distance behind Hinault and Jacques Anquetil in the voting. Hinault was a member of the jury and his vote turned out to be decisive as he narrowly defeated Anquetil. When asked about it, he made the argument that if Anquetil were in the same position he would likely vote for himself in a similar manner. He also explained, "It's difficult for me to analyze.... It has always been said that I was the second greatest behind Eddy Merckx at the world level, so it is logical to find myself first at the French level."

Nickname
Hinault was nicknamed le blaireau in French, a term that can be translated into English as either "the shaving brush" or "the badger". According to Fotheringham, the nickname originates from Hinault's early training partners, Maurice Le Guilloux and Georges Talbourdet, who would use the term to tease the young rider. Le Guilloux used it once in front of Pierre Chany, a writer for L'Équipe, and the name stuck. According to Hinault himself, the term in the first place was supposed to mean no more than "mate" or "buddy". However, Hinault later embraced the association with the wild animal. In 2003, he commented: "A badger is a beautiful thing. When it's hunted it goes into its sett and waits. When it comes out again, it attacks. That's the reason for my nickname. When I'm annoyed I go home, you don't see me for a month. When I come out again, I win." Hinault, as early as 1983, owned a stuffed badger to demonstrate his association with the animal.

Stance on doping
Hinault never tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs during his professional career and was never implicated in any doping practices. He did, however, lead a riders' protest during a criterium race in Callac in 1982 against the sudden introduction of doping controls. He was handed a one-month suspended ban and fined CHF 1,110, though the penalty was never enforced.

Hinault has been outspoken about several prominent doping cases in the past years. In 2013, he heavily criticised French senators for revealing the results of tests conducted in 2004 on samples from the 1998 Tour de France. He called the initiative "bullshit" and urged lawmakers "to stop bringing out the dead", claiming they "want to kill the Tour". In the same year, he reacted to comments made by Lance Armstrong, a rider stripped of seven Tour victories due to doping offences. Armstrong suggested that it would be impossible to win the Tour de France without performance-enhancing substances. To counter this claim, Hinault replied: "He must not know what it was like to ride without doping." Armstrong later clarified that he had spoken about the time when he was riding (1999–2005). In early 2018, Hinault also spoke out about the adverse analytical result for salbutamol of four-time Tour winner Chris Froome at the 2017 Vuelta a España. He criticised Froome for taking part in the 2018 Giro d'Italia while the investigation was still ongoing. In addition, he commented that Froome could not be "listed among the cycling greats". Froome would win the Giro and become the first rider since Hinault to hold all three Grand Tour Jerseys at once. Before the 2018 Tour de France, with Froome's case still ongoing, he urged the other riders to strike in protest if Froome competed. Froome was later cleared of the charges and started the Tour where he finished third behind teammate Geraint Thomas and Tom Dumoulin.

Major results
Source:

 * 1972
 * 1st MaillotFra.PNG Road race, National Junior Road Championships

 * 1974
 * 5th Overall Étoile des Espoirs

 * 1975
 * 1st MaillotFra.PNG Individual pursuit, National Track Championships
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Circuit de la Sarthe
 * 6th Overall Tour de l'Oise
 * 6th Grand Prix des Nations
 * 7th Overall Paris–Nice

 * 1976
 * 1st MaillotFra.PNG Individual pursuit, National Track Championships
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Circuit de la Sarthe
 * 1st Stage 3a (ITT)
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour du Limousin
 * 1st Stage 1
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour de l'Aude
 * 1st Stage 1
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour d'Indre-et-Loire
 * 1st Stage 2b (ITT)
 * 1st Paris–Camembert
 * 1st Stage 2 Étoile des Espoirs
 * 2nd Overall À travers Lausanne
 * 3rd Overall Grand Prix du Midi Libre
 * 4th Grand Prix Pino Cerami
 * 6th Road race, UCI Road World Championships
 * 6th Grand Prix des Nations
 * 10th Overall Four Days of Dunkirk

 * 1977
 * 1st Jersey yellow-bluebar.svg Overall Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
 * 1st Stages 1 & 5
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour du Limousin
 * 1st Stage 1
 * 1st Liège–Bastogne–Liège
 * 1st Gent–Wevelgem
 * 1st Grand Prix des Nations
 * 1st Stage 2b (ITT) Étoile des Espoirs
 * 2nd Overall Tour Cycliste du Tarn
 * 1st Jersey polkadot.svg Mountains classification
 * 2nd Overall Tour d'Indre-et-Loire
 * 1st Stage 2b
 * 3rd Paris–Brussels
 * 4th Overall Tour de l'Aude
 * 6th Overall Paris–Nice
 * 6th GP Ouest–France
 * 7th Overall Grand Prix du Midi Libre
 * 8th Road race, UCI Road World Championships
 * 10th Grand Prix d'Isbergues

 * 1978
 * 1st MaillotFra.PNG Road race, National Road Championships
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour de France
 * 1st Stages 8 (ITT), 15 & 20 (ITT)
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Vuelta a España
 * 1st Prologue, Stages 11b (ITT), 12, 14 & 18
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Critérium International
 * 1st Stage 3 (ITT)
 * 1st Grand Prix des Nations
 * 1st Boucles de l'Aulne
 * 2nd Overall Paris–Nice
 * 2nd Overall À travers Lausanne
 * 3rd Giro di Lombardia
 * 5th Road race, UCI Road World Championships
 * 9th Overall Tour Cycliste du Tarn

 * 1979
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour de France
 * 1st Jersey green.svg Points classification
 * 1st Stages 2 (ITT), 3, 11 (ITT), 15 (ITT), 21 (ITT), 23 & 24
 * 1st Jersey yellow-bluebar.svg Overall Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
 * 1st Stages 3, 5b (ITT), 6 & 7b (ITT)
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour de l'Oise
 * 1st Prologue
 * 1st Overall Super Prestige Pernod International
 * 1st Giro di Lombardia
 * 1st La Flèche Wallonne
 * 1st Grand Prix des Nations
 * 1st Boucles de l'Aulne
 * 1st Circuit de l'Indre
 * Étoile des Espoirs
 * 1st Stages 3b (ITT) & 4
 * 2nd Overall Critérium International
 * 1st Stage 3 (ITT)
 * 2nd Overall Tour de Luxembourg
 * 1st Stage 3
 * 2nd Liège–Bastogne–Liège
 * 2nd Road race, National Road Championships
 * 3rd Overall Tour Cycliste du Tarn
 * 3rd Overall À travers Lausanne
 * 3rd Critérium des As
 * 6th Overall Paris–Nice
 * 6th Paris–Tours
 * 7th Milan–San Remo
 * 8th Gent–Wevelgem
 * 8th Grand Prix de Wallonie

 * 1980
 * 1st Jersey rainbow.svg Road race, UCI Road World Championships
 * 1st Jersey pink.svg Overall Giro d'Italia
 * 1st Stage 14
 * Tour de France
 * 1st Prologue, Stages 4 (ITT) & 5
 * Held Jersey yellow.svg after Prologue, Stage 1a & Stages 11–12
 * 1st Jersey green.svg Overall Tour de Romandie
 * 1st Overall Super Prestige Pernod International
 * 1st Liège–Bastogne–Liège
 * 2nd Road race, National Road Championships
 * 3rd La Flèche Wallonne
 * 4th Paris–Roubaix
 * 5th Amstel Gold Race

 * 1981
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour de France
 * 1st Combination classification
 * 1st Prologue, Stages 6 (ITT), 14 (ITT), 18 & 20 (ITT)
 * Overall Combativity award
 * 1st Jersey yellow-bluebar.svg Overall Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Critérium International
 * 1st Overall Super Prestige Pernod International
 * 1st Paris–Roubaix
 * 1st Amstel Gold Race
 * 3rd Bronze medal uci.svg Road race, UCI Road World Championships

 * 1982
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour de France
 * 1st Combination classification
 * 1st Prologue, Stages 14 (ITT), 19 (ITT) & 21
 * 1st Jersey pink.svg Overall Giro d'Italia
 * 1st Prologue (TTT), Stages 3 (ITT), 12, 18, & 22 (ITT)
 * 1st Overall Super Prestige Pernod International
 * 1st Overall Tour de Luxembourg
 * 1st Grand Prix des Nations
 * 1st Grand Prix d'Ouverture La Marseillaise
 * 1st Critérium des As
 * 9th Paris–Roubaix

 * 1983
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Vuelta a España
 * 1st Stages 15b (ITT) & 17
 * 1st La Flèche Wallonne
 * 1st Grand Prix Pino Cerami

 * 1984
 * 1st Giro di Lombardia
 * 1st Grand Prix des Nations
 * 1st Jersey pink.svg Overall Four Days of Dunkirk
 * 1st Trofeo Baracchi (with Francesco Moser)
 * 2nd Overall Tour de France
 * 1st Prologue
 * Held Jersey yellow.svg after Prologue
 * Overall Combativity award
 * 2nd Overall Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
 * 3rd Overall Paris–Nice
 * 4th Züri-Metzgete

 * 1985
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour de France
 * 1st Prologue, Stages 3 (TTT) & 8 (ITT)
 * 1st Jersey pink.svg Overall Giro d'Italia
 * 1st Stage 12 (ITT)

 * 1986
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Coors Classic
 * 1st Stages 7a & 11a
 * 1st Jersey gold.svg Overall Vuelta Ciclista a la Comunidad Valenciana
 * 1st Trofeo Luis Puig
 * 2nd Overall Tour de France
 * 1st Jersey polkadot.svg Mountains classification
 * 1st Stages 9 (ITT), 18 & 20 (ITT)
 * Held Jersey yellow.svg after Stages 12–16
 * Overall Combativity award

General classification results timeline
Source:

Monuments results timeline
Source:

title: Bernard Hinault


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 5

Old talk:

 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive 1a - pre-20 May 2003
 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive 1b - 20 May-14 September 2003
 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for_deletion/archive 2 - starts 27 August 2003
 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for_deletion/archive 3 - September 2003
 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for_deletion/archive 4 - Oct-Dec 2003
 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/2004 archives - Summaries of Jan-Feb 2004
 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time - discussion of the "seven day rule"
 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions - should there be instructions at the top of this page?
 * Wikipedia talk:Archived delete debates - when should we use seperate /deletion pages, as opposed to headers, and should they be further edited?
 * Wikipedia talk:Inclusion dispute - what to do when there's no consensus?
 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title - should this page be renamed to proposed deletions?
 * /vfm - Votes for merge proposal

I am sick and tired.

 * I am sick and tired of running into VfD edit conflicts, mostly on topics unrelated to what I'm trying to vote on. I propose all discussions be done on talk pages and VfD be made a list of pages that are being discussed for deletion with the usual starting comments from the people that propose them for deletion. Just a thought. - Arthur George Carrick 03:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one. IIRC, a discussion about this is going on right below us, but I agree something must be done. It's damn annoying, and I've given up on voting because of this. --Johnleemk 09:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I gave up in disgust trying to vote on Ornament and Crime, but I still try to vote on most things. - Wikipedia 23:23, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VOTE: NEW LAYOUT FOR VFD!
This idea has came up from time to time. Basically, many users felt that VFD would work better if individual articles had their own headlines. That would make it possible to add your response to an article without first having to scroll through 15 kb of and run the risk of an edit conflict. You can look at a demonstration of that layout at User:BL/New VFD.

There are some cons, like a HUGE table of contents and you cannot make all days vote simultaneously (which you cannot do now either since you'll run into an edit conflict). But I think the pros outweights the cons. You can just scan through the toc to see if something catches your eye, you don't have to scroll through massive amounts of text, greatly reduced risk of an edit conflict since every person edit the page for a shorter time... Anyway, voice your opinion (whatever it is) and please vote below:
 * For clarity: both of the two preceding 'graphs are from the edit
 * . 11:15, 2004 Feb 22 . . BL
 * --Jerzy(t) 17:31, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

As a trial, I am going to "be bold" and split out March 3rd for a trial - That first one is making March 3 hard to vote in - Texture 19:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It is possible that the order the options are stated in doesn't matter.
 * It is also a defensible idea that the views of small minorities aren't going to affect the outcome, and that their being heard amounts to petty sabotage against the process of finding the only view that is in practice implementable. (And i admit to seeing Dennis Kucinich that way. [no hint of a wink])
 * Nevertheless, i request the indulgence of tolerating my reversing the order of the voting groups, to the order of weakest to strongest. If it has an effect, it will be to make some people who might vote without asking themselves if "neither" is an option.
 * I am also abolishing the sections, (I do that with even more hesitation, since it could add to the edit-conflict burden, but i think that will be only at peak times if at all.) This will avoid anyone left to vote jumping straight to "their" section without seeing what is said in others.
 * --Jerzy(t) 17:01, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * I don't see a difference between the proposed new format and the current one. What am I missing? --Johnleemk 08:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 Neither (see the new format)

Angela: Isn't this what is going to happen with the new Deletion requests page anyway?

 * Yes. As soon as Deletion votes is created and after some additional work, we will enter the trial period for the new two-stage system, so any major changes to the VfD format should be put on hold until the trial period is over and we have decided whether we want to keep that scheme.—Eloquence 02:16, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think this would best be dealt with by banning discussion on this page, and requiring it to occur on controversial page/delete or keep? This page would only then be for votes. I'm intreagued by mention of the new system. I'll have a look at that. Mr. Jones 14:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, then this change is a small step towards that new system. However, that thing has been in the making for a long, long while and I don't know how much support that idea has..
 * Jamesday's concerns are valid. But it is already impossible to check VFD:s history. Try loading this url for example which is VFD about 2 months ago. BL 02:39, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Preceding two 'graphs reformatted to clarify authorship and their role in discussion. --Jerzy(t) 18:10, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

 * Sorry BL, but Jamesday's concerns are largely invalid. Personally I never type a considered and well argued comment in a edit windof of VFD. If I want to put in a non-terse comment, I polish it in an unrelated edit window (frex. sandbox), and then do a quick cut and paste using section-editing. Some-one who comments more than one article at a time, in a particular section, is un-necessarily stressing the server, since it is more likely than not, that that is a recipe for edit conflicts, or even worse, apathy in participating in the process at all. (which happens, when one knows that it will only lead to an edit conflict). Having maximally short sections for editing, will make terse, quick, edits possible (you don't have to scroll screenfuls; hence quicker editing; fewer edit-conflicts; more people piping in; more robust process and less articles falling through the cracks). -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:08, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * I cannot support a new layout or an old layout of VFD right now, the system of how pages get selected for deletion needs to be redone entirely. I don't know how it would be redone, but a single page were just a few people vote up or down to delete an article cannot possibly be the best solution. So all I can do is hold out hope for the new Deletion requests system and see how it goes. With these reservations in mind I most vote for neither. --Flockmeal 22:22, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Jerzy(t) - Neither, bcz both are reflections of the fanatical and absurd idea that the basic Wiki mechanism can solve every problem. The problem of making decisions via scalable consultation and participation is fundamentally different from the collaborative editing task, tho closely related to it. Failure to address the differences with software and social mechanisms specific to their nature would be sufficient for this project to either
 * reach a technical or social collapse, or
 * eventually change into something that its most devoted adherants will regard as worthless or monstrous.
 * --Jerzy(t) 16:36, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

 * I think linking to the talk pages and debating there instead would be a better idea. The problem would be making it easy for admins to count votes. --Johnleemk 05:17, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bad idea (keep the current format)
 * Keep. Since BL is a radical inclusionist, his idea to change VfD is suspicious.  RickK 02:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't do this. VfD saw 224 edits in the 24 hours before this comment (9 per hour) and the last was 24k compressed size in the database (5 megabytes per day, 2 gigabytes per year). I quite often try to find things in VfD history and raising this rate to perhaps five or ten times the current edit rate would make it much harder to find things. It would also effectively force everyone to use section editing because edits would be happening at perhaps one edit a minute. I can't type and save well thought out responses in one minute, so this has significant potential to discourage discussion of listed items. Edit conflicts are annoying but increasing the rate of edits would make it worse. Jamesday 11:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Just type in notepad and paste in. -- user:zanimum
 * Object. The cons outweigh the pros. --Jiang 21:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * What are the cons? Anthony DiPierro 21:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * more edit conflicts since each vote will have to be submitted separately; TOC takes up too much space. will take longer to vote. --Jiang
 * You don't have to submit each vote separately. And the TOC is optional. Anthony DiPierro 17:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes you do if you want to edit by sections. It will take forever to locate individual entries. --Jiang 13:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * New format is no better. I spend more time scrolling and have just as many edit conflicts. The indents are harder to read because they don't follow as cleanly. I like —Eloquence's proposed format and process at Deletion requests. It would change us from a "voting" basis to a "logical arguments" basis. We could spend more time thinking and could stop entering useless "I agree for all the same reasons" messages (which we need today because of some lopsided interpretations of "concensus" which make us very susceptible to a tyranny of the minority). Rossami 20:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Editing two different sections of the same page at the same time still causes an edit conflict. All this would do is increase the number of edits and and increase the number of overall edit conflicts. --Imran 01:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * New format is no better -- editing two sections at the same time causes edit conflict. Maybe the edits to different sections can be automatically merged? Just a thought. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. It is just a level deeper than the current storage strategy, right? Down side is it may require a complete rework. - Texture 16:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 Good idea (make it the new format)
 * BL 11:15, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Optim: I like headings for every article, with table of contents. Optim 08:12, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony DiPierro: But turn off the table of contents.
 * Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:35, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC) Overdue, has been irrationally resisted for too long already. With the new servers, this should be functional.
 * Agreed. -Seth Mahoney 19:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * +sj+ 02:41, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC) Super.
 * Sam Spade 09:12, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) very good idea, with table of contents of course. Thank you
 * Texture 16:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) - with table of contents.
 * Good idea — Sverdrup (talk) 16:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * ike9898 with TOC
 * DropDeadGorgias 18:05, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC) The vfD page is impossible to edit now. - UGH, I just tried another edit and, of course, I had the same problem. It's impossible to make more than four or five votes at a time, because by the time you put your votes in and put a small rationalization, someone else has posted something new for vfd.  This HAS to be fixed.
 * Great - edit conflicts are so common as to make it virtually impossible sometimes. Mark Richards 19:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * All for it. Maroux 21:18, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * Support. With TOC. — Timwi 21:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I like it theresa knott 23:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks better. Muriel 12:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yup. I tried it out and changed my mind. Let's do it. Tannin 12:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It's A-OK with me... -- user:zanimum
 * Comment - Not voting again, but comment: there has been some discussion from the nay side that this solution is increasing edit conflicts. I don't see them increasing, in fact, the few times an edit conflict happens you no longer have to search for the twelve votes you made on a date but rather one entry and your recovery time is so much faster. - Texture 17:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Even day segments were getting hard to edit. DJ Clayworth 19:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I've noticed fewer edit conflicts. - SimonP 21:11, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, and bonus points :) if it helps to avoid conflicts. --Humus sapiens 02:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm much happier with this format. Slow router = lots more edit conflicts. This cuts those waaaay back. Denni 02:01, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Vanity Pages
-->Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion

Have we abandoned consensus?
I've noticed a lot of pages have been deleted recently which lacked a clear consensus. Anthony DiPierro 14:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * We don't look for clear consensus. The policy states "rough consensus". Angela.

 * LIke what ? theresa knott 15:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 *

Well total consensus was abandoned long ago as impractical. The examples you list are a mixed bunch. Pesonally I would not have deleted them, but I'm not that worried about them being deleted except for KPPP. Perhaps some sort of reminder is necessary. I'll do it now -

I'm not talking about total consensus. I'm talking about situations where only 2 people vote to delete and 1 votes to keep, or where 4 people vote to delete and 1 votes to keep. In another case there is 1 keep, 1 delete, and one weak "delete or stub". In another the vote was 2 to 1 in favor of keeping. See above. Anthony DiPierro 16:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note to Admins
If in doubt don't delete! If there are at least two people who argue against deletion, think very carefully before hitting that button. If there is less than an 80% vote for deletion think very carefully before deleting.

To Anthony - no real harm is done if a page is deleted. We can always list on VfUD theresa knott 15:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's lot of harm. Listing on VfU is no guarantee that a page will be undeleted. Anthony DiPierro 16:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well that's a matter of opinion. If i see something getting deleted that I don't think should have been I just undelete it. (I don't know if I should do this but I prefer to be bold and it can always be deleted again anyway) What I used to do before I became an admin was to ask the admin who deleted the page to undelete it.

It's a difficult area, I never count votes when deciding if it should be deleted or not, but instead exercise judgement. I think most admins do the same. What I mean by this is if someone does not explain why they are voting that way, I tend to ignore them. theresa knott 11:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If it's an out of process deletion in the first place, then you are allowed to undelete it, but the undeletion policy states that when you do this, you should relist it on VfD. Angela.

 * I would feel wronged if ignored. Many others would as well.  A page just got relisted because it had a majority to delete but was not deleted.  If this is a case of ignoring delete votes without a reason I think that is wrong.  Many people don't give a reason because someone else summed it up and they felt no need to add duplicated reasons.  If votes without reasons are going to be ignored then it needs to be stated. -Texture 17:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * What is the criterion for a "explanation"? If I put a word or two such as "vanity" is that sufficient for my vote to be counted?  - Texture 17:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Let me clarify - and note that I'm speaking only for myself here, what other admins do I can't say though I suspect they use judgement too. Usually there are far too few "votes" to decide based on numbers alone. This is unfortunate but what can we do do? We can't force people to vote. So I have to look at arguments that people put forward. If you write -delete or -keep I can't do that, so yes I do tend to ignore those. One or two words is usually enough "-delete vanity" is fine or "-agree with blah blah keep" is fine. I tend to err on the side of caution, and i always read the page myself and check it's history before deletion. This is the best that I can do, so I do it. theresa knott 17:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Anytime you see -delete it usually means "agree with nominator". I really don't want to junk up VfD with that each and every time in order to get my vote counted.  Keep need some explanation unless it is preceded by another users' argument. - Texture 18:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Just "delete vanity" is somewhat problematic if, after your vote, the article has been reworked so it's no longer a vanity page. At that point, your vote ceases to count for much because it's no longer about the article which would be deleted. Relisting might be one way to handle this, so it's even more clear that the article has been reworked, so people do take another look and consider whether their original reasons for voting still apply. Jamesday 17:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not sure why we bother having this page, then. The guidelines for it clearly say that there needs to be a consensus, though. I guess I can "exercise judgement" and remove pages after 5 days if I feel that the deletion votes were not explained? Anthony DiPierro 15:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You do what you think best. I'm not going to give you permission. theresa knott 15:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And likewise I'm not going to give you permission to do what you're doing. Anthony DiPierro 15:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VFD Statistics?
Has anyone kept track of the statistics for pages that get placed on VFD? My impression is that there are a lot more pages that are not deleted in the end than pages that are.

Is there are VFD results page? Should we have one? This could list the outcome for each page listed on VFD, and perhaps keep a count over time of the final destiny of pages.
 * -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 14:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I get the same impression. I feel that far too many pages are listed on VfD when they shouldn't be. theresa knott 15:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * This has been raised before. If you feel people are wrongly listing things, take it to their talk page. Complaining about it here is unlikely to have any effect. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I read his comment slightly differently - Many posts on vfd should be deleted, but aren't. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:32, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree with Theresa. I've commented several times to this affect, both in specific discussions and generally. And what's the point of updating the guidelines if they are just ignored anyway? This also applies to the format of voting... merge and delete is becoming increasingly popular, despite the fact that the doco explicitly says it's not a valid option. Andrewa 00:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I though the vote was "delete" in that case and the recommendation was for anyone interested to merge the content prior to deletion. - Texture 00:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That isn't possible. If something is merged, the original should be redirected to keep the attribution of who wrote it before it was merged. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I get no impression from the comment - How about creating a page where results can be recorded? Not each item but just a count:

 * March 3 2004 - 5 deleted, 4 kept, 1 withdrawn, 1 moved to Recipe/deletion...

 * - Texture 17:36, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nice idea in principle, but in practice, who does the recording? If it's the admins, you are going to meet some resistance. My procedure for deleting a page is:
 * 1) read all the comments and votes on VfD check that there are no valid resons not to delete.
 * 2) Read the article - decide if you're happy to delete it.
 * 3) Check the history of the article - usually short (thankfully) but not always.
 * 4) Delete the talk page
 * 5) Delete the article putting reason in deletion summary.
 * 6) Remove listing from VfD puting reason in edit summary.

That's if I'm deleting. Often there is an alternative solution. Many people are happy to vote "merge and redirect to blah blah" or "transwiki to blah blah" but not actually do it. So I have to create the redirects etc. IMO this is quite enough work without having to edit another page for stats. theresa knott 17:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, bad idea... I'll keep thinking... :) - Texture 18:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I made the original suggestion for several reasons. I keep hearing all sorts of complaints about pages listed here, but my impression is that many of the pages listed end up either:
 * improved to where deletion is not necessary
 * made into a redirect
 * Almost immediately determined to be a moot vote: either universally seen as garbage, or seen as a valid article (the poster was being too careful in not listing it for immediate deletion, or the poster was unaware of the significance of the topic).
 * other fates I can't think of right now...

It seems that only a small minority end up in a significant dispute, requiring a real vote.

If I am right, my conclusion would be that VFD is working quite well. It serves as one of the very few "official" editorial reviews that any page has, and the usual result of an improved page.

My one concern is that I think we are often too quick to post a page to VFD. There seems to be very few cases where waiting a few hours would hurt. Pure vandalism and patent nonsense are handled elsewhere, quickly. Other doubtful pages should be given some chance to improve before they're listed here.
 * -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 19:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That's what cleanup is for. Perhaps people need to find a way of improving cleanup so it gets used. That might be more effective that saying what is wrong with VfD. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmmmm... best comment yet IMO. Most of the problems with VfD would be solved if cleanup was used properly. Andrewa 17:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know. Articles get cleaned up due to the pressure of a deadline.  If a three word article is presented for deletion it may get filled out due to the threat of deletion after 5 days.  If the same three word article is presented for cleanup it will likely get lost since people think they have all the time in the world.  Result: article that is inadequate, incorrect, or out of date.  I like the VfD stress that makes people realize that articles just aren't articles yet. - Texture 18:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * With all due respect for any feeling of urgency, I've better things to do than work on articles listed on VfD just because someone is impatient with the speed with which the wiki process is improving them. If you list things for that reason, please stop abusing the process. Jamesday 18:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I must have stated things poorly for such a response. If I list and item on VfD it requires deletion due to inaccurate, improper, or non-encyclopedic content.  However, those who know more about it may be able to clean it up to the point where it is no longer a real candidate for deletion.  I never recommend listing an item that is appropriate but merely needs a lot of work. - Texture 18:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I was addressing "Articles get cleaned up due to the pressure of a deadline. If a three word article is presented for deletion it may get filled out due to the threat of deletion after 5 days.", which appeared to me to suggest deliberate use of VfD to apply time pressue. There are already more things to do than time to do them, so using VfD in that way would unnecessarily distract people from doing things they judge should otherwise be done first. Glad to hear that you don't do that! Jamesday 18:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed, Angela. Policy not to list articles created with the last week on VfD would help a lot when it comes to cutting down on the number of times newbies find things they are still working on getting listed. Moving them to a section of cleanup for subsequent reconsideration for delete if they aren't improved would help, IMO. Jamesday 18:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree w. Angela. I'm happy with a little overexhuberence in listing here and a little caution in actually deleting. I see a low percentage of articles in VfD that do not actually have _some_ justification for being there, and given that admins are not going to delete (usually, I hope) without some kind of show of support from members at large, I'm trusting that this will work. Denni 02:22, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Proposal
I like how the votes for Adminship page has the vote tally in the heading (i.e. (3/3)). Can we do this on vfd as well? It would make the TOC a nice summary of the voting for each topic. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:31, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * At first blush I was against this idea. However, I imagined what it would be like to glance through the TOC and discover what needed attention, deletion, or removal as clearly being kept.  Might even stir more people to provide input. - Texture 21:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The adminship's page "toctallies" in the headings was my idea and implemented by me. I like the idea of having a "toctally" in vfd's headings. But I couldn't do the same for vfd because of edit conflicting, except if we protect the page for some time. Of course they would need maintenance and updating. Optim 21:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If you want to implement it just do the last few and let it start from there. You don't need to convert the entire page while you try it out - Texture 21:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Exactly, just like they did with the new spiffy toc headings. We'll just change the last couple and then people adding new articles for vfd will get the hint.- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:50, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Umm, ok I've done the last couple. The poster should also make it clear in the heading whether the vote is for total deletion or transwikification (or some other solution). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:01, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * If someone wants to copy somewhere else, that should be done by the lister before listing here - this place is about deleting from the encyclopedia. Transwiki is just a euphamism for that when it's used here. Jamesday 17:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't forget to count the nominator. you missed Weluvducsoha, should be 5/0 - Texture 22:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, one of the votes isn't signed, so I couldn't count it- I've reverted the head back down - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:09, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah - Texture 22:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right! Optim 21:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let's use "5d/0k" for "5 delete/0 keep" instead of "5/0" to help newbies understand the system. alernatively we could list only deletions (5) meaning 5 votes to delete. Optim 22:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow, it really put the train station request in perspective. There are so many votes I didn't know so many were voting to keep. Having it on the TOC let me see that while looking for something else. - Texture 22:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have grave reservations about the use of these tallies here. They give the impression that all votes are equal, but of course they are not when the admin comes along to make the final decision. Early votes are often irrelevant because a page gets rewritten or moved or redirected. This action drifts the VfD page further away from its purpose, i.e. to judge which side of the policy on deleting pages a specific page lands on, or to refine policy if it is ambiguous or insufficiently detailed, and further towards a crap shoot where pages get deleted because they aren't that good at the moment. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Please do not use these tallies. Deletion decisions are not made based on a simple vote count, so these are completely misleading and highly damaging to the idea that Vfd is supposed to be about gaining consensus. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree strongly with angela. Anthony DiPierro 16:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Angela, the toctallies will not change the way vfd works. Optim·.· 18:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree. They will unduly emphasise the tallies, rather than the reasons and discussion. Jamesday 18:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I set up a poll below. Please vote and discuss there. Optim·.· 18:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * As I asked on talk:RfA please don't just keep setting up poll after poll as soon as someone questions some of your many ideas. Polls are destructive to the wiki process. They stifle debates that have barely begun. Polls are to be used only when a subject has been discussed and various options identified, their pros and cons discussed and only an informed personal decision is left. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:41, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Get Serious
Hey, Get Serious! vfd is neither cleanup, nor a place to propose the deletion of the pages of your wikienemies or push your agendas! and certainly it is not the place to demonstrate your strict "academic" rules of article acceptance: you are not the god to decide what exists and what doesn't! Wikipedia serves the reader, and the reader decides what is a worthly article. stop being destructive and be constructive; follow the Ahimsa rule and delete only what is obvious garbage or what hinders our quality. don't make vfd your personal arena for pushing POVs and making wikiwars, please. Optim 21:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Well said. I feel like listing VfD itself lately. Reasons:

 * Most of the current content is either
 * unverifiable or
 * POV or
 * patent nonsense
 * most of the current content violates Wikipedia policies in some way or other
 * there seems no hope of converting it into anything useful.

 * But I'm resisting the temptation so far. I fear that a lot of Wikipedians might not appreciate the joke just now. Senses of humour are wearing a bit thin. And I'm still a relative newcomer. Probably it's been done before. At least if VfD were deleted, we could then list it for undeletion if we missed it badly. On the other hand, if we deleted Votes for Undeletion it could get serious...!

 * Ah me. We do need something like VfD. But I'm not sure any of the current proposals for fixing it are radical enough.

 * Your way is a lot simpler, and IMO everyone who follows your advice above will improve the situation. In fact if everyone did, the problem would be solved. I wish I thought it could happen. Andrewa 09:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * VfD has been listed on VfD a few times. Never any consensus to delete it though. :) Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I might've guessed. Hang in there. (-> Andrewa 17:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An Idea for easier browsing
I've just had an idea. Wouldn't it be much better if the Vfd page was organised like the Administrator Nominations page - i.e. two headings - keep or delete, and there is a total of the votes at the bottom of the votes. It would make using theVfd page much easier as you can see everybody's stance immediately. Ludraman 22:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I Agree! Optim 22:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * No. See my comment above about toctallies. The aim is to discuss the articles and come to a consensus, not to split people off into support/oppose groups. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Toctallies
Do you like the toctallies? Optim·.· 18:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No. They're a horrible idea. However, I do support clarifying a users vote when it is unclear.  Anthony DiPierro 19:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * We already use toctallies in Requests for adminship with great success. Optim·.· 18:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It has been in use for less than a day.... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I introduced them on 4 Mar 2004 at 19:37 (UTC) and they have been in use for 23 hours so far. 4 people, not counting myself, voted "I like the toctallies". Other people extended the concept to add the "ends" date in the TOC. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Toctallies - Optim·.· 18:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The toctallies help me a lot in tracking how many responses there are to a nomination without haveing to read each one over and over each time. Pcb21 did show a small flaw in the multiple nominations toctallies.  Does a toctally include all nominations included in vote text?  If it does, should that be noted in the title or just left without a toctally? - Texture 18:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that an article changes underneath the votes on it is the killer of this idea as far as I can see. Maybe they could work if votes relating to old versions of the article are removed as an article changes? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Would that include notifying the users that their votes were invalidated? When I see changes after my vote that do not affect my vote I do not make any changes. - Texture 19:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You are removing a nomination that is not yours prior to the 5 day period. If the change in the article has caused the nominator to change his opinion, should the nominator indicate that or remove the nomination themselves? Waiting 5 days for the nominator to remove it, if he decides to, is more appropriate. - Texture 19:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should be made a policy. Wik removed all my nominations from today without my approval. Anthony DiPierro 19:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I for one completely support wik's decision to do that. VfD is a page for people to list pages they think need to be deleted.If no one wants a page deleted, not even the nominator, then they page shouldn't be listed. I would totally oppose any policy where pages that are not problem pages need to stay here for 5 days. Such a system would be open to widespread abuse.Anyone who wanted to bugger up VfD could list thousands of pages that don't need deleting. theresa knott 00:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I did want those pages deleted. Anthony DiPierro 03:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Then you should have said so. Not counting your own nomination as a vote to delete causes this sort of problem. Can you see now why admins interpret a nomination as a vote to delete ?

 * Having them on RfA does not mean they should be used on VfD. The two pages have completely different purposes. This should be discussed before starting a vote on it. Please read the voting policy. Angela. 18:54, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * And it should be voted on before implementing. Anthony DiPierro 22:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tocalies are redundant. VfD is not a binary process. We've seen an spate of votes to delete that do not conform to the deletion policy - I can see tocalies only making this worse. Furthermore, I do not see what benefit they might offer, other than saving a few seconds reading time. Except that, if the reading of discussion is skipped, that's a bad thing in my book. Ergo: If they work they are bad, and if they don't work, they are bad == They are bad.

That brings up another problem. Updating tocalies causes edit conflicts, unless you intend for everyone to update them when they vote. And requiring that makes edit conflicts harder to deal with because text has to be reentered in multiple locations. Anthony DiPierro 03:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I vote a very strong no. TOCTallies are moot at best. Early votes are often meaningless on articles that have been radically changed while listed on VfD... unless, of course, we automatically protect pages from edits once a VFD notice is placed on a file. Davodd 06:31, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Which would be a very bad thing. Lot's of aticles submitted to VfD are editted over the 5 days and are so much improved that they are not deleted. The tallies should go. theresa knott 10:25, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The tallies are a bad idea, for all the reasons stated above, and because in summary they give such a misleading idea of the state of consensus or otherwise that we're far better off without them. Andrewa 11:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, as AndrewA says, the running tallies are a bad idea. Quite apart from the difficulties of implementaion, and the sock-puppet problem, they concentrate too much attention on the numbers and not enough on the reasons. Tannin 12:00, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To play this the same way as I would if I were deciding on deletion, I vote no change to past procedure. While I personally like the toctally, I can appreciate it that people like Angela and Anthony have a problem with it. For me, it's just information, but you guys have to make the actual choice. Denni 02:31, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Instructions at bottom - i.e., Comment-Supported Day-links Scheme for VfD
I've struck out here the portions that are no longer relevant, whether accurate or not. --Jerzy(t) 06:26, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

I just removed some commented out text from the bottom of the page:
 * [in italics, following heading "1st Chunk Moved"]

 * Even if the material had been transferred here in its intended order, any real chance of making sense of it ended when the first chunk was (quite rightly) moved (but nevertheless) out of context, so i apologize to all those who attempted making sense of it.

I accept the objection that VfD can't afford the space, especially since the problem it is aimed at (namely, scrolling thru new VfD ToC is onerous for some purposes) is not a crucial one. I won't waste anyone's energy explaining objections that IMO stem from misunderstandings of its now abandoned intent.

As to the immediate future:
 * When no one else does so first, i'll continue frequently adding the new-day headings, as i have for days at a stretch lately.
 * Anyone adding a heading for a day can figure out how to add the link to it (if they realize there are links), and probably those likely to add them also will realize to add the heading before the link.
 * I'll also try keep an eye out for deletion of old days, since they come on no schedule that i know of, and those deleting them may not even be aware they are targets of links that become broken upon the deletion; perhaps i won't be alone in this, the most pressing of the tasks my plan contemplates.

As to the longer run,
 * the 31 canned links (and perhaps even the 31 canned headings) may be be valuable here for those who share my distaste for typing the same finicky thing twice, and my tendency to mistype them without noticing, starting about the third time. ; and
 * i think i'll probably just label the moved chunks a little, so they appear in the old revisions, before deleting everything but the canned links and headings. --Jerzy(t) 04:33, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

 * Actually, i've reworked off-line material to replace both sets of canned markup, and will place the new versions here, along with points about non-comment-supported day links.

1st Chunk Moved
Just for the record, the following chunk belonged at the end of the file: after the most recent nomination and any comments made on it. Create the next day's section by moving its heading-text to just before the start of the comment that begins with the line before this sentence. Make the text into a heading by adding three equal signs before it, and three more after. It's also worthwhile, AFTER doing this, to edit the end of the first, unnamed section (preceding the ToC), in order to activate a link pointing to your new day's heading. The 7th The 8th The 9th The 10th The 11th The 12th The 13th The 14th The 15th The 16th The 17th The 18th The 19th The 20th The 21st The 22nd The 23rd The 24th The 25th The 26th The 27th The 28th The 29th The 30th Remember NOT to create a section for the 31st in the following months: February April June September November The 31st The 1st

NOTE WELL: Instructions for adding a section for the day just beginning are a few dozen lines above, at the start of the comment.

(Don't put anything at the end of this page, except this sentence and the three-character "arrow-head" that ends the comment by following it.)

Comment
this is unnecessarily wordy and will cause more confusion than intended. after speed reading through it, like how i read everything on this site, I don't get what it means. I think people can learn more easily through example, and not very technical instructions. it also gets in the way of posting new entries. --Jiang 08:19, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

 * I agree. VfD is not a place to explain how headers are made. We have section for that. I removed the following for the same reason. Angela. 13:23, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Another Chunk

 * Just for the record, the following chunk belonged near the start of the file: Just before the first heading, so the Toc fell immediately after it. And the links to the days with headings in VfD (i.e., links other than these, which were not commented out like these, were embedded, close above or below the "Note Well" block.

4th - 3rd - 2nd - 1st - 31st - 30th - 29th - 28th - 27th - 26th - 25th - 24th - 23rd - 22nd - 21st - 20th - 19th - 18th - 17th - 16th - 15th - 14th - 13th - 12th - 11th - 10th - 9th - 8th - 7th - Create the link to a new section by moving the line above to be the line following the comment this sentence is part of.

-- NOTE WELL! Instructions for linking to a new day are just above. Instructions for unlinking an old day are just below.

Eliminate the link to an old day's section, just before its heading is deactivated, by moving its link to be the next line following this sentence -- although links targeted at headings containing the word "March" are best handled by discarding them instead of moving them.) 6th - 5th -

Comment
And this section... VfD is already over 100kb. There is no room for all this stuff!

Final Chunk

 * Just for the record, this last chunk to be removed to here belonged between the other two: Just before the first heading for specific days

The 2nd The 3rd The 4th The 5th The 6th Take an old day's section off the page by 1. removing its last listings, 2. removing all the equal signs from its heading line, and 3. moving its heading-text to be the line before this sentence. NOTE WELL: putting the heading into the comment without removing the equal signs will (at this time) make section editing work wrong for all subsequent sections.

(However, headings containing the word "March" are best handled by discarding them instead of moving them.)

Consensus Standard on VfD
Do our votes mean anything here or can sysops just keep or delete pages at their own whim? Is 7-2 enough to delete or not, especially when one of the two keep votes is by Anthony? --Wik 15:56, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sysops don't delete on thier own whim. They try to decide the broad consensus. 7-2may or may not be enough. It depends on the arguments put forwards.theresa knott 18:40, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Votes for a completely different page mean nothing. Anthony DiPierro 15:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Intra-page links
Don't include the name of the page itself in the code for intra-page links. On some browsers this might force the re-load of the entire page just to jump to a different section. Also it makes it difficult to test your links on a preview. --Phil 14:37, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and FWIW, don't put the voting state in the section header: it makes it that much more difficult to keep the whole page consistent. Now someone's got to either move all those vote status summaries down into the corresponding section or modify the top section for each day whenever the voting changes. Guess which get my vote :-) --Phil 14:43, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Jump to the End

The "Jump to the end" thingy at the top of the page is currently broken. Jgm 19:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consider it fixed, provided I don't run into another annoying edit conflict. - Arthur George Carrick 03:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The "Jump to End" solution is pretty ugly. Users can simply hit End on their keyboard without slamming the server with another page requests. I suggest the cons outweigh the pros on this one. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * In the absence of someone telling me I'm wrong, and I assumed I was right, because people usually tell me pretty quickly when I'm wrong. So I removed the ugly stuff at the bottom, and updated the instructions at the top. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Crazy fools deprettifying my solution. Next time you should wait at least a full 24 hours before taking action! If the size of the page goes down, I will make it artsier. For now, this is the simple, effective way. - Arthur George Carrick 00:49, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

current deletion policy is anti democratic
the adminsitrators have no checks or balances on their power. the users have no voice. administrators are not a random sample of the population.-Anon

 * - Not true. The administrators are not allowed to delete a page without a rough consensus. If you think a page was deleted arbitarily list it on Votes for undeletion

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/