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

Cycling Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spain Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm going to add the top 3 of each stage and the top 3 of GC after each stage into this article. Do I just have to put these contents into the main article like Vuelta a España 2005 and 2006 Giro d'Italia, or should I start new page(s) for these contents, similar to 2006 Tour de France? Any opinions would be appreciated. --Celticshk ^Talk 07:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that depends on how much you're planning on writing for each stage. If you're giving a short recap of the stage as well, I think that deserves a new page, like in the 2006 Tour. The Giro d'Italia page looks cluttered with all those stage resultes, in my opinion. --Denvesletigeren 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think stages should be on different page. Still missing from main page is list of retirements (there wasn't one in first three stages) --BleuDXXXIV 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There're 3 DNFs and 3 riders outside time limit in Stage 5, and there will be more in upcoming stages. If all retirements are to be recorded, separate page(s) for stage results will be needed, in order to make the main page not too long. --Celticshk ^Talk 18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Points classification is on blue and mountains on orange. Shouldn't it be vice versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.200.100 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]