Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 12

In light of the recent mass-AfD of a number of cycling articles I have come to seek discussion based upon the formatting of results sections on team pages and palmares sections of cyclists pages. Currently, the most common format is:

1st Stage 2 Tour du Haut Var, Amaël Moinard

1st Stage 4 Volta a Catalunya, Tejay van Garderen

1st Brabantse Pijl, Philippe Gilbert

However some articles have the following formatting style:

1st, Stage 2, Tour du Haut Var, Amaël Moinard

1st, Stage 4, Volta a Catalunya, Tejay van Garderen

1st, Brabantse Pijl, Philippe Gilbert

To me, the second format just has an excessive number of commas in, making the overall list look a bit more messy. I know this may seem trivial, but I'm wondering whether there has ever been a consensus as to the style of these sections, and if not whether we ought to have. BaldBoris, I notice you have had experience of this on the Joe Dombrowski page and wondered what input/suggestions you might have? XyZAn (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When the first editor creates the page he/she chooses the format – selecting which dialect of English to use parallels this debate. This has been the approach for the last few years. Personally I think it's pointless to correct the format, either way, don't we have thousands of pages to expand? Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Buzzards I can totally appreciate that an author of a page may initially choose a particular format for an article, either purposefully or as part of their writing style. However, you keep reverting EF Education–EasyPost which seems utterly bemusing - out of the 17 2015 UCI World Tour teams, 16 have the victory format that I propose using and 1 has the system you propose. Whilst there may not be a consensus as the formatting it seems completely illogical to have one article differently formatted to the other 16. Surely you can concede this point and we can move on an improve the quality of cycling articles in this project? XyZAn (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a little deceptive, numerous rider and minor team − CT and PCT − pages use the common method. Don't see the point to change them when multiple pages lack content/sources. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your drive to improve qarticle quality, but you've demonstrated why there should be a top-down effort to improve article format/content/media/sources using the world tour articles (teams and riders) and races (like the tour, giro, et al) as broad templates. This would not only improve quality of subsequent articles but would ensure there is continuity across the whole project. If we can improve articles with quality content and make them more uniform then shouldn't we try to do that? XyZAn (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've no time to edit these days, but I would go for sortable tables. Severo (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's pointless − at this moment − to go around and uniform every cycling page to a certain format. Why don't we uniform wiki under American English? Because (primarily) it would take quite an effort. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I prefer 1st Stage 2, over 1st, Stage 2,. However in the articles the results are listed under the sections wins. So I think all the '1st' before the results are redundant and look a bit messy. And after removing the '1st' the ',' doesn't matter that much anymore. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea Sander, we'd just need to make sure the results sections of team articles are either renamed "Team Victories" or something like that, so that it is implied that the below information is essentially a list of win. XyZAn (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like this idea. I think not listing 1st place would confuse reads. Listing 1st etc. exists throughout wiki, eg. running articles. Why differ from all the other projects? Also it doesn't solve overall results, like 4th place. Here's the (S v. G's proposed v. the original) example from Dan Martin:

Honesty, I don't like the (proposed) style. Why change what already works? I still don't see the point in changing results when hundreds of pages are in need of sources. This debate should take place after your house is in order.

If there are results below a section victories, I don't think it's confusing. With the 1st in front of it, it's maybe more clear, but it is redundant.

Secondly, I don't understand the reason hundreds of pages are in need of sources. I think this debate is clear, and is not better after hundreds more articles have been updated. I think it's even better to have a good style before updating the hundereds articles, so you don't have to change later all the hundereds updated articles again. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Buzzards, you're mixing a riders palmares with a list of team wins - what I'm discussing is purely looking at team win sections.. Obviously in a riders palmares you need to indicate the position, unless you were only going to list wins. I agree with Sander. If the section which contains the listed information in is clearly headed such as;

Victories

or,

Team Wins

then I can't see any reader becoming confused by what the list of information pertains to. Again, it seems logical to get a better idea of article format before you start adding hours of work to each one, only to spend even more time finishing of off the style. If the style is pre-determined then it provides a template to use on new articles and on articles which need updating and improving.XyZAn (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather we stick with '1st' as it makes the victory clearer. Also, I hate commas in palmares. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a section with (solely) wins is justified. Most cyclist (60%-70%) have vary few wins. Having one result section streamlines the article. With that being said, what style do you'll prefer (I've seen all three, comma, half-comma, no-comma):

For the record, I don't see the point in changing the format on solid articles − at this moment it seems misguided. I don't mind streamlining the format on dreadful stubs. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Buzzards, the palmares you have listed is from a riders article, what I am trying to find a consensus for is the formatting of the victory sections in Team articles only. For team articles we currently have three ideas, for ease I'll summarize them below:

You can see that for the team articles we only list wins, hence there is a possibility that '1st' could be omitted from the list as the section header would inform the reader. As an exercise I've also looked into all the 2014 team articles, from WT, PCT and CT level teams and found the following information:

• there are 115 articles for teams which were active in 2014 (i.e competed) and have a result/wins/victories section
• of these 115 articles only 2 (EF Education–EasyPost and Jelly Belly) have the comma formatting (number 2 in the table above).

Therefore, to me, it makes sense to make the above 2 articles conform to the same formatting structure as the other 97+% of articles. Is there any chance we can get together and form a consensus for this? XyZAn (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi XyZAn, great research!! 97+% of the 115 sounds a lot. I agree to format the structure of these articles all the same. I'm fine to form a consensus, it makes it clear for everybody. It's 'easy' now to get the 100% with the #1 No comma option and to form a consensus for it. If someone later on contest the consensus a new discussion should be formed before changing all the articles. No time will be lost changing the format, so there is more time to update the articles :). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your confusing the half-comma (most team pages) and no-comma (some rider pages, like Bradley Wiggins & Chris Froome) formats; per my example. With that being said, since most, almost all, teams use the half-comma method, EF Education–EasyPost and Wildlife Generation Pro Cycling should be changed (to half-comma). I still prefer using 1st. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Buzzards I don't know how else to stress this, but the above consensus discussion related only to team articles, NOT individual rider articles, but that is something to also bear in mind as well and may need discussing separately. Just to make sure everything is clear I'll add the following as a consensus decision.

Wins should be listed, unbulleted in the following formats dependent on win-type:

XyZAn (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why this discussion keeps continuing, I said it's fine to change GRS and JPC to half-comma. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done XyZAn (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been creating articles on WP since 2007, initially working on film related articles, but branching out into biographies of sportspeople. These have mainly focused on Olympians and cricketers. Both of these groups have broad definitions of notability at WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NCRIC respectivly. In more recent years, I've began work on creating biographies for missing cyclists. This has included many cyclists who've ridden the Grand Tours, track cyclists and road race cyclists. Compared to the other two areas I've been working on, I think the cyclist notability to be a bit lacking.

For example, this Olympian competed in a one Olympic event more than 100 years ago. And this cricketer made a single appearance for his club in the 1850s. For both individuals, I doubt anything more will be written about them (I'd love to be proven wrong) and if they were taken to AfD, both would end in snow closes, per the previous cited policies as many similar AfDs have done.

Recently, I stumbled across this list which had alot of redlinks. I went through it and created about 40 basic stubs, including this one which was then taken to AfD (still open as of typing this, hopefully closed as keep...). I think that pretty much any (professional) cyclist who has been active in the last 10 years will probably meet WP:GNG with coverage more likely on the internet, as apposed to someone who was active 20 years or more.

Now I would like to believe any cyclist (male of female) riding professionaly for a top-level UCI team would be notable. Currently, that's not the case. The current notability guide states the cyclist has rode at the Olympics, a UCI World Championship or finished on the podium at a UCI World Cup. There's then a further set of criteria for male cyclists only. As a minimum, I feel this additional criteria should be updated for both male and female cyclists.

I posted on Sander.v.Ginkel talkpage about this, and he along with XyZAn have come up with some updated criteria. I'd like to get the view of the project to gain a consensus to expand and clarify the current notability guidance. I agree that not everyone who's ever gotten on a bike should get an article (I rode a bike once...), but I don't think the current guidence is fit for purpose. Here is the draft from Sander's talkpage (I'm sure he doesn't mind me pinching it!) :

Male or female (elite) cyclist is notable if;

Have competed at world championship/ olympic games / paralympic games / UCI World Cup or,

Have won a medal Top 10 at Continental games championships (euro/africa/oceania/ etc)/ other major international games (Commonwealths, Asian, Universiade, etc), or,

Have won a medal in at least one event in one national championship or,

Have won a UCI ranked race

Have won a medal at smaller international games/championships (world university cycling championships/Pan Arab Games/Southeast Asian Games etc) or

Is the current/former national record holder in a cycling discipline

Male;

Have ridden in at least one GT or,

Ride for a WT Team

Female;

Ride for a UCI Womens team or,

U23 & juniors;

Have riddenTop 10 in world championships or Youth Olympics‎ or,

Have medalled continental championships or,

Have won a UCI ranked race or,

Have won as an U23 rider an event in their national championships (note: there are far too many junior categories)

Hopefully we can come up with some agreement and update the policy accordingly. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

First thing off I think the project as a whole needs to thank you, Lugnuts, for all of your contributions you've made this far. As for the notability guidelines I think what is above hits the nail on the head - maybe just tabulate the information. We need to have a overarching - generalized set of notability requirements - as well as more critical gender specific criteria. In an ideal world a female cyclist would be on the same equal standing as their male counter-parts, but this is not the case. What seems plain to me is that non- WP:CYC members, may be even non-cycling fans don't actually understand the differences in womens cycling vs mens cycling and as such I think the above clearly states what is notable and therefore will help reduce the unnecessary AfDs which have been generated recently. XyZAn (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Great work for starting this discission Lugnuts. I totally agree with your statement and really appreciate your work on the cyclng articles. With the above criteria all main road cyclists are included but nopt cyclists from other cycling disciplines. So I included the mayor competitions for these cycling disciplines, the UCI World Cups.

And apart from this discussion to reply on your point about the older notable athletes, I think these stubs pages are more valuable than some people think, here a few reasons:

• The Olympian/athlete can be found by searching by the name and via the categories.
• If all Olympians have a page in the end, the Olympic categories are complete, which would be very useful. For instance to know how many Olympic sport shooters there have been from Germany, the exact number of athletes at certain Olympic Games, etc. as many sources have different numbers.
• You can find out he only competed in 1 event, it's hard to get the answer otherwise
• There will probably be more info about these athletes in books, and could be add easily
• Different versions of the name are linking to 1 article Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 10:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I started a page to find (and keep track) of notable cyclists red links by different topics. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Missing articles. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 10:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Great work Sander.v.Ginkel! This also raises questions which I've been mulling over the last couple of days; whilst updating the notibility guide for cyclists, should we create/update notibility guides for teams and races, as well as giving a bsic framework for each of them (i.e, minimum number of references, specific resources to use- PCS, Cycling archives etc)? I'm not aware that there are any currently - if there are please point them out. In theory they should be a lot more simple than those for cyclists, e,g;

Races:

• Are or have been UCI classified in their history

Teams

• Are currently or have been ranked at WT/Womens, Pro Conti and Conti level

Realistically I dont think we should have red links to races in the continental tours or to any of the teams which compete in them.XyZAn (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha XyZAn, I had the same thoughts over the weekend regarding to the cycling races :) I agree we can make notability guidelines for races and teams. For races I think it should be divided into guidelines for the race in general (like Tour de France) and a pages subpages about specific years (like 2015 Tour de France). With the above criteria from XyZAn some pages that are on this Wiki are not covered, but in my opinion notable enough. Secondly I think we can say that in general top-10 results should be displayed with a few exemptions.. I stated below that full results are allowed for all championships, so including national championships like in subcategories in Category:Dutch National track cycling championships and pages in Category:Dutch National Time Trial Championships. Also full results for non road cycling UCI World Cup races like the pages in subcategories in Category:UCI Track Cycling World Cup Classics.

Below some critrea to include all pages on this wiki.

General race event page:

• Are of have been UCI classified in their history
• Have (had) coverage in main national media (like Parel van de Veluwe and Template:Post–Tour de France criteriums in the Netherlands)

Sub pages for a single race:

• UCI classified race (with in general top-10 results. Full results allowed for Championships, International Games and World Cup races for: Track cycling, mountain biking, BMX and cyclo-cross)
• Non UCI races with international media coverage (like races of the Amstel Curaçao Race and World University Cycling Championship)

Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok so to summarise the above, from Lugnuts, Sander.v.Ginkel et al into an easy to follow formula;

As per rolling this out maybe be cut "red-link expansion" into a number of easy to roll-out phases; start by making team articles and race pages for the majority of red-links, then expand other sections. I think cyclist bios, team pages and general race paes should be our top-3 priority. XyZAn (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't strictly speaking a notability question, but it is relevant to the above discussion. I've set myself the task of creating articles for certain road races this season. I set my criteria as 1.UWT, 2.UWT, 1.HC, 2.HC and 2.1 category races. All of these should have enough coverage to do more than simply list results (I'm quite proud of my efforts at 2015 La Tropicale Amissa Bongo, which has more English-language content about the race than exists anywhere else on the Internet). This isn't exhaustive (some European 1.1 races, for instance 2014 Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne will also have significant coverage, but I think my list is a reasonable target. You can see it at User:Relentlessly/Cycling 2015. Relentlessly (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly I've been keeping up to date with your Amissa Bongo page and its great! Real great work! Really, the way I'm looking at the notability update is to protect the articles we create against potential deletion nomination by non-WP members and possibly people who aren't as informed as us/cycling fans and see a short stub article and assume it should be nominated. XyZAn (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the overview Lugnuts! I added the UCI World Cups. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 18:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel It was me ;) haha! XyZAn (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. Great work in putting the summary table together. Hopefully this will get some more input from the project and we can move it to the notabilty page for sports in due course. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks great people! Could we also add that cycling season articles for UCI ProTeam, ProConti and Women's teams are notable as well. JudoonCyclist (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, sounds reasonable to me. XyZAn + Sander.v.Ginkel - thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think athletes competing in the Olympics, World or Regional Championships warrant their own pages. I think notability should be: rides/ridden on 1st or second tier teams. Numerous riders, like Liu Hao, have no notability outside of the one race. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who competed at the Olympics is notable. I'm not even sure why you exist on here TBH. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What about the additional criteria #2 and #3 with the words "post-World War II"? OK as it is? Relaxed for pre-World War II for the Grand Tours? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Point 1 - As for season articles I would say; YES they are notable enough to be created (so we need to add it to the above table), but not a necessity, i.e; if an editor wants to make one then the project as a whole is happy that there notable enough to be made, but in the grand-scheme of what articles we need I would suggest it as a top-priority. If JudoonCyclist wants to make them then great - they are notable for inclusion.

Point 2 - the Olympics and Worlds are the pinnacle of the sport, so I strongly believe that they have to be critical criteria for riders who are lucky enough to have ridden them - ergo those riders should be notable - sorry Buzzards-Watch Me Work

Point 3 - Lugnuts I'd get rid of it - anyone who has ridden a GT is notable in my eyes, those dudes that did it in the 20s and 30s were badasses, definitely notable!

XyZAn (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just as an FYI - I've slightly altered the table heading - (Must fulfil 1 or a a number of the following )XyZAn (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1) I'm compiling a list over at User:JudoonCyclist/Cycling seasons and will tackle some of it whenever I feel like it. 2) Agreed 3) Agree, someone like Carlo Galetti is absolutely notable. JudoonCyclist (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Point 1 I only starting season articles if I would update the content. I think the articles are only notable with content, not with only a few sentences like with an atlete.

Point 2 People who competed at the Worlds and Olympics are notable, as they represtented their country at the highest level of sport competition. In my opinion you can argue the other way around, people for a specific team could have competed in minor races only, so not al the people in a team are per default notable.

Point 3 What is the reason for the distinction with the pre-WWII races? I would think all cyclists at the grand tours are notable. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 21:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How is someone who meddled in a national championship notable? I could meddle in Andorra or the Virgin Islands... I think winning is notable.

I don't think athletes are notable when they complete a championship; smaller nations get passes... These athletes have no news coverage, and their articles read: 'Joe Smith finished... in ... place.' That's it.

With that being said, it's unfortunate when expression is condemned. I thought wiki was about free speech? Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine changing the national championships from meddled to winning. However I don't agree with the Olympics/World Championships. Yes they might be selected, and yes their articles might be short. But first they represented their nation in the most important sports competition. Secondly because they are chosen, they must be the best athletes from the country. For countries in which the sport is not popular, the athlete have a certain level to compete in that sport and must have a great story to compete in that sport. These stories are less known, as the winner is highlighted, but these stories are notable. Think about the Jamaican bobsleigh team. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 22:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And what about critera for nation at championships pages. There are now overview pages, with sub-pages for specific years (like with the team pages, team season pages), for World championships as wel as European championships for the different cycling disciplines. I would give some examples from the Netherlands articles.
- Example overview page for the UCI Road World Championships: Netherlands at the UCI Road World Championships, example year page Netherlands at the 2013 UCI Road World Championships.
- Example overview page Track World Championships: Netherlands at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships, example year page: Netherlands at the 2011 UCI Track Cycling World Championships
- Example overview page Road European Championships: Netherlands at the European Road Championships, example year page: Netherlands at the 2009 European Road Championships
- Example over page European Track Championships: Netherlands at the European Track Championships, example year page: Netherlands at the 2012 UEC European Track Championships

• 1st question: are these pages notable for European Championships?
• 2nd question: should these pages be merged as there would be many of them in the end?
  • In the case of merging I would prefer keeping the overview pages and making NATION at YEAR cycling world Championships & NATION at YEAR European cycling championships or
  • keeping the overview pages and making NATION at YEAR cycling championships

The point about only including post WWII cyclists for the Grand Tours, etc, seems to hint at the amateur status of those riders before the war. Again, I go back to my original point about Olympians and cricketers. Cyclists at the 1900 Olympics could hardly be considered professional! I think they should be included to keep a level playing field for similar criteria in other sports. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Great work JudoonCyclist - if you're happy to write, update and generally maintain those season articles then I think the project should support that. My point was just that I think we have things which are greater in priority but that's not to say we don't want season articles. Buzzards-Watch Me Work it's highly likely that the cyclists who medal in national championships will already be notable under something in the table I wrote above, so the number of short stub cyclist bios with just "x finished 3rd in y national" championships would be fairly minimal. This would also help us address the lack of coverage for track cycling for example. There's very little info on who won what event in each national championships each year - giving some notably out for this might help increase coverage. Same with cyclocross and Mtb disciplines.

Come on guys let's keep it all civil

Sander, I'd say there obviously notable but I'd structure them;

x nation at y championship, then within that a table of all the yeas which link to all the articles you've created.

XyZAn (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

XyZAn sorry I should have been more clear I don't disagree with you, and I agree with Sander that something like 2014 Team Novo Nordisk season is currently useless (compared to 2009 Astana season). And I won't be writing 1985 Lotto season anytime soon. But I do hope to get around to eg 2009 Team Katusha season at some point. JudoonCyclist (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This might sound a little crazy, but I think it should be discussed. Why not create a size requirement for new articles? Like, 20 words, 4 references and 3 external links. Anyone who meets the requirement is notable; I mean 4 citations conform standing. Under this guideline, articles would never receive AfD. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

JudoonCyclist Yeah I totally see your ooint - the Novo Nordisk article is essentially pointless, it just copies stuff from their own team page. Buzzards-Watch Me Work I think that having a minimum number of references is a good idea - but shouldn't be a rigid rule for notability. I.e, its an auxiliary guideline which can be used to help inform subsequent decisions. I think the table-guide is fairly comprehensive and covers riders, teams and races - the three most important topics IMO. As for references I think we should have a database/list of places where we can easily get references from -to my knowledge an AfD nominator should also check for extra refs for an article as part of the process.

My list of references places would be (for those that aren't aware I've included the URLs):

Pro Cycling Stats - [2]

Cycling archives - [3]

Cyclingfever - [4]

Cyclingfever women - [5]

Dopology - [6]

Cyclingnews - [7]

Cyclingweekly - [8]

The UCI - [9]

UCI doping site - [10]

CQ Ranking - [11]

XyZAn (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have 4 references, the person must be notable. In that case all these criteria are not neccesary. But these criteria are good to have a definition for notable cyclist, so it's easy to find notable cyclists and to create the articles without ending in AfD. Should with your criteria all articles with less than 4 references be put up for AfD?! (as many creators would include less than 4 refs). That would demotivatie people to create articles!! I'm creating all the Women's articles who participated at the world championships, but if I have to find many references I'll stop creating Cycling articles. A better way is to have good definitions what is notable by default. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 19:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel - I think you're right, a 'minimum number of refs' should just be there as a sign post, not a requirement. With the articles I've been creating, I've been giving 2 refs, that should be enough to keep the article out of AfD. I'd continue with what you've been doing, so far its been great work! XyZAn (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no minimum amount of references for any article. As long as it meets the relevant notability guidelines, it's notable. There are 1.8 million+ stubs on WP, the vast majority containing a single ref. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok taken on board what Lugnuts has said above let's rewind a bit and look back on the summary table I wrote earlier on. What changes do we want to make to the contents of that table, only it seems reasonably comprehensive to me and would cover issues we've had with the last couple if cycling related AfDs. If we do want to make a/some changes can we get an explicit list then we can move forwards with updating the notibility guidelines for he projects. XyZAn (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, how about this:

Men (at least 1):

Professional (UCI World Tour),

Grand Tour finisher,

Olympian,

Competed in the UCI World Championships

Woman (at least 1):

Professional (UCI Women),

Olympian,

Competed in the UCI World Championships

Teams

Men's: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd tier; Women's: UCI.

Races

Being ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2, and WE)

Has significant media coverage (e.g, Parel van de Veluwe and the People's Choice Classic)

Simple and concise. The world's best are included. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice and concise. My only question is on Grand Tour finisher. Surely starting a Grand Tour is notable enough. Many riders never complete the whole event, including ones who win early stages. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the simplified guide, but I have 2 questions.

• do we expand men's notability to all pro continental teams , only they ride proteam events and also contain a large number of ex- proteam riders - it seems logical we should.
• under the Women's section I'm assuming 'professional' means they ride/have ridden for a uci women's team

XyZAn (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to include all pro continental riders in the notability guidelines. Many, if not most, will be sufficiently and demonstrably notable (e.g. Jef Van Meirhaeghe, an article I created yesterday) but I don't think they are ispo facto notable. If the rider has ridden a World Tour race (especially a Grand Tour) or previously ridden for a ProTour team, they are notable anyway. If there are sufficient sources to write a decent article, they are almost certainly notable. Relentlessly (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Relentlessly, 2nd tier riders aren't necessary important. However, most pass notability. XyZAn, changed wording. Lugnuts, winning a stage, but not finishing is still notable. I mean, the achievement and media buzz is huge. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Great. So are we close to getting a consensus on updating the notability guide? I don't see any obvious issues of what has been proposed so far. Correct me if I'm wrong! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah i'm happy with what we have proposed XyZAn (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! I think we're almost there. One more thing - riders in the Monuments too? I suspect most of these will also be in the Grand Tour squads, but just to close any loopholes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should - seen as most of the monuments are quite old and in some ways more prestigious XyZAn (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, concede finale point. Time for voting. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought we already determined that "finisher" was fine. DNF a Grand Tour/Monument don't signal notability. I conceded adding Monument finishers so we could conclude. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Cyclists are presumed notable if they

Men (at least 1):

Professional (UCI World Tour);

Rode in a Grand Tour or Monumentsfinisher;

Competed at the Olympics or the UCI World Championships.

Won an elite UCI category race or a medal in international Championships/Games (added by Sander.v.Ginkel on 2 March)

Woman (at least 1):

Professional (UCI Women);

Competed at the Olympics and/or the UCI World Championships.

Won an elite UCI category race or a medal in international Championships/Games (added by Sander.v.Ginkel on 2 March)

Teams

Men's: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd tier; Women's: UCI.

Races

Ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2, and WE);

Holds significant recognition (e.g, Parel van de Veluwe and the People's Choice Classic).

Support

1. Good compromise. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support all, with the proviso of removing the word "finisher" from the GT/Monument criteria. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support all, with the same proviso as Lugnuts XyZAn (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Support all for road cyclists. It is not covering many cyclists from other Cycling disciplines. For other cycling disciplines I would add competed in World Cup races because that are the ony main races besides of Worlds and Olympics and these Cycling disciplines do not have main trade teams. Many articles of cyclists must otherwise be deleted. For instance: Rigard van Klooster. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 22:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

note 2 And I would add medalists at international championships/games and winners of National championships and elite UCI races. Why are they removed from the initial proposal? Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 22:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

van Klooster meets notability; look at the media coverage. National Championships were excluded because winning in some nations, like Andorra don't equal notability. With that being said, the scope is pretty big; every qualifier at the Olympics and Worlds counts. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've linked some keys terms, per the current guide and crossed out the word finisher. Sander.v.Ginkel - have your concerns been addressed? Is there anything outstanding? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I added for both men and women: Won an elite UCI category race or a medal in international Championships/Games Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 08:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Question If people don't fall within these critea and do not have broad coverage, should they be deleted? Examples: A professional cyclo cross cyclist: José Antonio Díez. And with a quick search of Commonwealth cyclists I found many articles, here a few: Dave Rand, Sion Jones, Clare Greenwood, Chris Williams (cyclist), Will Wright (cyclist), Alun Owen (cyclist), Roger Pratt (cyclist), Eddie Smart, John Dyer (cyclist). Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. The general notability guidelines still apply for anyone not covered by the specific guidance. If a neutral, independently-sourced article can be written, they are probably notable, even if they don't meet the guidance. Relentlessly (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think all participants at the Commonwealth Games are notable, and ditto for similar high-level events, such as the Asian Games. They're pretty much regional Olympics under another banner. The test would be to take a Commonwealth cyclist to AfD and watch it get speedy kept! ;-) Commonwealth participants are mentioned under athletics, cycling, rugby, etc on WP:ATHLETE, but not on its own, per the Olympics. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

CG is not the Olympics; the best riders from the UK, Bradley Wiggins, Chris Froome, and Mark Cavendish, didn't compete. CG athletes are not notable by themselves. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Regretfully. This is getting ridiculous. I compromised by adding GT and Monument finishers, but the solution was overturned; DNF isn't notable! Winning a UCI event isn't notable; numerous CT riders win a 1.2 or 2.2 event and disappear. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal & Compromise 2.0

OK people - last time I check this I thought we were going to have a consensus by Sunday. Having read all of the above what about the following compromise and proposal (Buzzards-Watch Me Work I've taken your proposal as my basis):

Cyclists are presumed notable if they

Men (at least 1):

Professional (UCI World Tour);

Rode in a Grand Tour or Monuments and at least finished (DNFs do not count).

Competed at the Olympics and/or the UCI World Championships.

Won Gold at an international games (also including races such as World University Cycling Championship, Universiade)

Won an elite UCI category race (minimum classifincluding ication is 1.1 and/or 2.1, including Continental championships, excluding national championships)

Woman (at least 1):

Professional (UCI Women);

Competed at the Olympics and/or the UCI World Championships.

Won an elite UCI category race (including Continental championships, excluding national championships)

Won Gold at an international games (including World University Cycling Championship, Universiade)

Teams

Men's: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd tier; Women's: UCI.

Races

Ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2, and CDM);

Holds significant recognition (e.g, Parel van de Veluwe and the People's Choice Classic).

The main bones of contention seem to be coming from the mens side but I'll summarise what I've added to compromise:

1. Only cyclists who finish a GT or monument will count, i.e, DNFs do not count whether it be a DNF on the first stage or the last.
2. Cyclists who have WON GOLD at an international games count
3. Winning a UCI race counts as long as its a .1 race or above - this should remove those crappy .2 races won by randomers

If we have a cyclist who doesn't conform to the above guide then we should create the page, if it is AfD'd we can then discuss the merits of whether or not is meets the guide or what interpretation and exceptions should/should not be made.

Thoughts; Sander.v.Ginkel, Lugnuts, Buzzards-Watch Me Work, Relentlessly, JudoonCyclist?

XyZAn (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying a DNF isn't notable for a GT/Monument is ridiculous. Being good enough to be selected to start one of those races gives some notability. I recently created this bio for a rider in the 1947 Tour de France. Guess what? One and only GT, with a DNF. This is based on the current WP:NCYC guidelines. There must be dozens, if not hundreds of current cycling biographies for post-WWII cyclists who raced in GT/Monuments who had one start and a DNF. To make a comparison, this guy competed at the 1912 Summer Olympics in the individual time trial, over a distance of 196 miles. Guess what? DNF. That's it. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. There's no extra qualifier to say that if you're an Olympian, you must finish your event. Even more so, that this guy was almost certainly an amateur, so we keep him, but not some DNFs from the 1970s and 1980s in the Tour de France? I think we've come a long way to updating this, esp. on working on the (current) gender imbalance, and I just think it's incorrect to say x rider isn't notable, because they were a DNF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To put it into context, I myself, am not bothered which way we go with it. Put it to a vote; those who vote for including DNFs vs those who vote to exclude DNFs - then go with the majority. I'm all for increasing the coverage of cycling on WP and if this will then I'm for it. XyZAn (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get excited either way on the DNF issue. My personal opinion is that riders who've started a GT/Monument are probably notable. They're pretty much equal in status with the world road race championships. Otherwise, I'm fine with the above proposals. Relentlessly (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Lugnuts that starting is notable. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 20:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I made two small changes in the proposal: 1) as continental championships and national championships are UCI category races I placed them behind UCI category races. 2) added behind games: (also including races such as World University Cycling Championship, Universiade) Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Descent proposal... Still against DNF. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the consensus will show starting is enough to meet notability. Further to the updated criteria, it states "Won an elite UCI category race (minimum classifincluding ication is 1.1 and/or 2.1, including Continental championships, excluding national championships)" (my highlight in bold). Are we saying National Champions are not notable? And if so, why? Are all the red link winners on this list not notable? Or the 2014 Men's Elite Road Race Champions? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say all national champions are notable. Even the ones from the 'small' countries. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 09:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP is strongly focused on countering systemic bias. While Murwin Arumjo probably isn't the most recognized name in cycling(!), he is the National Champion of Suriname. That in itself would pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Lugnuts has hit the nail on the head with the above comment - we need to remove Western bias. Who are we to decide which countries are notable or aren't notable with respect to NCs? I'd strongly be in favour of keeping in NC wins. Just becuase one country may not be as prolific in cycling terms when compared to another country shouldn't dictate whether its included or not. At somepoint someone has to make the first article in subject which has been deemed 'not notable' in order for it to become notable as time progresses. With the increase in cycling coverage in Africa riders who have, for example, won the Suriname NC would become notable. Further, if someone who has won a NC is included on websites we use heavily for references such as ProCycling Stats then I'd say it should pass any WP cycling notibility guide. Arumjo has a PCS profile [12] and Cycling Archives profile [13] which for me would mean that he should be notable enough for WP. XyZAn (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And just by including National Champions in the criteria isn't suddenly going to open the flood gates and make lots of editors target those articles to create them. They'll probably stay red-linked for some time. But if/when they do get created, it removes the need for a prolonged AfD debate that ends up wasting alot of time to end in a keep after 2 relistings! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts I think that someone coming across a list of redlinks might even encourage contribution - some editor might make that their own mini-personal project. XyZAn (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Winning in smaller countries isn't notable. Their are CT riders in the U.S. that aren't notable, but could beat the National Champion of Monaco or San Marino. However, if the champion has media coverage, he/she is notable. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

But why are the not notable? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable is not a word for being one of the best worldwide, but can be within a certain area like a country. Notability is the property of being worthy of notice. As that cyclist is the best in his/her country he/she is notable by winning the title, even if that cyclist is not as fast as a person from another coutry that is not notable. If you win an event at the Universiade you're notable by being the best student, but this doesn't mean you're one of the best athletes worldwide. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 09:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sander. Saying one country (champion) is notable, and another isn't goes quickly into WP:OR. Is Slovakia no longer a "smaller country" now that Peter Sagan is a well-recognized name? Is Albania more notable that Suriname? It's a slippery slope! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Compromise 2.1

OK, to update this - wish to include anyone who started a Grand Tour or Monument and to include National Champions. Nearly there! Thoughts/comments? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely against; exclude all national champions. My hometown is larger than Monaco, San Marino, etc. Becoming the champion of my town isn't notable. Most of these 'champions' haven't accomplished anything else. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Buzzards-Watch Me Work objectively speaking, we can't exclude all NCs, as the UCI no longer has a "B" world championships we cannot distinguish between 'greater' and 'lesser' cycling nations. Therefore, if we are to include countries such as the UK, France, Spain etc we must include all of the others - as there is no plausible way of splitting them. Buzzards-Watch Me Work your opinion on which countries are/aren't notable might not reconcile with Lugnuts or mine. As I've said before - if they're notable enough to be published on cycling race result aggregation websites such as PCS then they should be notable enough for WP. XyZAn (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is a way around it. You simply say that national champions are not ipso facto notable and need other factors to establish notability. If all we can say about a person is their name and the fact that they once won a bike race (e.g. the Surinamese champion mentioned above), I'm not convinced that person is notable. Relentlessly (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly do you know/have any specific other factors which we can use? The more water tight this is the better for future AfD discussions. XyZAn (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

XyZAn I suggest we omit any mention of national championships. Some probably make a rider notable (even some junior championships might), but many do not. I don't see how we can determine which do or don't in the abstract. I suggest we rely on the other agreed principles (WorldTeam, GT/Monument, Olympics, gold medal, elite win or notability established in some other sense). I can't see many (any?) riders who should be considered notable being excluded by these principles. I don't think totally watertight guidelines are possible here. Relentlessly (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Buzzards-Watch Me Work has yet to say why these people are not notable. So what if your hometown is bigger than Monaco? Explain to us all why someone who is a champion for their country isn't notable. How do you decide if one country's champ is notable and the next country in the list isn't? I don't hear any good arguement presented by you to exclude them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm speaking to children, exclude them all. The Andorran TT Champion, David Albós, is notable, because he competed in the UCI World TT Championships. However, other Andorran champions aren't; they haven't competed in any relevant event (e.g. UCI World Championships and/or Olympics)... I agree with Relentlessly's assessment. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean I'm speaking to children, Lugnuts, XyZAn and I (if you mean us with childeren) are reasoning our opinion. I must say, writing your opinion in bold doesn't sound like an adult. Please, let's keep this discussion friendly.

You say you would not include the national champions because they don't meet one of the other two criterea (Worlds/Olympics), but you're not reasoning why national champions are not notable itself. Is a national title only notable if you have competed at the Worlds? And if these national champions are not notable, they should not be listed on pages like 2014 national road cycling championships. You say other Andorran champions than David Albós aren't notable. After a search, I can find only one other natioal champion from Andorra, so with your example you must mean Guy Diaz. I took a look around if I could find more about him. There is a source about him here, and here and he competed at World Cup races cyclingnews, Pedalmag. He participated at the 2013 Games of the Small States of Europe (finishing 7th). He defeated many times David Albós, examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. However these last two arguments are no a reasons for inclusion, but shows he is not a nobody. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 22:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thing that came up in my mind, UCI races (which the nationals are), must have a minimum amount of starting cyclist. If a country only have a few cyclists, no nationals can be held. Besides of that, organizing the nationals are not free The races have to follow the UCI regulations (fee to come on the calendar, commisaires, time keeping, neutral car for road race etc.) nations without real cyclist would because of that not organize national championships. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for free speech and opinion... When I have to repeat myself numerous times –exclude all national champions– then I'm speaking to children; adolescents don't listen. That's why I boldfaced my statement; it's pointless to spin-wheels on one point. With that being said, it's hypocrisy to get offended by an observation, but dismiss a swipe; "I'm not even sure why you exist on here TBH" - Lugnuts.

"You're not reasoning why national champions are not notable itself" - Sander.v.Ginkel. Because it's very uneven; some countries have 30,000 people others 300,000,000, international events are the only level-playing field. If Guy Diaz rode a UCI World Cup, he's notable. However, championships requiring minimum participants is ludicrous. The UAE had three participates in the TT and RR in 2014. Andorra had five; although two appear notable. The UCI don't regulate national championships; each individual country has its own body. Also, finishing seven at the GSSE isn't profound. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the child, Buzzards. As I've said before - I don't really know why you are here. You opinion about excluding them is a lone voice. You've provided no rationale on why we exclude one nation, but not the next one. As no guidelines/policy ever gets 100% support ever, we go with the majority. Therefore, we include them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"You've provided no rationale on why we exclude one nation", we exclude them all. I've said it numerous times, one country doesn't equal another country. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Final draft

Below is the final draft. Add support/oppose, below, and we'll go with the majority and update the WP:NCYC criteria.

Cyclists are presumed notable if they

Elite Men (at least 1):

Professional (UCI World Tour);

Rode in a Grand Tour or Monuments;

Competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;

Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also including races such as World University Cycling Championship);

Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and national championships)

Elite Woman (at least 1):

Professional (UCI Women's team);

Competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;

Won a UCI category race (including Continental and national Championships);

Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also including races such as World University Cycling Championship)

Teams are presumed notable if they are

Men's road: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd tier;

UCI team (UCI women's team, UCI track team, UCI mountain bike team, UCI cyclo-cross team, etc.).

Races are presumed notable if they

Ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2, CDM, JO, CM, GT, CC, CN);

Races at international multi-sport event (games) (also including races such as World University Cycling Championship)

Holds significant recognition (e.g, Parel van de Veluwe and the People's Choice Classic).

• Support Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Lugnuts, I'm not much bothered either way, but in the section above you say we're including national championships; here you say we're excluding them. Which is it?! (Support either version, though.) Relentlessly (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Including. Now fixed - thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support And added competed at UCI World Cups, because we agreed on it (and Buzzards-Watch Me Work said: If Guy Diaz rode a UCI World Cup, he's notable). As I mentioned before it makes no difference for road cycling, as these rider are riding for the highest tier teams, but also covers riders from other cycling disciplines. Also added Olympics, Worlds, GT, CC, CN in races. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 10:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sander, could you demystify CDM, JO, CM, GT, CC, and CN, please? I know what some are, but not all. Relentlessly (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I copied them from the page UCI race classifications: CDM = World Cup; JO = Olympic Games; CM = World Championships; GT = Grand Tour; CC = Continental championship; CN = national championship; HC = Hors category Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 11:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Note I added some wikilinks so it's clear what it is about. Is there a wikilink what the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd tier teams are? I also changed the name games to international multi-sport event as that is the name of the related category. Also I added some things that are obvoius notable, but where not named (UCI track teams, cycle races at international games). Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support XyZAn (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Completely against – Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave this running for a couple more days, as I think the majority of the active members of the project have now had an input. If all goes well, I'll update the current criteria at some point on Sunday morning (UK time). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, so that might give some more votes. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 11:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sander. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment These guidelines should make it easier to identify when cyclist are typically able to pass WP:GNG. I am not convinced that a cyclist that rides one of the Monuments once would automatically get sufficient coverage to be notable. I would consider reworking the non-win criteria for men and women to be professional and having competed in a at least N of the named races or finished in the top 10 in any of them. CRwikiCA talk 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone - I've now updated the relevant section based on the above consensus. Happy editing/cycling! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll archive this, then any future discussion can start as a new thread. XyZAn (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)