Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

I'm requesting an A-Class review for Wallkill Valley Rail Trail, which has just become a GA. None of the involved projects have a formal A-Class method, so I'm requesting that two editors review the article and support its promotion. I'm reposting this request on the talk pages of all involved projects.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick update: an editor at WikiProject Hudson Valley has volunteered to participate, so we only need at least one other editor.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently, there are still 35 articles in the cycling project that are blanked because they could have copyvio's. They can be found here. Occasionally, I will take some time and repair/replace an article from this list, so it is useful for me to have this link somewhere, and if I keep it here, more people might help...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello from the Hebrew Wiki. Is there a special/agreed date for riders that are moving from one team to another, that I can change their team? For example: When Carlos Sastre is moving to his new team? When he attend their training camp? First race? January 1st?Tushyk (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the UCI regs say that contracts end on December 31 so new contracts start only on January 1... Severo^TC 13:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is now the official classification for top-level teams (previously UCI ProTour, though several articles here annoyingly used "UCI ProTeam" when it was wrong), presumably because there is no ProTour itself anymore. Do we move UCI ProTour or start a different article? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 11:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Has been ProTeam for years - media outlets referred to "ProTour team" as some kind of dumbing-down exercise. For me, "ProTour" has always meant more about the races and the series of races although I'm still uncertain as to whether the UCI ProTour article should be moved to UCI World Tour/UCI WorldTour or not - the series as it will be in 2011 looks remarkably similar to the 2005 UCI ProTour which means I think we should keep the page going but noting the new media branding. (If that is chosen, UCI World Ranking should also be merged in.) As for teams, I think we should create an article along the lines of UCI cycling team classifications. Severo^TC 11:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Has been ProTeam for years Cyclingnews disagrees with you: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. A central article for team classifications is a possibility. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

2006 regs - page 73, rule 2.15.003, "The UCI ProTour licence is the right conferred by the UCI to take part in the UCI ProTour, either with a team of professional riders, known as a "UCI ProTeam", or as organiser of a given event". It was probably in the rules since the inception of the ProTour but I think that proves it has been there for years, whether journalists ever read the actual rules or not. Is there a new name for what used to be ProTour race licences btw? The current rules on the UCI website are still referring to the World Calendar/Ranking. Severo^TC 08:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly the whole thing makes almost no sense and is incredibly non-transparent. The UCI makes no secret that part of their ranking process for ProTeam licenses is kept secret. Furthermore, WTF is this? Has there even been an announcement of what races are supposed to compose the WorldTour and how points are allocated? And to think this is all in the name of making the sport easier to follow...... Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 10:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Races are here - but that list from the UCI omits the Tour of Beijing - ceremoniously announced last month... (maybe it will be dropped quietly like the Tour of Sochi was???). I haven't found any clear references to how these races are decided upon - we know the old ProTour races had ProTour licences from the UCI, but what about the ASO (Unipublic)/RCS races? There's probably a lack of news as it still hasn't been agreed between the organizers and the UCI and also the teams and the UCI. I wouldn't be worried by the lack of information - except that it is supposed to start in 1 month and 5 days, and there's still no final word on the calendar, final list of Pro Conti teams, final decision of how teams are selected for races etc etc.... Severo^TC 13:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh there's a final list of Pro Continental teams (pending only the resolution of the Pegasus saga). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A bit of a somber reason to be spurred into bringing this up, but do we suppose he's notable for an article? He managed a major cycling team (though I don't know when or for how long or in what exact capacity), and lately was the personal coach of Cadel Evans, Ivan Basso, and Riccardo Riccò. It doesn't seem he was notable as a cyclist himself. What do we think? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 10:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

to whom, if either, the De Rosa-Ceramica Flaminia team (see the link I gave to Severo above) is successor? Will they be {{UCI team code|FLM|2011}} or {{UCI team code|DER|2011}} or do we know? (obviously the code doesn't actually matter, it's who holds the license) Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The bit that apparently doesn't matter is listed at the UCI as DER. I don't speak Italian, but the impression I get from Teamflaminia.com is that it is very much a coming together as equals (uniting two teams); Sono felicissimo della collaborazione con Roberto Marrone e considero la Ceramica Flaminia non certo un secondo nome. Diciamo che la DE ROSA –CERAMICA FLAMINIA è una squadra che vanta due primi nomi molto importanti. (≈ not a second name...two first names), although that might refer to sponsors' contribution rather than management. However, while Ceramica Flaminia wish to present it very much as a collaboration between Bordonali (who, as far as I can see, was team manager at LPR until 2009, but did not feature at De Rosa) and Flaminia's main man, Marrone, whereas De Rosa's site simply refers to Bordonali's new team. Whether the management company will be California Sports of Lombard Street, or NRJ in the suburban obscurity of Rathgar, or a third, new entity I cannot yet see. Kevin McE (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The license is how we determine continuity, isn't it? The whole Astana thing...right? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

California Sport Ltd it is, as per De Rosa-Stac Plastic in 2010, so it is a continuation of that, and the Ceramica Flaminia team would be considered defunct. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll make the necessary edit to {{Cycling data DER}}. The resultant article on the fused team should, to some degree, reflect that the defunct-ness of the Ceramica Flaminia team is basically a technicality. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems close parallel to Garmin Cervelo: a friendly takeover, but a takeover nevertheless Kevin McE (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've recently stumbled onto the Great Backlog Drive, which is currently trying to clear out Wikipedia's backlogs. In case anyone is interested, our project currently has over 450 articles which meet the criteria. I've compiled a list using CatScan and setting 'Cycling' and 'Wikipedia backlog' as categories. Regards.Drunt (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Better than CatScan might be Article Lists, although it does give rather more results (over 10,000!). Severo^TC 20:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

10,000 is the number of articles of this project!

Cycling articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		2	8	4			14
FL	4	1	2	9			16
GA		6	24	90			120
B	4	34	51	105		46	240
C	10	31	145	472		282	940
Start	10	65	271	4,474		2,418	7,238
Stub		7	175	14,854		5,835	20,871
List	3	4	27	557	1	268	860
Category					5,076		5,076
Disambig				1	18		19
File					154		154
Project					32		32
Redirect		1	6	100	560		667
Template			1	5	2,083		2,089
Other				5	32		37
Assessed	31	151	710	20,676	7,956	8,849	38,373
Unassessed						1	1
Total	31	151	710	20,676	7,956	8,850	38,374
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 165,788			Ω = 5.65

Drunt (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm can't do it with that tool after all - but there are the tools above to see the articles requiring cleanup. Severo^TC 13:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The last couple years, 1/1 has been the day we (okay, I) go about updating en masse the rider and team articles to reflect the signings for the new season. However, things may not be so cut-and-dried this year. Most of the riders originally signed to the Australian team known as "Pegasus Racing" are likely to end up with other teams, but so far only three have been announced. Most of them will probably come after the calendar turns over to the new year, maybe well into the new season. Furthermore, there's rumblings that the shoe company Geox may revoke its sponsorship of Gianetti's team, as they have the contractual right to do given that they lost out on ProTeam status. What do we make of that? I don't know how likely it is or isn't that the team folds altogether, though they have pulled out of the 2011 Tour de San Luis, which was supposed to be their season debut. What should we do with the relevant articles for that team when the new year rolls around? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 07:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oy. I put a few hours in, but I only got as far as updating all team pages and templates. Still have to update the rider pages for those who have switched. I did Ag2r and Astana, marking off the incoming riders and the outgoing riders to teams not also on my list, so if anyone wants to pick up before I get back tomorrow, I left off with BMC. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 08:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's basically done now, but feel free to look at the teams and riders and see if I omitted or erred or anything. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You did a lot of work. I'm sure you're happy this rate of team changes only happens once a year! --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 22:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If not me, then who? It's sad how many out-of-date articles we have. 99% of them are my personal favorite "Joe Blow is a Dutch professional cyclist currently riding for <<Team ThatWentDefunct4YearsAgo>>." Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as per the topic line, I went ahead and did a full update with the Geox riders. For Pegasus, I made a (probably too) wordy note on each rider with an existent article who is still under contract to them, explaining that that status is still up in the air. There's only about 7 or 8 such riders, so it can (and will) be easily updated when...there's an update to make. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed two members of this project have set the class for Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail, and was wondering if someone from this project would be interested in conducting the good article review for the article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has passed GA, but now there is a FAC open if anyone would like to participate.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Drop by TFD. I've listed three defunct cycling team roster navboxes (Milram, Cervelo, and Agritubel) for deletion...and one got an oppose. Wha..? Previously (Gerolsteiner, Credit Agricole) these were uncontroversial deletions that I was surprised even had to go through TFD. And I think they were even deleted without any "votes" Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's happened, although somewhat less strongly, before. Maybe we should think about renaming the templates something like {{Team Movistar riders}} so people won't think the templates are for anything else. Severo^TC 08:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've weighed in, and emptied the templates to demonstrate their redundancy. I think the objection was based on confusion between the template and the article, which no-one here is suggesting should be deleted. Lest anyone else want to record an opinion, the relevant locations are here and here. Kevin McE (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe we should standardize how these are titled. There's no uniformity. Some are at the UCI codes, some are at full team names. The Euskaltel template used to be at {{EES}}, which I do not understand (hence why I moved it to {{EUS}}). Since template redirects really make no difference (two Katusha riders still have {{TCS}} at the bottom of their articles, for example), we could easily move these to more descriptive titles. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The {{EUS}} one was because someone wanted to make that title like {{USA}} or {{ITA}} but for the Basque Country and moved the Euskaltel-Euskadi template to {{EES}}. But I think that idea was against consensus/policy/whatever because EUS isn't a three-letter code with any UN or IOC body and so it was deleted. Severo^TC 08:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

An issue I have wondered about for a while, brought up again in one of the discussions referred to above.
We lack a record of the membership, past and present, of cycling teams. For other sports, this is done variously by a template (eg Template:Scuderia Ferrari), a category (eg Category:Gillingham F.C. players) or a list article (eg List of Harlequins Rugby League players).

I don't think the template idea is suitable: for the longer established teams there would be too many names. I have no strong preference whether a list or a category is preferable: cats are slightly easier to work with, a list allows for expansion of information. I've never really studied wiki guidelines as to the comparative wisdom of these two routes: maybe some of you have.

The big issue with this is the ever changing names. I am certainly not suggesting that we should have Category:Team Telekom, Category:T-Mobile-Team, Category:Team High Road, Category:Team Columbia, Category:Team Columbia-High Road,Category:Team Columbia-HTC, Category:Team Columbia-High Road, Category:Team HTC-Columbia and Category:Team HTC-High Road; that way madness lies. But it should not be beyond our wit to come up with viable catch all titles: Category:Team Telekom and its successors or Category:Team HTC-High Road and its predecessors could do the job.

The example above of Harlequins RL above shows how name changes can be handled in a list article: its opening sentence is "This is a list of rugby league footballers who have played for Fulham, London Crusaders, London Broncos and Harlequins RL", and there are redirects from List of Fulham RLC players, List of London Crusaders players and List of London Broncos players. So there could be a List of cyclists on Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team would include members of the previous incarnations, with a redirect from List of cyclists on U.S. Postal Service Cycling Team, List of cyclists on Montgomery-Bell Cycling Team, and List of cyclists on Subaru-Montgomery Cycling Team.

I would think that any team at Pro Tour or Pro Continental level would merit such a facility.

Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Something I have mulled about for a while but not had the desire to go any further with. Some articles (such as Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team) have a list of all previous riders and as far as I am aware we have one list (List of Team Columbia-HTC riders - hmm, needs a naming update!). There were previously categories for Category:T-Mobile Team and Category:Team Sky - the Team Sky one had a debate here one year ago where some merits of category naming were discusses. For lists, I have absolutely no problem with them - updating the name of the article year-by-year, listing briefly in the lede what we mean by this team (and its previous names). Categories do present more of a problem: either we have categories for each team name, or we have some undesirable categorisation (Jan Ullrich being a member of Category:Team HTC-High Road riders???). There could be a possible catch-all name, but I can't think of how without sounding too verbose. Some sports also categories their people by league (e.g. Category:Premier League players) - I don't personally like the idea of a Category:UCI ProTour riders or Category:Tour de France riders but something to think about. Severo^TC 13:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The cycling teams change names too much. One team can have many names in its history, and one name could mean different teams in different years. I would think it is too complicated to find a solution. But if there is a way to categorize the riders, it should be a name that makes clear what for example the riders in the 1980 Reynolds team have in common with the current Movistar riders. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Another reason categories are a bad idea is because their names can't be changed (not easily, anyway). It's highly unlikely that "Team HTC-High Road" will have that exact name by the Tour de France this year. Quick Step is dropping sponsorship after 2011, so are RadioShack and Omega Pharma, there's plenty of examples. The baseball project, for example, deals with this by having categories for each particular team name (Category:California Angels players, Category:Anaheim Angels players, Category:Los Angeles Angels players, Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim players), which doesn't seem like a good idea here, since several riders would straddle multiple categories without actually having ever changed teams (Mark Cavendish has ridden for "T-Mobile Team," "Team High Road," "Team Columbia," "Team Columbia-High Road," "Team Columbia-HTC," "Team HTC-Columbia," "Team HTC-High Road," and whatever secondary sponsor they're sure to get later this year), or we end up having David Arroyo be in Category: Reynolds cycling team riders or Johan Bruyneel in Category:Omega Pharma-Lotto riders. Lists aren't a bad idea, but just like anything with this project, we have to make sure they're kept up-to-date. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 02:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why my proposal above for a category name would be Category:Team Telekom and its successors or Category:Team HTC-High Road and its predecessors: one of these would be on Cavendish's article. The former would never need changing, the latter might need changing most years, but I believe cat renaming on articles can be done by a bot (I have very little experience of using bots: anyone know more about this?). David Arroyo would not be in Category: Reynolds cycling team riders, he would be in Category: Reynolds cycling team and its successors: not the briefest or most obvious of titles, I know, but probably more user friendly than Category: Abarca Sports cycling team riders, which would be the most accurate designation. Kevin McE (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If we had he agreed procedure to change the category name every year, then all we would have to do is at New Year (just before or just after doesn't really matter) would take a single proposal to Categories for Discussion. If it's already all been agreed the procedure should be fairly uncontroversial and after a few days of discussion, an admin would close it and a bot would change all the things that needed to be changed. Severo^TC 10:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The {{WikiProject Cycling}} template has a few redirects. Do we need all of them? Amount of pages using them is found below:

• Main template: {{WikiProject Cycling}} 9863 (inlclude resirects)
• Redirect: {{Cycling-project}} 78
• Redirect: {{Cycling project}} 4969
• Redirect: {{WPMB}} 2
• Redirect: {{WP Cycling}} 44

What about keeping only redirect {{Cycling project}} and delete the rest? Pages using the removed redirects will be changed to "WikiProject Cycling" by my bot. Any objections to do such a change? --Kslotte (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, we do not need the 3 first redirects, but should keep the latter:

• The reason why {{Cycling project}} is placed on a third of this WikiProject's articles, is that it was the name of the template since 2005 until it got moved to {{WikiProject Cycling}} in August 2008. (Link) No one will probably ever use {{Cycling project}} anymore, unless they copy it from another talk page.

Guilty as charged. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• The almost identical {{Cycling-project}}, is similarly redundant.
• {{WPMB}} was originally an own WikiProject, but it no longer is. Therefore that template also seems redundant.
• The last redirect; {{WP Cycling}}, is a standard abbreviation for WikiProjects. It is easier to write manually, and could therefore serve as a good redirect. Other projects also have a redirect like {{WPCycling}}, but if it's better than the current one, I don't know. One of them should at least be kept (created).

That's my two cents... lil2mas (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that general Wikipedia consensus is you don't make an edit to a page just to update the template name, but having read WP:R, there is no explicit policy for it. It kind of falls under WP:R2D but to echo the outcome of a recent deletion discussion. Are the old redirects (i.e. {{cycling project}}, {[tl|cycling-projec}} or {{WPMB}}) worthwhile? Probably not, but they also aren't worth deleting. The template was moved to {{WikiProject Cycling}} inline with other (but not all) WikiProject banners and since that time usage of {{cycling project}} has declined. However, there isn't a problem with it that needs to be fixed. Severo^TC 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We have two steps here: 1. replace redirects with the actual template name to get consistency 2. delete the redirects. I think we can do #1 now, but leave #2 for later. Do I get (with AWB bot) approval and consensus to replace the redirects with the actual template name? --Kslotte (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No objections, proceeding with #1. {{Cycling project}} has been converted to {{WikiProject Cycling}} to keep naming consistent. Other redirects seems have been already converted. No redirect deletion at this stage. --Kslotte (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:1996 UCI Road World Championships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cycling people if it contains the templates {{Cycling project}}, {{WikiProject Cycling}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page. Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveler100 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:TabHY has gone through and edited (I think all, but I haven't yet checked) rider articles for the American team who wears argyle on their sleeves and has a distinctive é on their backs. He or she has changed {{UCI team code|GRM}} and {{UCI team code|GRM|2011}} to [[Garmin-Cervélo|Team Garmin-Cervélo]]. My instinctive reaction was that "Team" is not part of this team's UCI registered name (we established this back when the article was at Team Garmin-Slipstream), but checking the UCI's webpage shows that it actually is.

HOWEVER, if we're to go by this, then there's some much stranger moves that would have to be made. Team HTC-High Road would have to be moved to HTC-Highroad. Team Katusha would be moved to Katusha Team. Team Movistar to Movistar Team. Astana (cycling team) to Pro Team Astana. Quick Step and Rabobank (cycling team) to Quickstep Cycling Team and Rabobank Cycling Team. Team Saxo Bank-SunGard to Saxo Bank SunGard. Team Sky to Sky Procycling. I understand some of these fall under WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. Rabobank) but where does that leave us with the others? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 07:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Going off of this by the way. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not say that these examples you bring up are cases of WP:COMMONNAME. In media and most other cited sources, the common name for i.e. Rabobank, is exactly just that: Rabobank. But since Rabobank is a notable bank as well, we apply the disambiguator (as is standard practice on Wikipedia).

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say revert the changes of User:TabHY, and ask him to join a discussion instead, it is the template that either way should be updated to reflect the change. But to include "Team" in the team name should not be necessary, as it is only used on articles to reflect cycling teams. It also clutters up tables, and I believe the common name is Garmin-Cervélo. lil2mas (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The case is a little less than obvious when it comes to Garmin because "Team" definitely did used to be part of their name ("Team Slipstream" - they even had "TSL" as their UCI code at the time). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I just made reversions of similar edits to the Garmin Cervélo women's team, but perhaps I was overzealous in doing so. I naturally assumed that team is direct successor to the women's Cervélo TestTeam, but is this in fact the case? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 08:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The UCI have announced their latest scheme to try to make cycling take on a structure of superteams and alsorans. So do we consider the WorldTour to be the new name of the ProTour, with a name change (from January) to the article and a redirect from ProTour, or do we stop updates to the ProTour page from the end of this season (editorial improvements, of course, always remain possible) and start afresh on a new WorldTour page. My inclination would be the former. Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that I would start with a new UCI WorldTour page although the new WorldTour does look, at the moment at least, remarkably similar to the ProTour 2005-2007... so maybe not. Hmms... Severo^TC 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope this gets noticed rather than creating a new sub-section... Just been looking at the latest information released and it seems that:

• ProTour is to remain as a team licensing classification (I've seen 'UCI ProTeam' used) but is no longer relevant to races
• The UCI World Tour basically describes all the races which contribute to the world rankings

So it seems that the World Tour is a full amalgamation of the rankings and the tour. I'd suggest that we probably need a new page for the World Tour, with the rankings evolving into a sub-page of this. For now, however, I've created 'World Tour' as a redirect to World Rankings as we wait for more concrete information. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Did we come to any conclusion as to whether the World Tour is a new, successor to the World Ranking/Calendar or a renamed continuation? Severo^TC 10:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I tell you right now, I'm not going to be terribly active in writing/editing articles based on 2011 events. I prefer to focus on the team season articles (which I had trouble maintaining as the year went on last year, but I'm working to finish now). I'm going to work on the Giro d'Italia, the Tirreno-Adriatico, probably the Vuelta a España, maybe the Tour of California, and that's really it. I would like to respectfully suggest that articles in which I've had a major editing part are objectively better than many articles in which I have not (I'm not trying to point any fingers or say that "my" articles are perfect, because they're not, but I think one is clearly better than the other). I am not exactly encouraged by the current states of articles like 2011 Tour Down Under, 2011 Tour de Suisse, 2011 Tour de Langkawi, and 2011 Tour de San Luis. They begin to make many of the MOS violations that used to be commonly practiced by this project on articles that probably had full, project-wide editing attention. If I have to guess, I'd say it's unlikely they'll have any prose in their bodies, which makes it pointless to even have an article in the first place. I will address User:Vlad997 directly as well, since he is the original author of three of the aforementioned 2011 articles. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tangentially related, I've created 2011 season articles for every team (which still exists) that I did in 2011, plus Leopard, with the exceptions of Sky and Vacansoleil. I did not find myself updating those articles at all last year, and don't care to write about them this year. If someone else would like to write those articles, feel free. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I will take Sky and try to keep the same quality of work and prose as you have for all the rest! Plus I will take a look at Sky's 2010 article. Severo^TC 09:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't seen Talk:Lance Armstrong#Consistency across WP there's a discussion about team name presentation in the infobox, again. Unfortunately it is not here, because there are more interesting and nuanced examples than Armstrong (those of HTC–Highroad and Lotto–Dstny come to mind) and that talk page should only be used to discuss how to make that article better. Anyway, if we don't find a way to resolve it, the same discussion will crop up again and again and again... Severo^TC 10:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish to propose a name change to the articles "xxxx national cycling championships" (currently for years 2005-11) which can be found in Category:National cycling championships. I think they should specify "road" or "road race" in their title to make it clearer what they're about. The main article is named national road cycling championships. Most of the country-specific articles are named "X National Road Race Championships". Any opinions on exactly which name should be used? --David Edgar (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

XXXX national road cycling championships. Severo^TC 09:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comments at Category talk:National Cycle Network. Bards (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the UCI World Ranking page to UCI WorldTour and created a common navigation box etc for the two. Severo has altered the template on the grounds that they are not the same thing. if this is the case, then we need to split the World Ranking/World Tour pages, and create a new World Tour page. We'd also need to alter a number of other infoboxes, templates etc. I'd like to argue that the World Tour is, to all intents and purposes, a re-branding of the World Rankings and we should treat the two as the same: they have 26 of the same 27 races, and it seems the same points scoring structure. However, I'd like to throw that up here for discussion, as it has implications for a number of pages. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is a little wider: how to treat all the series since 2005 (ProTour, World Ranking/World Calendar and now World Tour), which have all basically been the same thing, going from crisis to crisis and attempts to stop these crises by renaming it each time. I think - going by your logic, we could even merge UCI ProTour into such a page, which would not necessarily be a bad thing. Severo^TC 10:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At present, we have the 2011 team details on the UCI ProTour page, and everything else pertaining to this year's top category races at UCI World Tour. I would think that if we are not considering World Tour to be a rebranding of the expanded ProTour (i.e. World Tour page is not the old ProTour page renamed), then we must conclude that it is a replacement, and that the ProTour finished in 2010. In this case, where do we record the ProTeam list, and their future additions and relegations? At present UCI ProTeam is a redirect to UCI ProTour: that is not tenable anymore if the latter is now a defunct series of races. It seems to me we either set up a new page on ProTeam status (probably largely based on material that will be removed from ProTour), or put a team list, and in future a table to plot changes in the list, on the WorldTour article. Although much of 2010 UCI ProTour was repeated in 2010 UCI World Ranking, there will be some data parallel to that which was in the former that needs to be added to this year's equivalent of the latter. Kevin McE (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A little lost as to what you are arguing there Kevin, but are you suggesting that we don't merge ProTour and WorldTour? I'd agree with that as in 2009 and 2010 there were two clear separate entities (PT & WR) which deserve different articles. I'd happily split ProTeam from ProTour if it is to continue as a category for future seasons: if ProTeam is still running in, say, 2015 (with the UCI you can never really tell) then persisting with one article for both the race series and the team categorisation is a little odd. ProTeam and WorldTour are, at the moment, seperate, so should have independent articles. I think we need the following articles:

• UCI ProTour - the season long comp and later race cateogry. A note in it that there were 'ProTour Teams', later rebranded 'ProTeams', with a link to the ProTeam article
• UCI ProTeam - a team categorisation orginaly created with the ProTour but now persisting beyond it. If this category is dropped within a year or so, we might merge it back into the ProTour article, or into World Tour, but that's for the future
• UCI World Tour - a continuation of the World Ranking, with the ProTour and World Calendar fully merged in. To include World Ranking 2009/10

It seems (I've not seen anything to suggest the contrary) that points allocations for the World Tour will be the same as last year's World Rankings? So essentially we have the same competition rules, with the same races (+1?) and pretty much the same teams being allowed entry, hence my belief that the WR and the WT are best served in one article. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The UCI ProTour was first and foremost a licensing system. Both races and teams could apply for UCI ProTour licences. A team with a UCI ProTour was called a UCI ProTeam - there was never such a designation as "UCI ProTour team" as it's at best ambiguous - are UCI ProTour teams the teams with said licences or the ones that compete in UCI ProTour races. Licensed races made up the series long calendar. ProTeams were automatically invited and obliged to attend all ProTour-licensed races. Still with me?

The World Calendar was made up of ProTour races (i.e. those having ProTour licences) and a "Historical Calendar" of events agreed between the UCI and the three major organisers. These races did not receive a specific licensing like that of the ProTour. ProTeam licensing obligations applied to the ProTour-licensed races only.

The World Tour - well, still somewhat unclear. It is not clear what has become of ProTour race licenses. A number of races had them previously and they are in the new series now. We do not know what licenses new races (like the Tour of Beijing) have. We also don't know what licenses (if any) the former Historical Calendar races have. ProTeam obligations (automatic invite and obligation to attend) apply to all races. Clear?

I also read somewhere (I think in the UCI's published accounts) that the ProTour (and I think World Calendar) did not have separate legal personalities - but they were within the UCI's legal personality. I don't know if that makes any difference.

I'm thinking though - how will all of this look with five or ten years perspective? Probably that they are the same thing, rebranded, since 2005. Severo^TC 19:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I recognise all that (except I meant UCI ProTeam when I said UCI ProTour Team). The thing that makes me uncomfortable about merging the Pro Tour and World Rankings is that they were separate entities (to an extent) whilst in operation. Whereas the World Rankings and World Tour have no historical overlap. That said, given the ongoing licensing system, I can seem some logic in merging! I agree too with your long-term view - what will be seen as important is the step towards merging the Grand Tours, Classics and Stage Races into one calendar. In that sense, the modern WorldTour is a follow on from the ProTour. So shall we merge them all???? Pretty Green (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

{reduce indent} Hello, this feels a little unfinished. At the moment, would it be OK to do the following - firstly, to include the 2009 and 2010 world rankings on the 'World Tour' navigation box and secondly, to split UCI ProTeam into its own article? This is all with a view to possible future changes of course, should the situation be altered again or should a more permanent retrospective view develop! Pretty Green (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Could be worth making articles on UCI team classifications (licences?) and a List of UCI ProTeams with historical record. Severo^TC 13:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done: I've been ages intending coming back to comment and suggest the serarate ProTeam article. I'm not sure that we need the ProTeams' article to be presented as a list, although much of it will be historical listings (I presume the table now at UCI ProTour will be central to it): I'd simply call it UCI ProTeam. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cycling teams needs some clean-up and clarification. Category:UCI Professional Continental teams has at the moment 41 articles, but should it only contain the current teams? And where should defunct teams be categorized? --Pirker (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The first one is debatable. we could always make a subcat of Category:Former UCI Professional Continental teams. For the second one, we have Category:Defunct cycling teams. Severo^TC 21:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion Category:UCI Continental Teams, Category:UCI ProTour teams and Category:UCI Professional Continental teams should only contain active teams and every team should be categorized by their current status. --Pirker (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it would be misleading to categorize a team by several of these categories. Severo^TC 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Making some...kind of funny requests. It's here, and here, and in a thousand other places. The primer itself isn't really what's important. They want their team to be referred to as LEOPARD TREK. No "Team" in front of the name, no hyphen, all caps, and the pronunciation LAY-oh-pard trek is specifically encouraged as correct. What should we follow (the consensus in the blogosphere seems to be ok, we'll drop the hyphen, but no all caps, since that's just stupid), and should the article reflect the team's preferred verbal pronunciation? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a great example of why we should follow secondary sources rather than primary ones: primary sources have a self-importance that secondary sources can water down. When and if the cycling press regularly use all caps, we can follow them; when and if they regularly remind thear readers of the desired pronunciation, we can add a note on that (that'll be never then). Equally, if we watch the media for a while about the use of a hyphen or the "team" prefix (a recent affectation that makes me shudder), we should be able to identify what RSs establish as COMMONNAME. But no, we do not need to be dictated to byy a press release: what are they going to do to us about it? Kevin McE (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removing {{cb start}} and {{cb end}} from templates. It's not being used in elsewhere and it makes a template simply ugly. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I crazy, or has {{Infobox cycling race report}} become a lot narrower recently? On my screens, a lot of rider and team names are being split onto multiple lines that never were before. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. It might be because of this edit to the infobox meta template. When I find some time, I will play around with it as having the names split onto multiple lines doesn't really help, in my opinion. Severo^TC 10:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Stupid me, that's the one infobox which doesn't use {{Infobox}} (because it was difficult to accommodate the four-column section of jersey-flag-name-team in the results section in the two-column set-up of {{Infobox}}). But I made a minor change which may have been effecting the output of the template caused by some higher-up css or software change. Severo^TC 10:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it going to be fixed? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some different pages and it looks better to me now - do you maybe have some examples where it's not good? Specifically if the lines are breaking in normal viewing conditions. Cheers, Severo^TC 10:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine now...but it didn't two hours ago ;) Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 10:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The usage of Bixi is under discussion, see Talk:Bixi 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, I've read just about everything there is to read regarding Danilo Di Luca's 2009 doping case (except perhaps the CAS legalese itself, but I'm not keen to do that. Even if I were, where is it?), and nothing ever made direct reference to the court stripping any of his results. Just writers assuming that such was the case. Now, a second member from that podium has had a doping scandal, and it seems that Pellizotti is losing all his major results from 2009, from both the Giro and the Tour (including the KOM jersey). But this article also says he's being stripped of his "second place" ...um, hello, when was Di Luca ever formally stripped?

Does anyone know if what Cycling News posits in this article is accurate? If so, to what extent? Does the '09 Giro just have gapes and holes in it like the '08 Tour? This is three stages, the points jersey, and the bottom two steps of the podium. And 2009 Giro d'Italia is an FA, which is part of the reason why I'm so worried about getting this right. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well hello back at me...the UCI has indeed stripped Di Luca of his stage wins and second overall. Where has this been the last five months? (probably right where I found it) But the truly ridiculous thing is that one of Di Luca's wins, upon being stripped, was given to Pellizotti! Do we take the Cycling News article to mean that this now has been stripped? Is Denis Menchov, who was third in Pinerolo on May 19, 2009, now the winner of that stage? Do we edit to reflect Pellizotti inheriting these wins since they're still there on the UCI website? (certainly Stefano Garzelli now seems to be the winner of stage 4). Ugh. Please help. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pellizotti definitely was on the podium in 2009, there are photographs to prove it. ;) More seriously: I would be careful here, and only remove Pellizotti from the results unless a source explicitly says that the next rider was upgraded. I know this may cause some empty spots in the results, but I think that reflects what is really happening. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 21:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't seem to link directly to the UCI's overshell page for the Giro results (link above doesn't work), but that page also shows Thomas Lövkvist as the leader of the GC for the days that Di Luca wore the pink jersey. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This page? These pages do seem sufficient sources to change the results on the article - our problem was always with source alluding to Di Luca's stripped results but never being explicit about them but this looks fairly explicit. It misses two links in the chain: a source explicitly saying that the decision by CONI or at CAS stripped the results and a source saying that subsequent to this, all other riders were upgraded. I hope, however, that even these results sources will be updated in the next few days/weeks to reflect Pelizotti's new status. Severo^TC 10:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. Lots of pages to update. Not just 2009 Giro d'Italia, but also both stages pages, Stefano Garzelli, Points classification in the Giro d'Italia, Denis Menchov (since the UCI seems to consider him winner of the points class), possibly Thomas Lövkvist, Combativity award, Mountains classification in the Tour de France...unfortunately at this moment I can barely keep my eyes open. I'll be back at it tomorrow (by which I mean later today....jebus I stayed up late) Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 12:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it's possible to find the CAS Di Luca ruling anywhere? I can't find it on the CAS website as I was struggling to navigate around on it. Would be good to read it through and see if it does add anything to the situation. Severo^TC 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find it on the CAS website, but couldn't. There's only a small handful of cycling cases published on the website. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 02:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Took a stab at an edit to 2009 Giro d'Italia. Please, others take a look at it. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. --Geneviève (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This was posted in the archives. Bringing it here as we can't have discussions in the archives. Severo^TC 05:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this very much depends on the rider. For instance, for a domestique with very few wins to his name a top ten placing overall could be viewed as very important, whereas to a team leader only podiums would be noteworthy. Also depends on the age of the rider. For instance, young neo-pro Taylor Phinney has won the junior version of Paris Roubaix and how he performs as a pro is of interest. So if for instance this year he was to finish 20th in Paris Roubaix, that would be considered noteworthy as there will be people who want to view his performance throughout his career. If in 2012 he was then to finish in the top ten, again that would be noteworthy. If in the future he was to win the race, then the lower finishes would then be redundant and could be deleted. I dont think its a hard and fast rule of x place is notable or y position is worthy of inclusion, it is very much a fluid thing that will change as the riders career progresses. It may mean that results are included now, that a few years down the line then become redundant and get removed. 90.195.108.52 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We need hard and fast rules when it comes to the "list"y section. Absolutely mention stage placings for domestiques who make breakaways once-in-a-blue moon in the body prose of their articles, but "4th on stage 6 of the 2015 Tour de France" will never be a result that merits listing in an achievements or palmares list. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we have quite strong consensus to talk about important for the rider placings in the prose and not in a list section - crucially because we need to explain why it is important (we can't assume everyone knows who Taylor Phinney is etc). I also think that the list sections need to be comparable and so a rider with a strong palmares of wins has a longer list than a rider with a strong palmares of stage finishes! Severo^TC 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ha, found my comments :D I think it depends on the race as well, whilst I agree 4th place on a stage of a stage race is irrelevant, 10th in a monument could be the highlight of a riders career. My thoughts would be for team leaders (this is similar to I include on palmares on my site), or recognised top level riders, Grand Tours - GC Podium, or stage wins, and if they wore the jersey during the race if it is notable (ie. the leaders jersey). Stage race GC podiums and stage wins. Semi Classics podiums, and Monuments down to 10th place. For minor riders you could extend that to include podiums on individual stages of grand tours/stage races, and minor awards such as most aggressive rider etc. But I do think some leaway is needed to build a balanced profile of a rider. A lot of users will refer to wikipedia for details on a rider, often it is the only reliable source, and so for instance with Phinney, a top 20 in Paris Roubaix could be relevant when it comes to an overall view of his career. I think if people put information like that on the wiki page, then If it is deleted it should be replaced with a short section on their bio, for instance "won paris rouabix as a junior and then finished 19th in his first senior version of the race". For instance, I added "wore leaders jersey" to Thomas De Ghendts page for Paris Nice as It was a major result for him, but for Matt Goss who wore the jersey later in the race I dont think it would be worthy of inclusion. Just my two pennorth worth. 90.195.108.52 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess we need a categorisation of results, and then agreement as to how many categories we include. At the moment, I don't have work booked for Friday: if I remain unemployed for the day, I might draw up a draft for that.

How far do we want the criteria to vary over a rider's career? In the light of what he's acheived since, a stage in the Tour de Pologne in the lower status that it had in 2003 is not important to Alberto Contador's CV, but in terms of his progress as a 20/21 year old, it probably is. Kevin McE (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of "for a 20 year old, this is notable." Notable is notable. Period. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 20:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont think its age = notable etc, its just down to the individual rider. Its all subjective, but I understand there is no place for Subjectivity on wikipedia. :D Had a look around some rider websites today and they are wildly varied in what they put on their own palmares. I guess if its a case of you havnt won anything, you like to include your 2nd, 3rds, 9ths etc. For top level riders/team leaders I would consider the following noteworthy.

Grand Tour GC's - Top 5

Grand Tour Stages - Wins only

Other stage races GC's - Podiums only

Other individual stage wins - 1st only

Semi Classics - podiums

Monument Classics - top 10

However there is going to be no hard and fast rule, for instance Contador has won multiple grand tours so recording that he got 3rd on the GC at a minor race like the Tour of Murcia might not be worth putting on his palmares.

Young Riders/Domestiques

Grand Tour GC's - Top 20

Grand Tour Stages - Podiums

Other stage races GC's - Podiums only

Other individual stage wins - Podiums

Semi Classics - top 10

Monument Classics - top 20

90.195.108.52 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's not really down to the individual rider. If you win more, you have a longer list of achievements. We shouldn't add lesser of achievements of lesser (or younger) riders to make the lists the same length. In any case, making a distinction between team leaders and domestiques is entirely arbitrary and POV. I don't know of any team where a rider is their leader in every single race and I doubt any rider post-Merckx has been in a position of team dominance throughout their career. As a side-point, if we were to make definite inclusion criteria, we couldn't use "semi-classic" as every race calls itself a classic or semi-classic. Beyond the Grand Tours and the Monuments, I think we can only go by their contemporary series/designation/ranking (i.e. ProTour, Challenge Colomobo-Desgrange etc). Severo^TC 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. I'd be more inclined to list a 3rd overall in the Tour of the Basque Country as a notable result on whatever-rider's page than a 3rd overall in the Vuelta a Castilla y León, considering one is (and has been) part of the UCI's top classification for races for several years, and the other has not. But, for example, 13th overall would not be a notable result in either race, and I don't see how that could be debatable. We can perhaps discuss if, say, 7th overall should be considered notable. "3rd on stage 5" is never never never never never a notable result. I think I've argued for subjectivity on that before, but my opinion has changed. But something like that can certainly bear mentioning in article prose. For example, Vincenzo Nibali. His results from the 2010 Vuelta a España which should be included in a list type section are winning the overall and combination classifications. That's it. No "2nd on stage 20," but his article prose absolutely should discuss the Bola del Mundo showdown with Mosquera, as it was (per ample citable critique) an exhilarating stage and effectively sealed his overall victory. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want, please give your opinion on this article, and/or help to improve it. With the Giro as one of the most important cycling races, this list is one of the most important lists in the project. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In reading the report for today's GP Miguel Indurain, I notice that the race awarded a teams classification, a mountains classification, a sprint classification, a "special sprint" classification, and a regional rider classification. All but one were won by teams for whom we have season articles, but should they be included? This seems...incredibly trifling. Not that the King of the Mountains in a Grand Tour isn't actually King of the Breakaways anyway, but for a single day of racing this has got to be all random chance. And yet, these are awards that the team won, so...to include, or not to include. That is indeed the question. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of all the classifications they had for each day of the Vuelta a Mallorca. I didn't bother adding them because it seemed a bit trivial for just one day of riding... Hmm... Cs-wolves(talk) 23:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, this would be the listings of Vuelta a Mallorca if we included all the classifications (ones already listed, i.e. winner of the race, in gold, teams without season pages in salmon; headers changed for simplicity):

Team	Race	Classification	Rider	Location
Garmin–Cervélo	Trofeo Palma de Mallorca	Winner	Tyler Farrar (USA)	Palma
Garmin–Cervélo	Trofeo Palma de Mallorca	Combination	Tyler Farrar (USA)
Garmin–Cervélo	Trofeo Palma de Mallorca	Mountains	Tyler Farrar (USA)
Caja Rural	Trofeo Palma de Mallorca	Sprints	Oleg Chuzhda (UKR)
Caja Rural	Trofeo Palma de Mallorca	Special sprints	Oleg Chuzhda (UKR)
Garmin–Cervélo	Trofeo Cala Millor	Winner	Tyler Farrar (USA)	Cala Millor
Team NetApp	Trofeo Cala Millor	Combination	Steven Cozza (USA)
Orbea	Trofeo Cala Millor	Sprints	Adrian Saez (ESP)
Team NetApp	Trofeo Cala Millor	Special sprints	Steven Cozza (USA)
Movistar Team	Trofeo Cala Millor	Mountains	Luis Pasamontes (ESP)
Team RadioShack	Trofeo Inca	Winner	Ben Hermans (BEL)	Inca
Andalucía–Caja Granada	Trofeo Inca	Sprints	Adrián Palomares (ESP)
Andalucía–Caja Granada	Trofeo Inca	Special sprints	Adrián Palomares (ESP)
Team RadioShack	Trofeo Inca	Mountains	Ben Hermans (BEL)
Team RadioShack	Trofeo Inca	Combination	Ben Hermans (BEL)
Movistar Team	Trofeo Deià	Winner	José Joaquín Rojas (ESP)	Deià
Omega Pharma–Lotto	Trofeo Deià	Sprints	Philippe Gilbert (BEL)
Quick-Step	Trofeo Deià	Special sprints	Davide Malacarne (ITA)
Geox–TMC	Trofeo Deià	Mountains	Fabio Duarte (COL)
Movistar Team	Trofeo Deià	Combination	José Joaquín Rojas (ESP)
Garmin–Cervélo	Trofeo Magaluf-Palmanova	Winner	Murilo Fischer (BRA)	Palma Nova
Andalucía–Caja Granada	Trofeo Magaluf-Palmanova	Sprints	Javier Ramírez (ESP)
Euskaltel–Euskadi	Trofeo Magaluf-Palmanova	Special sprints	Jonathan Castroviejo (ESP)
Andalucía–Caja Granada	Trofeo Magaluf-Palmanova	Mountains	Adrián Palomares (ESP)
Garmin–Cervélo	Trofeo Magaluf-Palmanova	Combination	Murilo Fischer (BRA)

Just seems like a penchant for the Spanish races to classify everything! Cs-wolves(talk) 14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In the race's article, they can be included, I guess, but won't be missed if they are not. In the season articles, I would ignore them, I think all comparable websites do so. Secundary classifications are only included for grand tours, and in some rare cases for the most important other stage races. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that illustration makes it pretty clear how ridiculous inclusion would be. I think we might remove any classification not represented by a jersey as well (like the local rider classifications for certain races). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd support that removal, yeah. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

How long before and after a race is it worth to keep a prominent current event link? And how about for the use of Category:Current sports events? I have created a tracking category to check the usage of the current event parameter within the cycling race infobox to keep an eye on this but I have no idea on what is acceptable for this. I was thinking maybe one week before and after the event a link could be displayed (although, if the event continued to be in the news for whatever reason, we can keep it longer). Severo^TC 09:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One week either side seems eminently sensible: no-one will challenge your removal of a current designation from the 2010 Giro this morning! such a tool seems very wise: it's very easy to let those pass us by, with resultant red faces. Kevin McE (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the tracking category is at Category:Infobox cycling race articles using param (current event). Severo^TC 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite by accident, I made something a little different on one of this year's season articles. On 2011 Garmin-Cervélo season, the "away from competition" section is the final element, below the season victories table. On any of the old articles, or 2011 Team Saxo Bank-SunGard season, it's above the table, which is the final element. I can't help but think that it may be fitting for an "away from competition" section to be separated away like that. Any opinions?

Oh, and by the way, I've been a little absent over the last few days because American TV is showing Liège–Bastogne–Liège tomorrow, late morning. I'm trying to watch unspoiled (so far, so good). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 02:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see advantages for both. Only thing I would say is that on the Garmin article, the season victories table and the footnotes are separated, which might be better put together (possibly via level 3 heading as a standard). Severo^TC 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that the footnotes aren't just for the victories table. I also use them to indicate any arrivals or departures that take place midseason (as seen on this year's articles for RadioShack, Saxo Bank, Leopard, or Omega Pharma). When they're general footnotes for the article as a whole, I believe the MOS would have them be put just about the references section, which is where I believe they are in all the articles (it's certainly where they're supposed to be). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better then to have footnotes for both tables just under them? But if not, then yes, just above references sounds right. Severo^TC 04:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw the articles List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Tour de Langkawi and List of teams and cyclists in the 2011 Tour de Langkawi. Are these lists notable enough? I doubt it. My feeling is that at most the Tour, Giro, Vuelta, World championship and Olympic games are notable enough for these kinds of lists. Do you agree? If so, I would like to add it to the consensus list (which I will also give a place in the project place). --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems a sensible threshhold to me: Wiki is not an indiscriminate repository of facts. Kevin McE (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This would also affect the other articles in Category:Lists of teams and cyclists:

• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Giro di Lombardia
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2011 Paris–Nice
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Eneco Tour
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2011 Tour Down Under
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Tour de Pologne
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Giro dell'Emilia
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Vattenfall Cyclassics
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Tour of Britain
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Grand Prix Cycliste de Montréal
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Grand Prix Cycliste de Québec
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Ouest-France
• List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré

I invited all users who started these articles (Metzelder Siow, Kov93 and Vlad997) to this discussion.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I could swear I tried to raise this discussion once before, but I can't find it in the archives. I definitely support limiting these lists to the GT's. Grand Tour participation is a big deal (though I continue to object to any notion that GT participation alone confers notability), and something that many riders consider an achievement (just ask Andrea Guardini). The same is not true of the GP Ouest-France...to say the least..... Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 15:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that GT and Olympic participation is A Big Deal so lists are good but the lesser races don't require them. To make it proper consensus we should take all of these to AfD. Severo^TC 11:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

None of the editors that created the articles responded here, so I'll go ahead and take them to AfD.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Here is the discussion.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just putting this here so I don't lose track of it and if I do, it's somewhere obvious...

In August 2007, Kermesse (Bicycle Race) was created and quickly moved to Kermesse (bicycle race). In April 2010, this was merged with Criterium. In November 2010, Kermesse (Bicycle Race) (redirecting to Criterium) was resurrected as a new article. We need to decide whether Criterium and Kermesse (bicycle race) should be one article or not, and if so, Kermesse (Bicycle Race) should be (once again) redirected to Kermesse (bicycle race). Kermesse (Bicycle Race) doesn't meet naming guidelines due to the capitalised disambiguator.

Bit of a mouthful but I don't have time to fix it now. Any comments, as ever, very much welcome. Severo^TC 12:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Do members of HTC's team yesterday get to add 1st Stage1 2011 Giro d'Italia to their palmares in their individual articles? Do they get to add a stage win to their "Major wins" in the infobox? Does this claim apply only to the five who established the winning time, or do Renshaw, Rabon, Gretsch and Rasmussen, who contributed to the effort but finished some distance behind the five scorers, get to claim the laurels as well? I have an instinctive preference for leaving them out, but I am very willing to being shown what RSs do. My concern is whether we have any real consistency over past TTTs in GTs, or does it simply depend on the enthusiasm of editors on the day? Kevin McE (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be listed as a major win for the first five riders but clearly labeled as a TTT. I have edited the Marco Pinotti article to reflect this. Racklever (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are not in the infobox, elsewhere is fine. I'm pretty sure this has been left to the enthusiasm of editors in the past with no particular consistency. Severo^TC 15:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I never add them.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That was the worst thing I've ever witnessed. I think I might have nightmares tonight, and I hope to god they edit it out of the replay. So two purposes for this post, it's always helpful to have a little human contact and commiseration when tragedy strikes, and also I'm not sure if I'm gonna be able to keep watching, so my edits might (stress, might) become scarce. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=AiDHSy_M_Vw.KoyGMu0z_Ns5nYcB?slug=ap-giro-cyclistdies Yahoo article with some gruesome details that we don't have anywhere. If anyone wants to use it. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 17:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard it on the radio before I saw it... I don't think that his article needs details on how he died, unless they cause the rules to change or anything. By the way: As far as I can see, his article is treated with respect, no vandalism occuring. Wikipedia is a better place than I expected... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Savio's team has a new second banana sponsor this year, something called C.I.P.I. However, the common name for the team is still pretty clearly Androni Giocattoli. 's what they're called by TV commentators and most media (some add C.I.P.I.)

However, by that same token, it strikes me that the most common names for the two biggest Italian teams are just of those of their primary sponsors. I haven't heard ISD or Cannondale mentioned once during the Giro, and while those full names are a bit more common in print media than Androni Giocattoli-C.I.P.I., it still makes me wonder what the best names are for all of these articles. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that WP:COMMONNAME should apply to the article name and the {{ct}} template (which is how it will appear in most articles), but mention other title sponsors bolded in the lead para graph. This is what we do with individuals: rarely used forenames are bolded at the very beginning of the article. C.I.P.I. pay Wikipedia nothing, so we are not obliged to advertise them. We can, of course, have a redirect from Androni Giocattoli-C.I.P.I. Kevin McE (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, somebody removed the team names from Wouter Weylandt's article (which obviously has high visibility, as it is on the main page ITN section) with an editnote that he was removing advertising. Even apart from the evident irrelevance of the accusation to Leopard, I assume we have no truck with this. It would be nice if teams were called Highroad, Slipstream, etc, kept consistent names for many years, and the sponsors simply had their names on the kits, but that is not the way the finances of the sport work. Kevin McE (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably unaware of this discussion, User:Theilert has made this move anyway. I've invited him to put this page on his watchlist. Kevin McE (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with moving this back to Androni Giocattoli (although you kind of missed my bigger question). The team's full formal name last year was Androni Giocattoli-Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni, but we rightfully did not have the article at that title. Even when Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni was the primary sponsor, the team was commonly known as Diquigiovanni-Androni, the article's title at that time. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 07:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So are we going to move Team Katusha to Katusha Team, Team Movistar to Movistar Team, Astana (cycling team) to Pro Team Astana, Team Sky to Sky Procycling, Team Type 1 to Team Type 1-Sanofi Aventis (that one we actually probably should do) (ed: been done!), Garmin-Cervélo to Team Garmin-Cervélo, Quick Step to Quickstep Cycling Team, like I asked a few months ago? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 07:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Another -> Europcar (cycling team) to Team Europcar? 216.57.213.194 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC) (GEG on a public machine)

Kevin, you probably know, how was it decided at WP:FOOTY to include initials like F.C. in the article names (for example Manchester United F.C. rather than the unambigious Manchester United? It seems a similar situation to me so I'm interested how the line of thinking went. Severo^TC 08:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks, been a little inactive on English Wikipedia lately, especially on cycling articles. Combining my MSc with Wikipedia, is not always the best mix, so I haven't been able to follow up on every discussions here! :( But as Kevin says, I did move some cycling team articles last night, unaware of this discussion. My take on this matter is to keep the team name as short and simple as possible, but at the same time as correct as possible. As you might see from my contributions, Androni Giocattoli, was the move I was most insecure about moving. (20 minutes of research) But since their official website, UCI and the Wiki-article had reflected the sponsor change I performed the move. The fact that the co-sponsor had a short name (CIPI in comparison to Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni) made the move easier. The move also made my actions consistent, as I did move other cycling team articles last night, like Team Type 1–Sanofi Aventis. ;) Best regards, lil2mas (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On Severo's question, I would like to say that Manchester United might be unambiguous, but Chelsea isn't. For English football clubs, it's easier to include the suffixes, since almost every club uses F.C. or A.F.C. But for cycling teams, as Green-eyed girl points out, we have Team, Pro Team, Cycling Team, Professional Cycling team, Procycling, etc... It's all a big mess, really! I was actually considering to move both Katusha & Movistar to Katusha (cycling team) & Movistar (cycling team) last night, but I undestood those moves might be controversial and waited. I'm open for a discussion, but my take is to use the disambiguator, (cycling team) for single sponsor teams (if there exist, or should exist, any notable article in that space), while leave co-sponsored teams as they are! ;) lil2mas (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Similar issue to many races as before: the classification of the race after someone has been done for doping. The 2004 Vuelta a España lists Francisco Mancebo as second overall, but the references aren't there to support his promotion from third place (after Santi Pérez was disqualified). I checked the Vuelta website which lists Pérez in second place. I can't see that Pérez didn't have this result stripped so the source seems a bit questionable as well... The news sources I have found mention his disqualification for two years but not the disqualification of his results ([6] [7]). Does anyone have any light or know a source which might confirm either way? Sadly, I don't know if this problem will ever become easier to solve :( Severo^TC 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've looked for sources, but can't help you here... It looks like all sources agree that Perez is still in second place, probably because nobody bothered to start the procedure to update the results? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone able to recognise this rider from 2010 Tour of Oman? Trek-Livestrong U23 riders were: Cody Campbell, Alex Dowsett, Ben King, Ben King, Julian Kyer, Timothy Roe, Jesse Sergent, Justin Williams. -- Pirker (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And how about [this Farnese Vini-Neri Sottoli rider from the Milan time trial in this year's Giro? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Chandler Knop is as far as I can see not notable (came to my attention through several images at commons), but as I am not too familiar with AfD someone else might nominate him? --Pirker (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My say would be no - he certainly doesn't meet WP:NCYC, a Google search doesn't find non-routine coverage and a Google news and book search came up with nothing. I will AfD it. Severo^TC 08:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Because of a remark in the FL-review for List of Vuelta a España general classification winners that kinda maked sense, the following thing: If we add flags to cyclists in lists, we use the {{flagathlete}} template. For future reference: {{flagathlete|Alberto Contador|ESP}} gives

 Alberto Contador (ESP)

and the ESP links to "Spain", the article on the country. This is somewhat strange, because we should not use nationality, but sporting nationality. It would be more logical to make a new template, for example {{flagcyclist}}, that works as follows: {{flagcyclist|Alberto Contador|ESP}} gives

 Alberto Contador (ESP)

It looks the same, but the ESP now links to "Royal Spanish Cycling Federation". Some questions: 1. Would this change be a positive thing, or would it introduce new problems? (Nationalities without cycling federations, countries with more than one federation, cyclists not connected to their national federation but associated to another country's, ...) 2. If we agree that this would be positive, what would be needed to get such a template working? I'm practically clueless where to start on such a thing. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, now this really gets thorny. Consider a rider like Leonardo Piepoli, whose nationality by birth is Italian, I'm fairly certain his UCI-registered nationality was Italian, but his license was in Monaco, and it was that federation to whom he had to respond to his doping charges. Currently, Chris Anker Sørensen, very much a Dane, has the same sort of relationship with the Luxembourg federation (strictly speaking of license, not doping charges....yes, I'm even being WP:BLP on a project talkpage..........) Any points Sørensen earns count for Denmark, not Luxembourg. It's strictly a matter of convenience that his license is held in Luxembourg (he lives there something like 10 months out of the year...wouldn't surprise me if Tyler Farrar's license was actually held in Belgium, or Bradley Wiggins' in Spain, or any number of examples). As far as I'm aware, the only thing the UCI uses nationality for is to accumulate ProTour World Rankings WorldTour points as a means of deciding how many riders each nation will have at the world championships. Sørensen's points count for Denmark, Farrar's for the USA, Wiggins' for Britain...so I think that's what, if anything, their listings should reflect. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Buy on every list that uses flags, we put the Italian flag next to Piepoli, and never the San Marinese. On a world championship, Piepoli would ride for Italy, not for San Marino. Maybe cyclists have two 'sporting nationalities', one nationality decided by the licence they use, one nationality decided by which country they would represent on a world championship. (Just thinking out loud now...) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A few points to make. The country a license is issued by is different to the nationality field of the license - riders should get their license from the country that they live in (Farrar in Belgium, Cavendish in Italy, Piepoli in Monaco etc). The Sorensen example shows that this wasn't always exact - and it's hard to blame the riders when half the year they are living out of a suitcase anyway. But anyway, the nationality field is the one that matters and that's the one which is displayed on the UCI website as part of the license code. The country which issues the license is in this sense technical and has no bearing upon the sporting nationality of the rider. The most important thing in UCI terms about the nationality is, as Green-eyed girl states, World Tour and Continental Circuits points for entry to the world championships and Olympics (there are some others, such as eligibility for national teams at championships but also at regular races where national teams are allowed).

Technically this kind of template is possible (see {{Fb}} for use in football/soccer).

The question that I have is if a link to a cycling federation page is any more useful than the link to the country. The Vuelta list example is an interesting one because it was criticised for overlinking - but the links to all the countries are still there (due to use of {{flagicon}})! Overlinking concerns the inappropriateness of links - but these links weren't seen to be inappropriate in 2009 Giro d'Italia so I'm no convinced there is so much we can take out of the FL-review for List of Vuelta a España general classification winners. I don't think any other sport links to the federation pages. Severo^TC 06:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's my take on the matter:

• The country who's federation issues a rider licence shouldn't be relevant according to the UCI Cycling Regulations §2.11.010: "A rider's points shall be awarded to the nation of his nationality, even if he is a licence holder of the federation of another country." (just as EdgeNavidad was thinking out loud) and the nationality is submitted by each team according to §2.15.067. So we can use the UCI team list as the decider if any conflicts arise, and according to the list; Cavendish represents Great Britain (not Isle of Man or United Kingdom).
• When it comes to the question if we should use federation or country, I'm actually indifferent. I agree with Severo that we shouldn't read to much out of the FL-review, and I haven't seen any other sports linking to the athletes federations. If WP:OLYMPICS some time in the future decides to link athletes to the different national Olympic committees, we should maybe think of linking to federation. But as it is now, they pretty much ride for their country! I'm not a member of the Norwegian Cycling Federation, but I still feel pride when Hushovd or Boasson Hagen wins a race;)

So I think I tilt towards leaving it as it is (link to country), in this matter... =) lil2mas (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also perfectly happy to leave it the way it is now. And I think it is good we discussed this, because now we have some reasons "on paper" why we are doing this.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of "duh" territory now that I think of it. Why, exactly, have we always alphabetized the "Team" teams near the end? Never mind that we may end up moving Team Katusha, Team Movistar, and Team Sky to slightly different titles that would move or eliminate the word "Team" anyway, but shouldn't we treat this like the word "The" for purposes of alphabetization? Whoever added the teams to 2011 Vuelta a España put them in a very strange order, so I reordered them. Shall we say that alphabetization like this will be the standard going forward, or am I off base? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 15:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my thought, although I would like to see "Team" removed first;) lil2mas (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey List of Grand Tour general classification winners has been at FLC for a while now and only two users have commented, are are Featured List directors. I would greatly appreciate if anyone from the project could comment on the list. Cheers NapHit (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone just posted a bunch of beautiful CreativeCommons images of cyclists on flickr that you might be interested in. - 69.166.22.142 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

These are really nice. I wish someone could upload them to Commons... --Pirker (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. Looks like they're all pretty straightforward copyleft licenses. I don't really know how to represent that in Commons, though. The only stuff I've ever uploaded there has been derivative works. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I take that back, I do know how to do it...it would just take me freaking forever. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, if his entire photostream is CC-BY-SA...that's a lot of great photos! And it's also a lot of great photos. Aren't there bots that do this sort of thing, because it would very tedious to do by hand. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a Flickr2Commons tool which is useful for copying individual photos, it will copy the descriptions and set the correct licence etc. I see there is also a Flickr Mass tool for copying entire photostreams, though I've never used it myself. --Vclaw (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You will have noticed an ever increasing number of riders with a Grand Tour General Classification results timeline section, mainly (if not exclusively, the work of Rzombie1988. It is a compact, easy to understand presentation, but I wonder whether we ought to discuss when it is appropriate. Should there be a minimum number of GT participations/finishes/top tens before it is an asset to the article? Kevin McE (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously a nonsense to add Grand Tour timelines for riders such as Filippo Pozzato, who has never had any result worthy of a mention in a GT. That said, I have to thank Rzombie1988 because I've enjoyed the addition of these timelines (they remind me of the Performance timeline tables you can see for tennis players). It would also be interesting to display the amount of stage victories (or points/mountains classification) but I guess that if you put too much information in these tables they lose their functionality and simplicity. By the way, I've also seen similar tables being used for classics (Fabian Cancellara) and stage races (Robert Gesink).Drunt (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I agree that Pozzato probably doesn't deserve a timeline table. I usually just do them for "name" riders, personal favorites or riders that interest me. As for guidelines, any Giro/Tour/Vuelta winner definitely deserves one. I usually also look through a rider's profile on www.tour-giro-vuelta.net/(a perfect site for gt tables) to see if they are worth writing about or not. Unfortunately, I do not know where to find results for some of classics, but I'd be glad to attempt to assist in making some if I had the information available. Finally, I wanted to ask a question. What color jersey should be used for the Vuelta winner? It seems both red and gold are appropriate. Thank you for your kind words and keep up the good work! --Rzombie1988 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Vuelta GC jersey has also been black (it was black the year Sean Kelly won the race), striped in some way, and I'm pretty sure it's also been solid white. The recent switch from gold to red is not the only one that jersey has ever had. So I'd omit it. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You may have noticed my activity has been spotty lately. I'm hoping to do a grand write-up on 2011 Giro d'Italia like I did for the previous years, and I'm committed to updating the 2011 season pages to the GA standard that some of the Astana pages have (we could easily have 20 new GA's at the end of the year)...but beyond that, I'm not going to be available for much of anything. And I mean that in a chronological sense as well. I am not going to do 2012 season pages when next year rolls around. I may not be on Wikipedia at all. I've got a new vocation that takes up a lot of my time, and is writing-based as well, so I'm more than a little burnt out on writing when I do have some free time.

Just a little FYI and another gentle nudge toward prose writing like I've always given, since I'm not gonna be around as much as I was in the past to do it myself ;) Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to restore results to Roberto Heras on the basis of the decision of a Spanish court, or do the owners of the events still have the right to award it as they will? Have the RFEC accepted that decision, or are there counter-appeals to follow? Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Velonews suggests that there is more to come from the RFEC. The Vuelta website continues to list Menchov as the winner. It's not as clear cut as a CAS decision. I saw we wait for the next move, be it from Heras, the organizers or whoever else wants to get involved before making any changes. Severo^TC 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have started making a Wikipedia page purely to advertise GOOD and ACTIVE WikiProject some users may find interesting. It's hard for new users to find a good WikiProject. That's why I'm starting this project, to help new users find WikiProjects that are interesting and can give them a few simple jobs. I've selected this WikiProject as one of the few I initially want to see advertised on this very special page. This will bring in a lot of new members to your WikiProject, so make sure you are ready! To get started, all you need is a statement, userbox or any form of advert-so leave a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do! RDN1F (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Cycling for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading some of the articles on wikipedia that are related to Vuelta a España, I noticed that a lot of them have two common issues which are inconsistency and poor sourcing. In the end result, if this gets accomplished it would provide good referencing for people who would want to learn more about those events.

So I am wondering, if anyone can help me fix those articles related to the Vuelta so they will be consistent and have the proper sourcing?

Here are just some of the things which I believe that should be done to fix those two issues:

• Making sure that infoboxs are included on every annual event. The infobox which should include would be the one called "Infobox Cycling race report".
• All tables should share the consistent format/code/color

and etc....

So please let me know if you can and/or willing to help

Thanks, Y.golovko (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish to have some informations about the ProTour team pages. Some pages have a major results list, others don't. Which is the standard structure for these pages? LegendK (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is an agreed structure - but in my mind, in an ideal world, for each team we would have an article for each season, plus two list articles - one for victories and one for riders. The team pages would then focus on prose. I think if there is such a list article already for any team (there are a few) then we don't have to list anything again in the main team article. Severo^TC 11:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was listing any result in the main team article because there aren't any articles about old seasons, and many ProTour (but also Professional) teams have a long time history. LegendK (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the above sections (Vuelta a España Consistency and Poor Sourcing and UCI ProTour Teams) from subpages of this talk page. The subpages are hardly being used. I propose to archive what is in them within the existing archives (just slotted in at the correct date) and close them down, redirecting them to here. Severo^TC 11:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. Those subpages didn't work the way I expected, we can do without them. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 05:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Severo^TC 07:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude took a ton of pictures at the Grande Boucle. Apparently the ones in this post aren't even all of them. I asked and he said he just wants a free attribution license. I'll probably work towards getting these on commons eventually, but you're all probably more active than I am right now. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Something needs to be done to prevent parallel and conflicting information. The first one should be about the race in general, but that might be a bit tricky as the inaugural edition isn't even finished. --Pirker (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I am not familiar with cycling team articles, so I will leave this for others to add. HTC-Highroad has announced that it is disbanding, see [8], [9] and [10]. – ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What shall we call this article when the team disbands? We use current names for current teams, but when the team will be defunct, it seems obvious to use the name the team is known best by... which I don't have a clue what it might be: Team Telekom/T-Mobile/Highroad/Columbia/HTC???? Severo^TC 11:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This image was on the bicycle page but was taken off (about a couple years ago) as it contains inaccuracies. I was recently contacted by someone over on commons wanting input on how to get it more accurate. I feel that it mostly consists of labeling inaccuracies but also the road bike image is factually inaccurate. It'd be nice to get this image up to a quality where it'd be usable, as the artwork is great. I'm hoping to round up some input into how to change the image to make it more useful. Join the conversation! --Keithonearth (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the "racing bike" certainly wasn't developed in the USA during the 1960s, but which European country should get the credit and which decade? Pre-parallelogram rear derailleur, or post?
• What should be the missing eighth image? MBX, bicycle, roadster, cruiser, folding? -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC) (propose Eco 07 ^[1]?)

Please tell me if you can view the image of Zomegnan on 2011 Giro d'Italia. And if not, care to help me figure out why? (Because it doesn't show up on my screen, only the ALT text does) Also please give the article a copyedit if you can, and do any other necessary tidying that might stick its nose out at you. I'd also like a reassessment as I can without immodesty state that the article now exceeds start-class (and yeah, I could do that myself, but I don't really think that's right, or in the spirit of the assessments). Contador's CAS shenanigans mean the article can't be a GA yet (since two months from now the race might have a different champion), but that is my eventual goal.

I'm pleased with this write-up, and I'm probably gonna disappear again for about a month, until the season ends. Then, back to write the remaining prose on the season articles, which I dearly hope someone will take up for next year (maybe even just a couple of them?). I'm not kidding when I say I don't have any time for this anymore, sorry to say. But I have every intention of finishing off commitments that I made for 2011. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I get the same as you, no photo, just text. Will poke into it if I get a chance. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's... really weird. If you change the res by 1px either up or down, it works. But 220 is bugged, on both here and the Commons. Hmm. I have absolutely no idea why that would be the case... I've left a note over at the Commons Village Pump, to see if anyone can work out why. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 04:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we do that to make it work in the article? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Or just boldly edit the file itself on Commons? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it works now. Nobody move! Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#I have a question ... which talks about the notability of junior cyclists but I don't know if there's anything serious there or if it's all conjecture and trying to make a point. Severo^TC 07:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. The RadioShack/Leopard merger, at least, is somewhat clear. The resultant team will still be registered in Luxembourg, so from that it seems that the lineage is Leopard Trek -> RadioShack-Nissan-Trek, and Team RadioShack will be considered defunct. But what about Omega Pharma-Quick Step (if that even is their name)? Do we consider the new Lotto team to hold the Omega Pharma-Lotto lineage? This is kind of problematic, because Omega Pharma owns the ProTeam license (though they could easily end up selling it to Lotto, as the resultant OPQS team won't need two licenses). Is the OPQS team then a continuation of {{UCI team code|QST}} or are they a wholly new entity? Or, do they after all retain the lineage of {{UCI team code|OLO}}?

I'll be around a little for about a week to try to get this figured out and do some other tidying. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 19:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit of a mess, not least because there is some claim that the Quickstep riders were actually under contract not to Esperanza sports (the QS licence holders), but to a company called Decolef. However, in essence it seems to be fairly similar to the RadioShack-Leopard situation. Team A ceases to exist, but its main sponsor wants to stay involved in the sport, and in transferring their allegiance to an already existing team B, remain loyal to a manager and some riders, and bring them along with their cheque book. (team A= RSH/QST team B = LEO/OLO)

So OPQ should be a continuation of OLO, and QST ceases to exist. I hadn't read of Lotto taking over the Esperanza licence, but only of them making a totally new outfit.

The difference is in the emergence of a team C in the Belgian example: given that we already have Lotto (cycling team) (redirecting to Lotto–Dstny), we have to hope that whatever team forms under the auspices of the Belgian lottery company gets a new co-sponsor, otherwise we will have to move the redirect mentioned above (which mercifully has only 19 links to it that will need changing) to something like Lotto (cycling team 1985-2011), and take the old name for the new team.

This leaves us with three teams whose names will be so similar to those of defunct teams that there is potential for confusion, but we got around that by way of prose in the Liberty Astana/Astana situation. Let's just hope that the UCI have enough wit to allocate the new LeoShack team a distinct trigramme (RNT?). Again, it is to be hoped that the UCI don't reissue a previously used trigramme to Lotto's new team. Kevin McE (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, I forgot to mention that was the other wrinkle – that we have, somewhat arbitrarily in my mind, assigned to {{UCI team code|OLO}} the lineage of every team to have been sponsored by the Belgian national lottery. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been talk that Ridley (bicycles) will cosponsor the new Lotto team. Nothing official yet, but lately unofficial "talk" has had a nasty habit of coming true. So I don't think we'll end up having to worry about a bizarre article title. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 16:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have also created a transfers page for this offseason. Consult and/or update it as you please. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 21:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish they would consult us before allowing sponsors to change teams! I just found an old one which we have obviously missed: Chocolade Jacques was a different team to what is now Topsport Vlaanderen-Mercator until 2004 (2004: Chocolade Jacques-Wincor Nixdorf and Vlaanderen-T-Interim). From 2005, they switched their sponsorship (Chocolade Jacques-T-Interim) but it seems we don't have covered at all that there were two separate teams. I will try to piece the bits together and fix all the links and misinformation in the biographies. Severo^TC 16:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we just have to hope that the continuity becomes clear when teams become registered for 2012 (seeing who has what license, etc.) Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems quite apparent now that "Omega Pharma-Quick Step" is a continuation of {{UCI team code|QST|2011}} and "Lotto-Ridley" (what it will probably end up being) is a continuation of {{UCI team code|OLO|2011}}. The "Lotto" squad will retain most of {{UCI team code|OLO|2011}}'s ridership, and will continue to be led by Marc Sergeant. "Omega Pharma-Quick Step," while experiencing a far more drastic change in ridership, will be led by Patrick Lefevere, just as {{UCI team code|QST|2011}} was. So it doesn't seem that there is a defunct team in the Belgian example. I'm going to go ahead and edit the {{ct}}'s to reflect this. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should start a wikiproject cycling newsletter. Similar to the The F1 Wikiproject Newsletter What do you think?

(william 19:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

I think that the cycling project is not big enough for that. If there were 50 active contributors, it could make sense. (And even then, I would not be interested in receiving, let alone contributing to, such a newsletter, but I'm willing to accept that other editors think differently.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, season articles for teams have no infobox template -- they're all being done individually on the respective pages. I've quickly (parser functions, aaaaa) knocked up a version using {{Infobox}}, which by and large replicates the current format being used. The template is at User:Buttons to Push Buttons/Template Sandbox with versions of it in use at User:Buttons to Push Buttons/Sandbox if anyone wants to take a look. Any thoughts on the idea? I believe it's generally agreed that infoboxes should use templates, because it helps group usage together, standardises the fields, limits wikicode jargon on article pages, and offers the opportunity to expand the scope at a future date with a template-wide rollout.

Couple of things to note:

• I took the liberty of adding a few fields I thought provide some useful information: victories in other classifications, and national champions. These can easily be removed if people don't think they're worthwhile; I just thought it an interesting thing to add for national champs, and odd to exclude all but general classification wins. (After all, most secondary classifications do end up with people on the podium at the end of a race, plus there are prizes/jerseys/media coverage for winning them.)
• "Stage race other classification victories" is a horrible turn of phrase; if anyone can think of a better way of putting it that would be great. I considered "Stage race secondary classification victories" but it's a bit long and I'm not sure how well it would fit.
• It uses {{PAGENAME}}, so on the test page it, naturally, uses the Sandbox page name as the header. When on individual season articles it'll display just fine.
• I'm not sure if there needs to be a parameter for specifying the heading. Unless there's disambiguation in a page name, then that name will always be the heading -- is there any likelihood there will ever be disambiguation on a season article page name?
• Had to get rid of the colouring on the right hand side of the current format. {{Infobox}} defaults to use some cell padding which made it look awful -- big gaping holes of white inbetween the grey. Not sure it's a huge loss, though.
• Any other fields people would like to see included? Perhaps highest ranked rider on the team in the World/a Continental tour? Somewhat akin to top goalscorers in football (soccer), really, which is a staple in these infoboxes, but it might be a bit difficult to choose which circuits to include in some cases. (Say a team had a rider win both the European and African tours -- include one? Both? Home tour? etc.)

Any input would be great. Thanks! Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 13:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox cycling team season}} - it exists, but hasn't (yet) been used. I've just put it into 2010 Team HTC-Columbia season as an example. All templates are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Templates which I updated just the other day and Category:Cycling templates. Severo^TC 14:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, after all that :) Well, it's good to know, thanks. To twist it slightly, then: any thoughts about introducing other classification wins and national champions? Good to see it's got the UCI World Tour team ranking on it, that's certainly useful. Should we start rolling it out en masse? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correct, I didn't roll it before because I wasn't happy with the parameters. The trouble is, it treats a win the same no matter the class of race, and a team could amass a lot of victories in smaller races and none in the larger races but the infobox wouldn't distinguish between this team and a team which won every World Tour race going. (And, I hadn't put much thought into how to resolve this). This would continue to be a problem with the secondary classifications - yes, the Tour KOM is important, but the Volta ao Algarve intermediate sprints competition is not! There's also been discussion here on whether national champions should be discussed on team pages at all - the trouble here being that they aren't really racing for their team or with team support (in 90% of cases) when they ride their national championships. Finally, the change I made was to remove the colouring from the top of the box and I think if other similar well-used infoboxes such as {{Infobox football club season}} don't have it, we don't need it either. Some things to think about :) Severo^TC 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

By all means, I'd be pleased to see something more in-depth than the the meager boxes I have on each page (something I adapted with minimal effort from the French Wikipedia when I first thought to start writing the season articles). I like the idea of including the team's colors – could that be incorporated into a template infobox? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not on Cycling News' calendar, though they occasionally don't add races until they actually happen. Tomorrow's Chrono des Nations appears to be the final race of the year in which teams for which we have season articles might participate. If that's the case, I'll go about completing the prose on them (figure it'll take me about three weeks to complete all of them). But if it's not, and there is a Japan Cup (I can't even find anything just web-searching), I'd rather wait. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's on the UCI's calendar, and from what I can make of the official website (with Google Translate's help) it seems to be going ahead. Of course certain events since March may well affect whether they can get the teams in to compete, but that's another matter entirely... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 04:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, it looks like four top-level teams are in the race this year (aside: Google Autotranslate renders "Liquigas-Cannondale" as "Jobs Cannondale gas wells") and ten others will end their seasons at Chrono des Nations (two - Saxo Bank-SunGard and Astana - have riders in both races). Seems to suggest that the seasons for BMC, Euskaltel, Katusha, Leopard, Movistar, Omega Pharma-Lotto, Quick Step, and Cofidis have ended as of Il Lombardia, or in Cofidis' case, Paris-Tours. I'll work under that assumption unless anyone can show me otherwise. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 10:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, in HTC's case, 50 km into the Giro di Lambardia :@) Kevin McE (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Related to the discussion above (that I don't want to end), I had the following thoughts. If we don't want future teams included in the infobox, we should perhaps reconsider what the infobox says. In its current state (with "Professional team(s)"), it is an invitation for editors to add future teams, because the infobox does not say it is only about previous and current teams, and we can not expect all editors to be aware of our project's consensus. My suggestion is to change the team info into something as this:

Previous team(s)
2001–2002	Crescent
2003–2005	Fassa Bortolo
2006	Francaise des Jeux
2007	Unibet.com
Current team
2008-2011	Team CSC

I'm sure this could be improved upon, but what are your thoughts on this? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm somewhat suspicious at the claims that editors have made at the above article about the number of riders who have qualified for the 2012 Olympics men's road race. In particular, I think that they have overlooked some of the 'special provisions' qualifying criteria and that, without clarification or knowledge of precedent, we cannot say for sure who has qualified, particularly in reference to special provisions 1 and 3. Some further feedback might be useful, perhaps if any of you can shed light on the process? --Pretty Green (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg are the entry that I suspect might be wrong - I'm not sure they have enough qualifying riders to take up all their places Mpjmcevoy (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems the whole page was rather crystally. The official list has now been released, though. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The status of File:Cycling (road) pictogram.svg came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1. I have removed the portal link from that article until it can be resolved. Can someone address those comments and ping my talk page so I can restore the portal link to the M-185 article at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 03:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear what the reviewer means by "doesn't seem to mesh": this pictogram and a whole series of similar ones (see commons:Category:Summer Olympics pictograms) have been around for three years without apparent problem. Severo^TC 10:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the reviewers interpretation of the description is that it is copied from the official reports. I have checked the 1948 report, it shows (on page 131) a completely different symbol. I did not check the other reports.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

From the files of huh? Earlier this year it seemed that Giuseppe Saronni was going to step down from bosshood at the pink and purple. Then, that seemed to be confirmed. So, I updated all relevant articles to show this. D Now, a current article refers to Saronni as manager. So.....again, huh? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Their website suggests that Saronni became general manager, while Damiano became the sport manager. So it looks like Saronni did not step down, but stepped "up"...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Gustav Larsson has been riding for CSC (Saxo Bank) since 2008 and will continue doing it next year. That's what I conclude from the infobox in his wikipedia article. Edits like this (and this) have been reverted. Yes, he could change his mind, but the contract is confirmed and including his confirmed 2012-team in the infobox is from my point of view more correct than not including it. --Pirker (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider Tom Zirbel and our consensus decision. Kevin McE (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion behind the consensus? I don't think one single example (Alex Rasmussen could be another) is enough to defend having incorrect information in the infobox and reverting Good faith edits from new users. --Pirker (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC) I found the link --Pirker (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussion, and can't conclude that this is anything other than your private opinion. The last comment from your only discussion partner says "This is a very twisted, insecure interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL anyway". --Pirker (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin McE that his 2012 team should not be in the infobox, but I also agree with Pirker that the current notation suggests that he will continue to ride for the same team, because the range is open-ended. Did we ever consider putting the current year as the final year, for all active cyclists?

Current situation	2008– Team CSC
My suggestion	2008–2011 Team CSC
Not my suggestion	2008–2011 Team CSC 2012 Vacansoleil-DCM

Whatever happens in 2012, he was a member of Team CSC from 2008 to 2011, so his infobox will never give incorrect information (although it can be incomplete). In the current situation, if nobody updates the article, it will be incomplete in 2012 if he really leaves the team.

What can go wrong in the current situation: if I look at Ian MacGregor (cyclist), I don't know what team he rode for in 2011. The infobox suggests that he rode for Kelly Benefit Strategies, but he could have left the team after the 2010 season without update. If the infobox would stop at 2010, I would know that something was missing for 2011. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin McE and EdgeNavidad that we shouldn't put future teams in the infobox. It violates WP:CRYSTAL because the infobox bluntly states that Rider X will ride for Team Y in 2012. We could also have the situation where current team is noted (under Current team), but the latest team listed is a completely different team. I have no problem putting future contracts in the article prose, of course. I'd suggest we either went down the road that EdgeNavidad suggests, or we could modify that one so we put in the end year when the rider has signed a contract elsewhere. Does anyone know what other sports do in this case? Severo^TC 10:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Football/soccer articles leave the current contract open-ended, but I would be happy with Edge Navidad's suggestion. Our attention to lower profile riders is probably much lower than that in football, so the likelihood of open ended dates never being closed is much higher. Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if there is something we could do on a technical level here, for example with the use of the {{as of}} template? Perhaps we could write something like 2008–{{as of|2011|alt=2011}} Team CSC. Or perhaps using the {{Update after}} template. Either way, we would get a category listing of all articles that are potentially out of date and in need of checking. Severo^TC 12:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See to me, this proposal seems to suggest that we're saying that X rider's (Larsson's) career is ending when we say 2008–2011 Team CSC and there's nothing below it. Separate fields to demarcate former and current teams may solve this, and it shouldn't bother articles for retired riders since all their teams are former teams (though I wonder whether it would implement seamlessly). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And for the record I'd like to renew that Future teams should not be listed in the infobox (although contract news can be explained in the prose of the article) to comply with WP:CRYSTAL sounds like 100% self-contradictory BS. It either belongs in the article or it doesn't. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

These are two different things: one is contract news, the other is the history of team membership. The corelation between the two is not absolute. Ask those who had a contract for Geox next season. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is "x signed for y in 2012" and "2012- team y" in the infobox mean exactly the same thing. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean x signed for y in 2012 (on a date in 2012, x signed a contract with team y), or x signed for y for 2012 (in 2011, or earlier, x signed a contract that he would ride for y in 2012)? In the latter case, they are not necessarily the same thing as the infobox entry claims, and until 2012 gets underway, we cannot be certain that they will be. Juanjo Cobo and several others signed for Geox for 2012, many riders started 2011 with 2 year contracts at RSH and HTC, Tom Zirbel signed for Garmin for 2010. The infobox records who a rider has ridden for: it is a historical record. Kevin McE (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed seeing that you had replied to this. What I take issue with is your last sentence. If the 2012 season is, right at this moment, an unknown and unknowable future (and, from a strictly semantic point of view, it is), how is that not reflected by "2012– Vacansoleil–DCM" being in the infobox? How is that being in the infobox us positing an unknown and unknowable future? How is it not the same exact thing as saying "Larsson signed with Vacansoleil–DCM for 2012" in prose? Maybe I'm completely wrong, but when was infobox records who a rider has ridden for: it is a historical record decided? Furthermore, as to your favorite example – Zirbel's positive was announced on 12/28/09. His article was edited at 1:25 AM (my time) that morning. Take issue with the words "will ride for" all you want, but we've got a lot of dedicated people here who fix things that need fixing as soon as they need fixing. His article contained, and always did contain, the most up-to-date information possible. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 10:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)