Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 13

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.

It has been suggested that Segregated cycle facilities should be moved to Protected cycle facilities. Segregation is an unfortunate word in this context, though it has been used in much recent literature, and we should certainly keep Segregated cycle facilities as a redirect. Before undertaking any formal process, does anyone have strong feelings or good arguments one way or the other? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I support the move. Many cities and media outlets are starting to use "protected bicycle lane" to describe segregated facilities, so it shouldn't be too controversial of a move. SounderBruce 00:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is quite a complex topic, where different engineers and campaigners use several different names. The singular Segregated cycle facility actually redirects to Cycling infrastructure#Bikeways. There is a current debate about it which I encourage WikiProject participants to read and join: at Talk:Segregated_cycle_facilities#Reorganizing_Cycling_infrastructure_and_segregated_cycle_facilities --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The article about the cyclist Tom Simpson is currently a featured article candidate and needs support to get promoted. I've worked real hard on it and want it to be seen by as many people as possible. If you want to show your support (or opposition), please leave a comment here. Thanks. BaldBoris 21:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Boris, on the article's promotion: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Simpson/archive1. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In the edits between this diff I've attempted to tidy up the messy and disorganized Tour de France page. I've brought sections on key info - Classifications/Stages - up the page and removed a lot of the waffle about the Derfus Affair from the page. I've also culled material that was mainly trivia. It's still not ideal and there are some changes that might be reversible (I've put the 'organizers' bit into the general history, but this might warrant its own section).

The page is far from good still, but I hope that I've improved it. I'm a bit short on editing time in the next few days but if anyone wants to help expand the '1969-1988' (permanent return of trade teams to departure of Goddet) and '1989-Present' sections in the history then that would be great! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. Always good to see new people get stuck in. And great username, too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

On the 2015 national road cycling championships there was a bunch of additions made using a source that didn't go anywhere. I've removed them and placed the info on the talkpage. If anyone can help verify that these are correct (with sources, of course), please feel free to re-add them. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the question was raised during the GA review for 2015 Tour de Suisse: Does the project consider cyclingquotes.com a reliable source? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, but I must also add I do know some people who have reported for them or written peices in the past. However, some of their stuff isnt unique and we would need to check its originality. For instance compare these two peices. http://cyclingquotes.com/news/barta_rides_frustration_out_in_tour_breakaway/ and http://www.bora-argon18.com/en/news/detailview/news/jan-barta-attacks-at-the-second-stage-of-the-tour-de-france/. I dont believe they are copying reports (at least they never used to) but it would need checking that peices were original. So, on that basis, for now, No. It very hard to work out if they currently do original peices or are a news aggregator. :D Dimspace (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally find the site quite comprehensive, although it is not to be believed that Emil Axelgaard writes everything. It's just impossible to write so fast. Lots of ghost writers, but also lots of good information. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

They have changed after I pointed the fact to them on twitter. They now say: "POSTED by Emil Axelgaard", whereas before it was "AUTHOR: Emil Axelgaard". He therefore admits he doesn't write it all. He told me they are 5 to six authors. I told him it would help the credibility along if he named them on every article. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not RS. Disc Wheel (T + C) 01:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There has been some disruptive editing bordering on an edit war at Chris Froome relating to a red link to David Kinjah. Those removing claim there is no notability and those adding claiming he is notable. I think this would be the best venue for a discussion. I have no opinion on the matter but would appreciate outside eyes from the project. making others involved aware:@XyZAn:@Denisarona:@179.210.105.123:@BaldBoris:

Looking at the news sources I find the following. He's organised racing events in kenya, is described by the IBTimes as a kenyan legend, was the first black African rider to sign for a European cycling team, He seems to have medalled in several events, CNN describes him as one of Kenya's premier cyclists. A naive reading of just the top half dozen results suggests to me this gentleman has some notability although I am not overly familiar with athlete notability guidelines. SPACKlick (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody. A new Lua programmed infobox has been developped on the French Wikipedia and use datas from Wikidata : Module:Infobox/Équipe cycliste. You can see examples on Équipe cycliste Wanty-Groupe Gobert, Équipe cycliste Movistar, Équipe cycliste Topsport Vlaanderen-Baloise... When all tests will be finish, and when it will become possible to add datas with units on Wikidata (for the budget), this infobox will be adapted for you.

On a second step, it will be possible to create tables on Wikipedia to list the cyclists of a team. I start to enter datas on Wikidata, and I hope I can realise firsts tests in a few weeks. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm looking at this article, pondering perhaps taking it towards FL status. One curious aspect of the page is the "Team manager" for each team. These were added in this edit by an anonymous user. Some of them make sense, but lots don't, and I can't work out where the information came from. It seems to me that it ought to be the directeur sportif as listed on the TDF website. Before I go ahead and make that change, does anyone know better? Many thanks. (And yes, I'm back, ish!) Relentlessly (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Today, I adapt the Template:ProCyclingStats to Wikidata. It the property P1663 exists in an item of a cyclist, {{ProCyclingStats}} is enough. It the property is not used, you can fit the template like you do usually, or add the property P1663 (ProCycligStats ID) in the item. On the French Wikipedia, I create this morning ProCyclingStats and add a good documentation that somebody can translate better than I can do.

I do a try on Steven Lammertink (fr). Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Alberto Contador, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Cycling!

Based on the recommendation of XyZAn, I am happy to announce that WikiProject X has selected this project as part of a round of pilot testing.

The goal of WikiProject X is to improve the WikiProject experience through research, design, and experimentation. On that basis, we've prepared a new WikiProject design template based around modules. These modules include features you are already familiar with, such as article alerts, but also new features such as automated work lists, a feed of discussions taking place on the 18,078 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Cycling, and a new member profile system. To see what this new setup looks like, you can browse the first round of pilot tests: WikiProject Cannabis, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject Ghana, WikiProject Hampshire, WikiProject Women's Health.

If there is consensus among the participants of this WikiProject, I will proceed with implementing this interface based on the current contents of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling. Please let me know if you have any questions or requests. Harej (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two articles on Wikinews which are on the way to get stale if not reviewed soon:

• Wikinews:Ferrand-Prévot and Schurter are World Champions of Cross Country Cycling
• Wikinews:Vallnord UCI MTB Trials World Championships in La Massana, Andorra--Lib2know (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Background: Things went wrong on the talk page of that article:

• Wikinews:Talk:Vuelta a España: Mikel Landa wins demanding mountain stage

No matter how hard i tried for a solution answers of one administrator went more and more personal. There is no one else in the community talking to me right now. And that is exactly what that administrator mentioned before in his contributions. Finally after days isolation he set the article on "stale".

Maybe some mediation could lead to publish these articles. Do you know anybody who is ready to help?--Lib2know (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone ID the rider in this photo? It was originally uploaded as Raymond Poulidor, which it clearly isn't. I assumed it was Federico Bahamontes as he was the only one it resembled out of the ones listed in descript:ion here. But then I realised it's not Bahamontes either so... BaldBoris 14:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know.. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 07:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

After establishing the wikipages that notable WP:CYCLE, we also know the pages that are not by default notable. To reduce the numbers of red links of which most are not notable within the article, I created Template:noredlink. The link will only appear if it has a wikipage (of redirect), also when the page is created later. (It also works with disamb. links). See for instance 2015 UCI Road World Championships – Men's under-23 time trial#Final classification. If you agree I will start using the template on all junior and under-23 World Championships cyclists in the past. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you try to do, but I think that if the rest of the 'wiki-community' finds out, this template will be removed. According to Wikipedia:Red link, red links to articles that could plausibly be created should not be removed. Having a red links encourages readers to create an article.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I do the same in the German Wikipedia, but only after five or six years. If junior athletes fi stopped racing and never ended up in the elite, there will never be an article. Look here: [1]. --Nicola (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You were right EdgeNavidad, the template is for discussion. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 1. Nicola, can you also please reply there if you would like to see the template to be deleted or not? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I only right now understood what exactly you have done: I just deleted the brackets :) But it is a nice tool, especially for the use in sports articles. --Nicola (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC) (are you going to Grenchen next week, Sander?)

Hi all. I've been wondering recently about what classifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia cycling articles. Obviously major cycling publications like Cycling Weekly, Cyclingnews.com, VeloNews, etc., and mainstream newspapers (especially ones like L'Equipe, La Gazzetta dello Sport and Het Nieuwsblad that have very good coverage of cycling). I'm particularly interested in two things: the first of these is cyclingquotes.com, which has a mixed bag of content. I was told recently on Talk:2015 Vuelta a España, Stage 12 to Stage 21 that it's a translation of a Danish site. Does anyone have any more information or evidence regarding reliability? I've generally been careful to avoid it.

The other question is about podcasts. There are several good cycling podcasts that often have interesting content, such as quotes from riders and predictions for races. The major ones that I know of are the Telegraph cycling podcast and the CyclingNews podcast. My opinion is that these are probably reliable to use, using {{cite podcast}}, as they are supported by major publications and generally feature well-known journalists and riders. The other cycling podcast I follow and wonder about is The Recon Ride. This is not run by journalists. It is, however, promoted and supported by VeloNews, which gives it some credibility. I think it's probably on the borderline.

What do other people think?

Relentlessly (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The usage of "Tricycle (Philippines)" is under discussion, see Talk:Auto rickshaw (Philippines) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I PRODed WikiProject British Bicycle racing and currently only two replies have said it should be kept or merged. Can I get your opinions please? BaldBoris 14:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's interest to have something like this, it can be as a WP:CYC task force. Severo (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I have decided to become a little more active again, and have (re)-nominated the 1907 Tour de France article for GA. If you can improve this article (mostly to improve the prose I guess), feel free to do this before the review, to prevent a quick fail. Note that this is not a request to review this article; I even would prefer this article to be reviewed by somebody not in this Wikiproject, because I think that is better for the review process. I will now start to do my duty and review a different article. :) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdgeNavidad. I've done a copyedit and tried to make it more idiomatic English. I'm concerned that some part still aren't clear, in particular the scoring system. There are also some very short paragraphs and I think the infobox (with the speed next to the points) looks bizarre. Overall it seems a decent article, though; it's nice to learn more about the history of the sport! Relentlessly (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Today the UCI announced 18 confirmed 2016 UCI World Tour teams (WorldTeams or whatever). I thought I'd just open a discussion on what to to do with the Cannondale team. Their new name appears to be Cannondale Pro Cycling Team, the name of the former Liquigas team in 2014 that merged with Garmin–Sharp to make Cannondale–Garmin in 2015. So, you can see the problem... BaldBoris 16:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

BaldBoris - Could the current "Cannondale Pro Cycling Team" article be moved to "Cannondale Pro Cycling Team (defunct)" to alleviate the situation and allow us to move the Cannondale-Garmin page? Or maybe move it to something like "Cannondale Pro Cycling Team (1999)" reflecting the teams foundation date? Is there a rationale used in other sports pages? XyZAn (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that's one possibility. When they merged was it straight 50/50? If so, why was the Garmin (Slipstream/Argyle) team used as the chosen as the continued article? Also, as Cannondale was the first sponsor in the 2015 team, weren't they the owner? As the team is owned by Cannondale and now nothing to do with Garmin, maybe the 2015 season should be moved into Cannondale Pro Cycling Team and leave the Garmin article behind? Very confusing. BaldBoris 20:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME - the old Cannondale's common name would be Liquigas (you've said it yourself!). Old one can be moved to Liquigas (over redirect), new one can be at Cannondale Pro Cycling Team with a disambig hatnote. History can be explained in the prose. The Garmin article was the continuation because it was a continuation of the Garmin team. Severo (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This matches the practice at U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team, where the team is not referred to by its final name but by the one that made it famous. Relentlessly (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody (and an happy new year). I notify Relentlessly, Mattaidepikiw, BaldBoris and other users that are possibly interested. With Molarus, an user from Germany, we develop since one month a program that permits to use datas from Wikidata on our Wikipedias. The goal is to work together to avoid doing the same tasks in our langages and to be more productive. First tries were Cycling Archive, ProCyclingStats and CQ ranking that works perfectly on Fr Wiki and others.

We enter in an other phase. We are now able to make tables in articles.

• fr:Tour de France 2016

{{Cycling race/listofstages|Q18574623}}

• fr:Paris-Nice 2016

{{Cycling race/listofstages|Q21768432}}

• fr:Paris-Arras Tour 2015

{{Cycling race/listofstages|Q19917447}}

• fr:Tour de l'Ain 2015

{{Cycling race/listofstages|Q19412884}}

• fr:Triptyque des Monts et Châteaux 2014

{{Cycling race/listofstages|Q16027296}}

To call this function, you only have to write {{Cycling race/listofstages|Q16027296}}, where Q........ is the number of the Wikidata item. Datas are generally entered by Anthony59999 or by me, according to ProCyclingStats. One unique user can update all Wikipedias that use this programm. Datas on Wikidata can be sourced. If there is an error, they can be deprecated.

This function is a first step, I already think to a similar function that will permit to give the palmares of a race (and it is interesting because by working together we save time), then it will be the classifications. On Fr Wiki, we have Wikidata infoboxes, but it is to difficult for me to adapt them at other Wikipedia because super modules are different (the same mistakes of the past...).

This programm is centralised on Wikidata. when it evolve, I update the copies on FR, NL, BR, IT, MK and now EN Wikipedias. The code to write is always the same. I will be happy if somebody is able to write in English a small documentation. I am here if you have questions. Note that I am French and I am not very good in English. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick. In principle, this looks interesting and is clearly a lot of very good work! One minor observation and one more fundamental observation:

First, the styling would need to be changed to fit in with the English Wikipedia's style. I doubt this would be particularly tricky, as our table code is simpler than the French Wikipedia's. (Although also less attractive, IMO!)

Second, I am not sure whether the use of data from Wikidata in this way is permitted. The use of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia is still very limited: it is interwiki links, a few templates (such as {{official website}} and {{commons category}}) and some infobox data (though not all data and not all infoboxes). I don't believe it is permitted to use data in this way. In particular, the style of providing links to Wikidata in the way you do doesn't exist elsewhere on this wiki and providing references will be an issue. I'll ask elsewhere as I am not sure whether or not this is accurate.

Many thanks for all the work and I hope we can find a way to use it. Relentlessly (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We have the same "problem" on the French Wikipedia. Wikidata is done to have this type of use, but this template is the first on the ten Wikipedias that use Cycling race to display a table with datas entered on Wikidata. Nobody provide on these ten Wikipedias that it will be possible on the beginning of 2016 that we will be able to do this, so there is no rule for and no rules against. It is a grey area (zone d'ombre in French), that is why we develop at the maximum this template for being perfect. In the future, we will use similar tables and infobox, with the same colors (on this point, we are the most modern on Wiki FR). Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest we need this on the English Wiki. There is always plenty of users and IPs that fill in the stage tables, which could also be seen as a way to encourage new users. Most users on here don't communicate with the othe languages, which could pose problems. The current table in there design state are quite frankly gastly and find it hard to understand why you think it's "modern" or more "attractive". The Wikidata icons look out of place on site generally used for reading, the text should 100% and there is no need for the yellow background. Borders or odd/even background colors are a must in terms of readability [2]. BaldBoris 00:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is because you are focalised on UCI World Tour and similar big races according to Category:2015 in road cycling. On FR Wiki (for example), we are able to write more articles about race (see fr:Catégorie:Cyclisme sur route en 2015) and it is growing (see fr:Catégorie:Cyclisme sur route). Listing stages is just a first step, just a big test before classifications for example. It permits me to find interlocutors. Imagine if an IP from France fill the classifications on Wikidata in few monthes : thanks to an improved program these data will become available for your English Wikipedia, but also for Wikipedias who already have the module, and the time you saved by don't entered this classification, you, another user, or an Ip, can use it to write this article and add text. Today, even for a race of the UCI World Tour, all different users must do the same work, if we work together, the action of one user will permit to do the work on other Wikipedias, and it is a very long work to fill these informations, all the others user will can pass their time to describe the race. You like our we have too much articles that are only tables, it lacks text, cartography, sources...

So the project is not just this table, it started with links with Wikidata to Cycling Archive, CQ Ranking and ProCyclingStats, we are not speaking of this table, and we will speak this year about race palmares, classifications, infoboxes... Today, you are only a dozen for cycling on EN WP, and it is the same on FR Wiki, and less on other Wikipedias. By developping tools for working together, we will become more numerous : no need to speak English to fill the datas of a classification, or to list the podium of a race. When I enter the winner of a race, it is more interesting if this action update all the existing articles of the Wikipedias. I can provide that there will have a transitions, contributions concerning datas and users who make them will little to little learn to use Wikidata (I say that because the processus has already begin). Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is scope for more data-driven articles, where we generally focus on text-driven ones; this would make it easier to have stubs that are principally data with a short text introduction, looking principally at races that are more "below the radar". I've made a few such articles, such as 2015 Tour de Taiwan. To be honest, they don't get me terribly excited (sites like ProCyclingStats will always do a better job of presenting such data), but I'm not opposed to them in principle. A "mixed economy" of Wikidata-driven tables and markup-driven tables is possible. But we will need to work out a better and more consistent presentation and, if possible, make the tables easier to edit, rather than simply using the complex Lua module. We will also need to work out the semantics of linking information on Wikipedia to information on Wikidata. There is no current system of doing this on this wiki and I do not believe the proposed one is simple enough: you can click a small (non-accessible) icon and end up on a completely different site that is far more complex to navigate and understand. Relentlessly (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not that, I want to say (even if it is difficult for me) that using Wikidata at a specific level will permit to have the majority of articles with a long text because users will have finished to pass all their time to enter the same datas. A part of users that traditionnaly enter these datas on EN Wiki, FR Wiki... will work on Wikidata because it is faster. For example, for a classication, an user will only enter the name of the cyclists, their place and there time, because the nationality and the 2016 team will be already know by the program. There are things to say about a race like the 2015 Tour de Taiwan, like describing the race. But more interesting it is possible to produce a cartography. Small races are interesting to follow, I have for example the Triptyque des Monts et Châteaux 2015 and the Paris-Arras Tour 2015. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

In the confusing way in which cycling teams seem to run, I have yet another question (I do apologies haha!). For those that don't know Cult Energy Pro Cycling were set to gain a second sponsor in the form of the Stölting group, however in the end Cult had to pull out. Thus my question is: is the 2016 pro-continental team Stölting Service Group a continuation of the Cult Energy Pro Cycling team or does it represent a continuation of the Continental team Team Stölting? I hope I'm making this clear...how do we treat it on WP?

• A Cult Energy Pro Cycling → Stölting Service Group (simple change in sponsor name)
• B Team Stölting → Stölting Service Group (same name, just move from Conti to Pro Conti)

For refence PCS suggests this is option B above. Thanks, XyZAn (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I may be being daft but I don't yet see Team Stölting/Stölting Service Group on the 2016 listing of http://www.uci.ch/road/teams/ yet? Probably just a delay in submitting paperwork/updating the website but the information on there will usually tell you what you need to know. Specifically; Cult Energy was run by LION Cycling S.A.: Team Stölting was run by Stölting Ruhr-Profi-Radteam GmbH Jochen Hahn. Just follow who the new team is run by. Severo (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I too have been confused with the pro conti teams. I think with this one I'd wait until the UCI have confirmed all the teams. This is what I've gathered the teams are from the UCI website. But this conflicts with PCS and news articles from the last month. I've got no idea what's going on with Caja Rural–Seguros RGA or Carrefour Funvic Soul Cycling Team either. BaldBoris 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The UCI website is always behind on these teams, but I think that's connected witht he information coming from national federations etc. Spare a thought for women's teams though: they aren't even listed yet but we are to believe that the UCI take women;s racing seriously? Severo (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a current requested page move on the An Post-Chain Reaction talk page, initiated by Dicklyon, regarding whether team names need to be hyphenated or en dashed. There is 'some' consensus on the consensus page. Is there any further rationale as to which punctuation should be used? If so, does this need reviewing and updating? Only looking back at team articles nearly all uses hyphens. Cheers, XyZAn (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If you look at that "some consensus" that you linked, you'll see that it was put in a few years after a discussion that represents no such consensus. It is not usually a good idea for wikiprojects to declare a style that is at odds with WP:MOS; see MOS:DASH for guideline on dashes. When separate sponsoring entities are incorporated into the team name, they should generally be separated by en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So therefore by your own argument there needs to be some form of discussion? Rather than just charging into a Project and requesting moves... Are you sure that there isn't something else underlying pages relating to sports teams? For example, looking at F1 teams you have: Red Bull-TAG Heuer, Force India-Mercedes, Haas-Ferrari. XyZAn (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There has never been an intention to contradict WP policies or guidelines. I think if you wish to propose it should be done differently, it should be comprehensive (i.e. include all teams) and I would like to see specifically where in the Manual of Style endashes are preferred here. I do not see how any of the examples on the MoS relate to cycling team names (the closest are compunds but the dash does not represent "to, versus, and, or between"). I don't have a preference for any form, but the whole point of a Manual of Style is a to have a uniformity of style across Wikipedia. Severo (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This project should follow WP:MOS, nobody denies that. The problem is that the MOS is not clear about if we need hyphens or dashes. The discussion from 2009 indicated hyphens. (I asked literally: "So, in conclusion, is it correct for the Cycling project that the Silence–Lotto combination of sponsors produced the Silence-Lotto team, with a hyphen?", and the only answer started with "Yes".) It is now more than six years later, so I don't mind a new discussion on this. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and that discussion was raised at the MoS talkpage to get wider community input. Severo (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see that a firm consensus has formed either way, though clearly the cycling project editors have been favoring hyphens, while the more meta-focused editors favor the en dash. I don't think the December 2009 discussion, titled "Is this conjuction [sic] or disjunction?", fully hit the mark. I don't follow how the terms conjunction and disjunction are applied for the purpose of determining the appropriate use of hyphens and dashes, and railroad names are too far removed from this scenario.

The argument for hyphen, as I see it: The manual of style on dashes and hyphens says: "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities, e.g. Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities. Thus a single cycling team named after two sponsors would use a hyphen? Isn't a team a single entity? The en dash would be more appropriate if there were a separate An Post team that joined or merged with a Chain Reaction team; either permanently or for participation in one or more events that they might not have qualified for as separate teams. Not sure how often such a thing happens, but I believe that it might. The more prestigious events are more selective in terms of what teams they accept. Some teams only have a single sponsor, but many need to cobble together several sponsors to get adequate funding. Whether a team has one or multiple sponsors, it's still just a single team, just as a person with a hyphenated name is just a single person.

The argument for en-dash might better be stated by others, but seems to reflect the POV that separate entities partner or join together to form or sponsor a team, rather than the team is a single entity seeking sponsors.

In looking for similar examples of separate entities partnering or joining together to form or sponsor something, I found:

• 12:29, 10 June 2011 Kithira moved page Lawrence-Dumont Stadium to Lawrence–Dumont Stadium (correct dash)
• 00:50, 30 January 2010 Koavf moved page Ross-Ade Stadium to Ross–Ade Stadium (WP:DASH)
• 00:07, 30 January 2010 Koavf moved page Bryant-Denny Stadium to Bryant–Denny Stadium (WP:DASH)
• 00:09, 30 January 2010 Koavf moved page Jordan-Hare Stadium to Jordan–Hare Stadium (WP:DASH)
• 01:07, 30 January 2010 Koavf moved page Williams-Brice Stadium to Williams–Brice Stadium (WP:DASH)
  • 20:29, 28 February 2010 Koavf moved page Williams–Brice Stadium to Williams-Brice Stadium over redirect (fix) – (I suppose the difference here is that Martha Williams and Howard Brice were married to each other)

Note that each of these are named after individual persons, while cycling teams are most frequently named after corporate sponsors. See also List of eponyms of stadiums and List of eponyms of stadiums in the United States.

Alas there is as yet a dearth of hyphens or dashes in List of sponsored sports stadiums and List of sports venues with sole naming rights.

There is also the argument that stadiums, as inanimate objects, are a different type of named entity than cycling teams. Examples of more directly related analogous types of entities, if anyone can think of them, might be helpful here... yes, I see above that a survey and comparison with guidance on F1 teams, as mentioned above, e.g. Red Bull-TAG Heuer, Force India-Mercedes, Haas-Ferrari is helpful, though none of those are currently titled as co-sponsored teams. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Arzani-Volpini is a good F1 example. Joint en dash effort reflected by the partnership of Gianpaolo Volpini and engine-builder Egidio Arzani? Or a single hyphenated entity named after those two people? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My thinking is can we simply reduced down; (1) MOS doesn't seem to shed enough light (or at least hasn't historically), (2) WP:CYC editors have used the hyphen throughout, so there is uniformity across the cycling articles. (3) Finally, does it really matter? From a punctuation case, maybe, but from a user point of view I don't think it matters. Will a reader be misled by us using Team Jayco–AlUla rather than Orica–GreenEDGE, nope, it just seems to be a bit unnecessary given that there are plenty of other tasks to be carried out. XyZAn (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing annoys a wikignome so much as telling them that what they care about doesn't matter because there are other things to do. It may not matter to you, but to readers who know and care about good punctuation, improving things of that sort is worthwhile. The fact that WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN This is a pretty good guideline: if a name is compounded by two separate entities, then it should use an ndash. If it is one person who has a double barrelled (or hyphenated) name, then a hyphen is used. Either way, there should definitely be redirects from one to the other. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

One thing that seems clear: the section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cycling/Consensus_decisions#Cycling_team_naming claims a consensus to use hyphens, but the discussion it links shows no such consensus. The section referencing a 2009 discussion was added in this 2010 edit by User:Severo. Since the linked discussion doesn't show such a consensus, I recently deleted that part. I will delete it again; if anyone thinks there was ever such a consensus, please show us. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

At the end of that discussion, nobody seemed to argue anymore for the use of dashes. I asked literally in that discussion: "So, in conclusion, is it correct for the Cycling project that the Silence–Lotto combination of sponsors produced the Silence-Lotto team, with a hyphen?", and the only answer started with "Yes". For me, that is enough consensus. I'm ok with having a new discussion on this, but don't pretend that there never was consensus. If this discussion will conclude that dashes are better, we have just reached a new consensus. Consensus can change. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More the point, a wikiproject cannot make up its own rules in defiance of site-wide ones, as a matter of policy (WP:CONLEVEL). MOS clearly wants an en dash here, and we've actually had this exact same discussion before many times, just with regard to something other than cycling teams (airports, astronomical bodies, etc.). The arguments for a hyphen are always a case of the WP:Specialized style fallacy, relying on non-WP:INDY sources. The reliable sources on facts about airports, comets and cycling are not reliable sources on how to punctuate English for an encyclopedia audience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish I don't think there has been a case of a WP making up its own rules in defiance. As EdgeNavidad said, the question was asked when a previous discussion took place and a hyphen was the result. I think the prudent approach for the moment would be for the editors to continue as they do until MOS clearly states what needs to be adhered to regarding dash/hyphen usage (I'm not au fait with the minutia of punctuation detail and I dare say other editors may also not be). As you stated "MOS's present wording is unclear" and I don't think we work on "intent". As you've eluded too, this is something you've come across as an issue with multiple WPs, would it therefore be logical to carry out a discussion at MOS and update it with clear and concise guidelines that we (and other WPs) can be updated of and then follow - rather than go around each project systematically? XyZAn (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with the idea that MoS needs to be clarified on this, since I did allude to that myself. But I'll try to be more explicit: MOS clearly enough states what needs to be done, it's just less clear that it could be. Someone is arguing at the RM that the MOS section doesn't apply because WP:CYCLING already has its own consensus, so it is in fact an argument that the wikiproject can make up its own rules. The project's own /Consensus_discussions page effectively stakes exactly the same claims, stating that cycling articles are to use hyphens not en dashes, and citing nothing but an actually no-consensus WP:CYCLING discussion in favor of this position. I didn't suggest that multiple wikiprojects are trying to buck MOS on this, but rather that various editors in the past have tried to insist that hyphens don't apply to some particular topic because some insider magazines they like don't use them. (Which actually stands to reason in its own way: Such magazines are a form of journalism, and journalism style guides mostly do not recognize the dash distinctions that other style guides do. Journalistic style is based entirely on expediency, not precision, and has a large number of disagreements with academic – including scientific, humanities, technical and other – style guides, along the same efficiency-versus-clarity dividing line. WP is essentially an academic publication, and MOS is based almost entirely on the Chicago Manual of Style, the Oxford Style Manual / New Hart's Rules, and other academic style guides. It draws nearly nothing from journalism style guides, because news style has little in common with the formal style of encyclopedic writing.) I agree that trying to resolve this topic-by-topic is a tedious approach, but I"m not in control of who launches what RMs, and the should be resolved consistent with MOS's intent in interim, even if MOS needs more clarity. Finally, all of WP:POLICY is interpreted in its spirit and its intent more than the exact technicalities of it's wording. WP:LAWYER, for example, was written explicitly against the nit-picking approach. MoS is more prone to some forms of nit-picking, due to its nature as a long list of particular line-items, but the meaning is always more important than the particularities of the wording, and the goal most important of all: Producing the clearest prose for our readers. Hyphenation in cases like this falls far sort of the mark, because it's directly confusing, and makes the material hard to parse for anyone not already steeped in the particular subject. At any rate, I'm off to MoS to try to clarify it on this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So tl;dr, it seems like it's worth going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Discussion in cycling project on punctuation of team names with more than one sponsor to establish a guide for us to follow, as well as other WPs.. XyZAn (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What the Manual of Style recommends for usage of en dash

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#En_dashes:_other_uses description fits the en dash better than the hyphen case, for joining two distinct sponsor entities implying "and":

===== In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between =====

Here the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech. Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning.

...

An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound.

• the Seifert–van Kampen theorem;   the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory
• the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme (developed by Seeliger and Donker-Voet)
• Comet Hale–Bopp or just Hale–Bopp (discovered by Hale and Bopp)

A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.

• Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
• Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities
• John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families

Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

But as Wbm1058 wrote above, isn't a team a single entity? Therefore by your information above a hyphen is OK. IMO Team Jayco–AlUla is simply the joining of two names so in effect is similar to a person with a double barrelled name i.e, hyphenated. To put it simply: "John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families" therefore Team Jayco–AlUla is a team named after two families (sponsors in this case). XyZAn (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I also had another thought along the lines of what do the actual teams who use hyphens (or dahses) use themselves (using Soudal–Quick-Step as the example)?

• According to the UCI its hyphenated UCI
• According to ProCycling Stats (one of the most used resources in the project) its hyphenated PCS
• According to the teams own home page URL its hyphenated URL but they're journalist news sections use both a dash and a hyphen News release
• According to Cyclingnews.com its a hyphen Cycling News

If you're looking to "Etixx – Quick-Step" as an example, that's a spaced en dash, another odd choice. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be no clear consensus when reporting this particular team name. As a project do you go by what the teams journalist uses or by what the governing body has? I would tend to lean towards whatever the UCI has, as fair presumption and in theory when the team filled out the registration/licensing forms thats the team name they gave. XyZAn (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What's most clear from sources is that the hyphen is usually avoided, as it sends the wrong signal by strongly connecting what looks like a compound "Post-Chain". That's why sources variously use a line break, a spaced hyphen (a common substitute for a dash), a slash, or simply a space. WP guidance on such things is clear: follow English style guides and use an en dash. The abundance of styles in sources as illstrated with Ettix–Quick-Step should serve to illustrate why following a consistent style guide might be a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• It should be an en dash, because it's a name formed from those of two or more entities in an attributive compound. MOS's present wording is unclear: it doesn't need to be "people"; and "proper name of a single entity" is misleading – rather, it's the proper name of single entity formed from the merger of those of two or more others (or parts thereof), where the referent of the combined name is a single entity, and the name is not used (ever) attributively. (And the Guinea-Bissau case is actually different; it's using a French hyphenated-compound rule.) However MOS's intent is clear. The former cases are adjectival and attributive, the latter are intrinsic, self-contained entities that are nouns. The An Post–Chain Reaction case is confusing at first, because it's really short for "the An Post–Chain Reaction team"; i.e., it's an attributive construction that has been "nouned" in a short form for convenience, exactly like "Hale–Bopp" being derived from "comet Hale–Bopp" (a case of the slightly archaic reversal of the attributive order in English, as in "the brothers Grimm" instead of "the Grimm brothers"). It is not a self-contained, non-attributive noun like Wilkes-Barre. The team is neither a merger of those two business entities, nor randomly named after them in an honorary fashion (e.g. I could start a band called Asimov-Einstein, and it would be proper to hyphenate it), but attributively as join project of their sponsorship. In this it is, thus, precisely like a three-author paper or a two-discoverer comet, and should be en-dashed. Finally, "An Post-Chain Reaction" is ridiculously confusing, and will be parsed by almost everyone but an Irish speaker as a multi=part typo for "A Post-chain Reaction" or "A Post-chain-reaction".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Building towards a consensus on team name styling

So after some discussion at MOS regarding the usage of dashes and hyphens I think we have the following as a ruleset - what do people think?

Cycling team names following the general rule and use an en dash rather than hyphen:

[Sponsor A]–[Sponsor B] (see Orica–Greenedge).

More complex naming where sponsors have a hyphenated name should be treated as follows: [Sponsor A]–[Sponsor B name 1]-[Sponsor B name 2] (see Etixx–Quick-Step. XyZAn (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is over-complicated, as SMcCandlish said there. Maybe like this:

Cycling team names follow the general rules of the WP:MOS. Teams with multiple sponsors connect sponsor names with en dash, per MOS:DASH. Examples: Orica–Greenedge, Etixx–Quick-Step, An Post–Chain Reaction.

Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The actual rule can be stated succinctly like that, but then I think should be followed by a longer explanation of the rationale behind it, so passers-by who aren't specialists in style guidelines will understand it and not question it. Specifically that, in this context, the length of the hyphen/dash is intended to communicate the closeness, or relative lack of closeness, of the relationship between the parties. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Propose some wording if you like. I was hoping the article and MOS links would be enough for anyone who wanted rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and list this as consensus, and see if anyone wants to tune it up or argue about it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the link back to this discussion is sufficient, for those looking for further information about the rationale. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Implementation

Team naming is a bit of a mess, isn't it? Working on this, I find these issues someone might want to check me on (or review my contribs for others):

• Keith Mobel–Partizan – changed spelling from Partisan, to match their web page, as opposed to its URL; what's up with that?
• Torku Şekerspor had a hyphen, but I took it out since is not a union of two names, right?
• Dynatek–Latvia is unsourced; I have little idea what's right here; perhaps a space is better?

I've been doing various copyedits along the way; there's a lot of superfluous capitalization in these articles. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday User:Severo did a ton more dash moves. Many thanks.

Here's another issue: Most articles say status: UCI Continental, capitalized, which links to UCI Continental Circuits. I think the intended status link is UCI continental, lowercase, which redirects to List of 2015 UCI professional continental and continental teams which comes closer to explaining what that status means. Yes? Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just discovered Category:Cycling team data problems, but have no idea how to solve the "problems". BaldBoris 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The article with problems in that category have a year that does not exist. See for example my edit in the 2012 Tour de France article. The old parameter was "2012", but the template has "2012a" and "2012b", see Template:Cycling data OGE.

This category was made because Template:ct used to break if an invalid year was used, showing ugly code in the wikipedia article. But the template ct has improved: if an invalid year is given, it just gives the link to the main article of the team. So the problem is not so big anymore. Maybe the category is even no longer necessary...

By the way: I solved the "problem" by examining all those ct-templates in the code. I don't know a smarter way. (Of course I was a little bit smart: I focused first on the teams that changed names in 2012, because the article was about 2012, but that strategy will not work for all articles in that category.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

How do we determine when "a" or "b" should be used? Is there a certain date or is it whenever the team changed names during the season? BaldBoris 12:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It would make sense to have a page listing the teams (including date) that have changed name, arranged by year. BaldBoris 13:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe to improbe the template with an extra parameter. That you can fill in (if necasary) besides the year also the month (in stead of 2009a, 2009b). So for instance {{UCI team code|SKY|2009|December}}. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 13:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a way to work out where the problem lies. As of a moment ago, Chris Froome was in the category. If you view the HTML source of the rendered article, you'll find <span style="display:none">Error</span> where the error was made. In this case, it was {{ct|GRM|2012}}, which should have been {{ct|GRM|2012b}}. The problem was that this article therefore referred to Team Cannondale-Garmin, whereas it ought to have been Garmin-Sharp. They are problems that need fixing.

It would be very useful if this were all documented: I had to work it out by going through all the (undocumented) architecture of the templates, which took ages. Relentlessly (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly how it came about, but the above is correct. If an unused year parameter was used, it messed up the whole template which showed in the article. So we amended it to show something that didn't mess up the whole article but did log a problem somewhere. I don't remember the thought of how to identify exactly where the problem was although Relentlessly comes up with a very good method. I don't believe the answer to this problem is to add an extra parameter (the architecture of the template is already complicated enough) nor do I think that having a list of teams that changed name during the year is particularly workable (it will easily fall out of date). The teams that change name during the year should be noted in the article of the team itself and the date clear. I think what we do need here is a clearer way for logged-in users to identify where the problem is in the article to be able to fix it. Severo (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to this I see that after the initial edits I made on this years ago, it was tidied up to put the code on {{Cycling team link}}, which adds Category:Cycling team data problems where applicable. I think it would also be useful to add in this something like the ^{[citation needed]} tag to identify the problem. I will look into it. Severo (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now resolved how to identify the problems in the articles with ^{[template problem]}. This comes up automatically if the first parameter (usually the team code) does not match through its template to a correct year parameter. You would then have to identify what the problem is (incorrect code, incorrect year, year not put into template etc.).

I have, however, identified some problems which I don't think are surmountable though and I'm not sure it is even prefereable to overcome them. The first is with {{Cyclingteamlist}} which simply puts teams using the {{Ct}} system into a columned list format, but cannot account for team names changing in-year. This can be replaced just by using columns as elsewhere on WP. The second is {{cyclingresult-women}} (and similar) which just make a table but constricts over elements, including changes in team name. I don't see how this is better to a table. Severo (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this when making 2016 Tour de San Luis: thank you; it's a big improvement. With regard to {{cyclingteamlist}}, it can be handled either as you say or by using team1={{UCI team code|GRS|2012b}}, for example. It's a convenience thing; if it's not more convenient, don't use it! Relentlessly (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also now added some documentation on the category page - feel free to improve on as ever. Severo (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice; I just improved some articles to remove such errors. One remark: the error warning does not show up when articles are not linked. What I mean: {{UCI team code|GRM|2012}} will give the warning mentioned above, but {{UCI team code|GRM|2012|nolink=true}} does not. If somebody wants to have a wiki-challenge: solve this. :) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

EdgeNavidad, I just did. Relentlessly (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We may wish to break out that error code into a standalone template which both of these call on. Severo (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've come here to get some guidance on what should happen to articles where riders have results voided due to doping in the past. There is, of course, a very extensive talk archive, but I suggest that key info should be mentioned on the project page, so that editors who are keen to help can lend a hand without having to delve into those archives first. I've seen in a few articles that palmarès have a 'voided results' subsection. What I haven't seen so far, though, is succession boxes having been updated by removing those voided results. In some race article lists, voided results are struck out; is that what is supposed to happen? I'm asking because there are other results lists where this hasn't been done. Does a voided result mean that the second-placed person has won that particular race or title? If so, should that person get a succession box showing this? Do we include an explanation within the succession box that results for others were voided?

I guess there's a lot that ought to be defined, and it might well be worth having this all in one place. Happy to lend a hand, but somebody better tell me what needs doing. Schwede66 09:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"Does a voided result mean that the second-placed person has won that particular race or title?" In general: no. The responsible cycling authorities can decide to upgrade the second-placed person to be the winner, but don't always do that, for example there are no winners of the 1999-2005 Tours de France. For this kind of information, we need to rely on external sources. If a reliable external source indicates that a rider is upgraded to the first place, (such as what happened after the 2006 Tour de France), the new winner should (in my opinion) get all the succession boxes and so on that normally go with a victory, and preferably with an explanation that results were voided. In cases where we can not find a source that says what happened, we should err on the safe side: don't declare a new winner.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In general, they don't automatically move everyone up a place if someone was caught cheating. Take the 1972 Olympics, for example. Two bronze medals were stripped, but the 4th place riders didn't move up to 3rd, as they hadn't been tested. It changes from race to race, so unless there's an authority saying they have "upgraded" someone's results, we just strike through the cheaters. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

1. I've just copyedited WP:NCYCLING. Could a project member please review for correctness.
2. The separate male and female cyclist sections could potentially be merged. There's currently a difference in that UCI races for males have a "minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1" restriction while females do not -- is this deliberate?

Cheers, ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick reply, I thought it was done by purpose, but not 100% sure. Women only have .1 and .2 races. Men's have more categories and races. It should be somewhere on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 12 Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hydronium Hydroxide, Sander.v.Ginkel I think this was done due to the difference in the number of races on the mens calendar vs. the women's calendar. So we restricted the mens criteria to .1 races which (in theory) means that riders become notable when they ride for the bigger teams. Women's cycling is so much smaller in terms of the number events, so it's a massive effort to even get to compete in the UCI ranked races, hence for women notability extends to any UCI race, rather than a set level. XyZAn (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

How's this for a combined version? ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A cyclist is presumed notable if he or she:

1. rode professionally in a UCI World Tour or UCI Women's team;
2. rode in a Grand Tour or Monument;
3. competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;
4. won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship);
5. won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1 if male; includes Continental and National Championships).

IMO I would leave them separate, I don't see a reason they need to be merged. XyZAn (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with XyZAn on this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For those that don't know the Tour Méditerranéen was cancelled in 2015. As such for the 2016 season there is scheduled to be a new race - La Méditerranéenne. My question is, does this race need to be set up on its own new page, or within the the original Tour Méditerranéen page. Cyclingnews suggests this new race is to replace the defunct Tour, but Procycling Stats lists this as the 42nd edition - presuming this is a continuation of one event. So again my question: do we use the existing page or create a new one? Cheers XyZAn (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would put on same page, redirect from new name and explain in prose. If more sources start to say "new race" it can always be spun out but for now I think it would be more useful for readers to get this on one page. Severo (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally, it is a new race, with new parcours. d:Q22670388. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In my attempts of trying to destroy the red links of Tour of Flanders editions, I made a technical mistake. I created the 1950 Tour of Flanders article under the wrong name, moved it immediately after, but now 1948 Tour of Flanders redirects automatically to 1950 and I can't seem to start the actual 1948 article. Any tips are welcome. Dr.robin (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Have another look; should be ok now. Schwede66 15:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Dr.robin (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Following the Femke Van den Driessche case, could someone create an article on Mechanical doping? This problem is not going to disappear overnight. 92.26.171.54 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be included in the Technology doping article, although that is a very poor article, full of unsubstantiated commentary and poorly referenced. 92.26.171.54 (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I already went a long way to creating a mechanical doping article in the Femke Van den Driessche article. What I didn't put in were the materials (I have them) on the mechanics of mechanical doping. Nominated for WP:GA review. Hot topic. When approved it would be a WP:DYK no doubt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for WP:GA review. Hot topic. When approved it would be a WP:DYK no doubt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for sources that relate to Femke Van den Driessche's biography. Anybody out there got a line on that? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll need Flemish sources I suspect, good luck! Severo (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi 7&6=thirteen. Can't find a good biography.. But I found an article about the 2015 European Championships race that she won, so the article can be expanded with a short description of the race :) see here. Good luck! Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi 7&6=thirteen, you can already make a request for DYK. It's not about a GA, but it has to be a new article, or an expanded article. As you expanded the article you can nominate it. To nominate see Template talk:Did you know. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

While working on the Tour of Flanders separate editions articles, I noticed some major conflicts in sources. For nearly all editions of the Tour of Flanders from the 1920s until the 1940s, sources give different information on race length, average speed and time differences.

E.g. the 1925 Tour of Flanders: two different book sources (different authors) say the race was 210 km in 7h 28', while several websites (siteducyclisme.net, bikeraceinfo.com, museociclismo.it) – as wel as wikipedia articles in other languages – state 228 km in 8h 49'. Some individual time differences differ too. Those are big differences in data. What's even more worrying, is that this goes for about 30 editions of the race.

In the 1925 article, I provided the data from Vanwalleghem's work, because I noticed before it is extremely reliable (he had the right end with another conflict) and it uses sources from the official Tour of Flanders archives, but even he could have made mistakes. The official website does not provide much details either. I could go and look it up in the ToF archives, but it will be a while before I'm in Belgium. What is the best solution here? Dr.robin (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr.robin, what great you are putting effort in it!! Great work! Yes, this is a problem.. Before knowing the real values, I think the best solution is that both the different times, length etc. are stated in the article, with a short explanation that there are differences in the sources. If ever the real values are known, the wrong results can be deleted. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was considering that, but I'm afraid it might look awefully messy.. Two infoboxes or one infobox with the correct and the wrong data? And two results tables with accompanying text ? I don't even know of a precedent. For now, I will focus on the post-1950s editions. – 23 to go (!) What strikes me, is that the data conflicts are structural until the 1948 race and then they suddenly stop conflicting. It's mystifying. Dr.robin (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of (for the 1925 Tour of Flanders): Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Result Rank Rider Team Time[1] Time[2] 1  Julien Delbecque (BEL) Armor–Dunlop 7h 28' 00" 8h 49' 2  Jef Pé (BEL) – s.t. s.t. 3  Hector Martin (BEL) J.B.Louvet–Pouchois + 3' 30" + 4' 45" 4  Charles Juseret (BEL) – s.t. s.t. 5  Adolf van Bruaene (BEL) La Française + 3' 32" s.t. 6  Maurice De Waele (BEL) Wonder + 9' 15" + 9' 15" 7  Aimé Dossche (BEL) – s.t. s.t. 8  Leon Luites (BEL) – + 10' 15" + 10' 15" 9  Jean Hardy (BEL) – s.t. s.t. 10  Marcel Houyoux (BEL) – s.t. s.t. Note: Sources differ on the time differences for third to fifth place.

Cycling race 9th Tour of Flanders Race details Dates 29 March 1925 Stages 1 Distance 210 km (130.5 mi) Winning time 7h 28' 00" (or 8h 49'[2]) Results   Winner  Julien Delbecque (BEL) (Armor–Dunlop)   Second  Jef Pé (BEL)   Third  Hector Martin (BEL) (J.B.Louvet–Pouchois) ← 1924 1926 →

Wow, that looks very orderly indeed. Thanks, Sander! Feel free to fit it in the article, I'm more a writer than a tables fan.Dr.robin (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

When creating the cyclists who competed at the previous UCI Track Cycling World Championships, I noticed that some (or all) event pages (I mean pages like 2010 UCI Track Cycling World Championships – Men's keirin) are missing before 2010. With the csv files (Excel format) at Tissottiming.com it's relative easy to create wiki tables with the results, back to 2007. Tissot also have the results of the European Track Championships (event pages missing on WP after 2012) and the results of all UCI Track Cycling World Cups in csv format. I'm thinking of creating some of these page, but it would be great to create them all. But I can't do them all alone. So are there people around who are willing to help creating those pages (I think starting with the World Championships and later with the Europeans and if it goes easy also the World Cups). Maybe Lugnuts is willing to help with creating pages, and Kante4 / WildCherry06 with adding results into the pages? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to work on creating missing biographies. I'll take a look at the individual events. Thanks for the heads-up SvG! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts awesome! I also got the results from the UCI website back to 1996. It don't has to be done in a short time frame, but it would be great if you can create the events pages like you did for the 2016 Championships. It would be great if you can create them for 2009, 2008, 2007, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997 and 1996. I'll add the full results into the pages. Even if we do it in a low pace like one year per month, they are all done by next year :). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up people. It's been on my to-do list for a long time. Severo (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I was creating a new article recently, and when I placed the WP:CYC template in the talk page, I couldn't find any information on how we rate the importance of an article's subject. I noticed our assessment page listed the importance levels, but didn't provide any criteria for rating them, so I took a stab at cleaning up the page a bit. I added the {{Importance scheme}} template, adapted to our use, and added cycling examples to both the Quality scale and Importance scale tables. It would be good to have some of you take a look at it for feedback and concurrence.

While working on the page, I noticed some unusual trends.

1. As a project, we have no A-Class articles. I thought at first we just didn't use the class, but I'm starting to believe it's just been overlooked. Since there is no formal review for A-Class like Featured Articles or Good Articles, we should look at improving some of our B-Class articles to A-Class to get them on their way to GA/FA status.
2. We have over 10,500 articles of unknown importance, 171 of which are B-Class or higher articles. I discovered that articles such as Eddy Merckx and Greg LeMond had not been assessed. Maybe starting with the highest quality articles, we should work down to assess some of these articles.
3. Right now, we have 109 Stub-Class and higher articles with an Importance rating of NA. This should not be, since the NA rating is reserved for non-article pages like categories, redirects, and templates. I cleaned out the Class-C and higher articles from the NA rating, but there's still a little work needed to clean out the rest. Mindfrieze (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just an idea to save a hell lot of work, may it be possible a bot tags all the articles as a stub that have on their page a stub template? But I have to say I don't know much about bots... Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many pages with cycle races of which never a sub-page will be created about events of a single year (like 1922 Six Days of Ghent). So for that reason Six Days of Ghent should have the categories Category:1922 in track cycling and Category:1922 in Belgian sport etc. up to 2015. As you can imagine it would be a lot (looking chaotic) adding all those categories to these kind of pages. Would it be a good idea to create redirect pages, for instance a page titled Six Days of Ghent race redirecting to Six Days of Ghent and adding all these categories to this redirect. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think that these categories are necessary at all as the article isn;t about the race in that year. Severo (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no... When for example the full results are added it is, at for example Six Days of Newark. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The article on Six Day London is about the 2015 event and should probably be renamed "2015 Six Day London" or "2015 Six Days of London" – not sure what the official name is. The problem seems to be that there is no article about the Six Days of London.

So I want to make a point of order about six-day racing. Six days are such an inherent part of cycling and especially cycling history, but coverage on the English pages is still embryonic. Which surprised me, since track championships are covered quite complete. So if anyone is willing to join in ... there have been 104 six-day events, of which nine current ones with often long histories, but only three of them have articles. I already started the article on the Six Days of New York and I have some sources on the other North and South American six days, but unfortunately track cycling is not really my alley. Any help would be wonderful. British and Ozzie track fanatics, I'm looking in your direction here (!) Dr.robin (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I presume Six Day London is now scheduled to be an annual thing (I would guess it would sell the tickets for the foreseeable future) so that article should just be the general page, perhaps with specific editions just as article sections unless that makes the article unwieldy. I will try to add various more articles. We actually have a huge gap in all types of races that finished before around 2005, many of which would have garnered decent media coverage at the time. A similar situation exists for season-long competitions before 2005 (we have the main pages but little detail of year-on-year, which again would have attracted decent attention at the time). Severo (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I inadvertently stepped into that void. If it should be the general page, should it cover the entire history of the Six Days of London, or be viewed as a separate event? It is organized in a new and different venue, but so have most long-running six-days that had even longer interruptions. Anyway, any red-link destroying edits are nice. Good to bring the season-long competitions to my attention. I will try to fill the voids in the World Cup. Dr.robin (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

At first, great work on all the Six Day articles!! Indeed, they should all be created. The older Track World Championships were about a year also missing. In November 2014 I created all the championships before 1995. So it is possible to create in a short time frame many missing articles :). Are you able to get the data of the Six Day races in Excel (Coubtry, City, first edition, total editons, etc.) I can learn you how you can create an article with only a few clicks out of your Excel sheet. There are a few ways to do that :) Let me know Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There used to be a tool that you could search in categories of other language wikipedias and identify missing articles and also how many other interwikis they had. I can't find this tool now but that was useful for identifying the gaps (and system bias). Severo (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A good overview of the six day races can be found at memoire-du-cyclisme.eu. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

When adding the results to a race, it can takes some time. If you copy the resluts from the UCI website ([3]) in to this excel sheet download here, you don't have to fill in anything. Just copy the columns J/K/L. Go to notepad copy a "tab", pres ctrl+H and remove this "tab" with noting. Your result table is done :). Let me know if you have problems with it Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

For intstance of the missing races at 2016 in women's road cycling I made tables of the results: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/missing pages races results. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I see some discussion of this in the archives, but what is the current consensus on what to include in a rider's palmarès? Since Jonathan Tiernan-Locke has returned from his ban, editors have been adding all his race results to his palmarès. This looks rather odd because wins in races such as the Modbury Spring Road Race wouldn't have been included earlier in his career, and so we go from major international races in 2012 to British 2nd-category amateur races in 2016. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty much were I was then. The new results listed on the Jonathan Tiernan-Locke shouldn't be there in my opinion. In prose in the context of what they are would be fine. Severo (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think had JTL not ended up win a WT team on said intenrational races then it would almost be ok, but seeing as he did end up competing at a signficiantly higher level, those results would better be explained through a 2016 prose section. It has to be scaled to the level of the rider. XyZAn (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense before and it doesn't now. A less successful rider should have a shorter list of palmares. I think scaling to the rider is POV. Severo (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, well there seems to be agreement that we shouldn't be listing these results in that section, so I have removed them and mentioned the win in the prose about his comeback. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I placed a both request for adding tags at the talk pages, including cycling tags for cycling pages. I think I got most of the categories, but additions or comments are always welcome. See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 86#Bot request. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

XyZAn, to let you know, as you were active with the cycling tags last year :). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Whilst randomly browsing I cam across this page: 2016 in sports. I just wondered what the point of the cycling information, held there, is? Only there's a tonne of entries to junior races and US criteriums, all in a horrible format with no links. Would any of this information, if notable, be better suited elsewhere - leaving just a number of links to the appropriate pages. I.e. "for UCI World Tour evens, see 2016 UCI World Tour etc. It just seems like an odd collection of information. XyZAn (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That page should come with a load time warning! It's a ridiculous list containing far too much information for a single page. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I agree! I've cut the cycling down to a manageable and logical level. XyZAn (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see a discussion at Talk:1987 Giro d'Italia#Series regarding how the Giro should be described in the opening sentence of the article (which is today's featured article). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Has there ever been any discussion on what evens are notable enough to into this part of the infobox? I've just seen the following edit made by Parklands cobbler on Bob Jungels and just wondered if we has a rule set; i.e, only .WT, .HC, national/continental/world/olympic events? If there has been could someone kindly point me to it - thanks XyZAn (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The only reason why I have made the point XyZAn is that Jungles was an anomaly compared to the majority of other cyclists major wins section. .hc and above seems like a logical starting point. There should be a difference between 'major wins' and just wins that can be put in the palmares section. Parklands_cobbler (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2016

Parklands cobbler, I didn't mean the above as a negative comment - i thought it was good - I just wondered if you were aware of some information that I was not, if not, then would anyone like to come up with a guide? XyZAn (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, there's no better objective standard. On the other hand, a win in the Ruta del Sol (2.1) is not equivalent to a win in the Herald Sun Tour (2.1), say, and is a much bigger deal than the Dubai Tour (2.HC) or the Tour of Qinghai Lake (2.HC). I think establishing a X.HC or above criterion is the only reasonable solution, but it's far from perfect. Relentlessly (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Relentlessly agreed, but I guess having a guide be dependant on whether this 2.1 race is more or less notable than this 2.1 race could lead to POV issues (?). This also leads to another issue, womens cycling doesn't have x.HC races, just .WWT, .1, .2 - therefore where do you establish the guide for them? At x.1? Is there an easy alternative way of doing it?

I guess you could also get issues whenraces move classifications, i.e, a .1 mens races becomes .HC.. XyZAn (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

XyZAn I get your point regarding some .1 races, maybe a minimum limit on world tour teams? say 5?. Lots of early season races like Algave have plenty and are much more 'major' than say the Tour of Korea because of this. Also possibly could be based on history of past winners, although that is down to interpretation rather than facts such as world tour team. Hope that makes sense. Parklands_cobbler (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2016

So I've made some edits to the major wins section of the Marianne Vos article where I seperated cat1 and CN events because I thought it would be clearer/easier to read but XyZAn has informed me these changes are non-standard. So before I do any more editing I would like to know if a consensus exists or what people's idea's are wrp to the best way information should be presented in the infobox. Catsclaw (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed a few times before and I don't recall it reaching consensus. I would go with the above siggestion of .HC races and above (at the time the race is that classification) or WWT for women. The race classifications systems change over time but I think that's a good start. That way we shouldn't end up with POV issues. Severo (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, User:Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick has added some team rosters to articles (such as [4]) reliant on Wikidata. Remembering the discussion relating to race results, there was not consensus to use Wikidata in this kind of way. Are there any further thoughts on this kind of use, and perhaps from the wider (non-cycling) perspective? Severo (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

To give more details, this program already works in 20 Wikipedias. All the Wikipedias have big problems to update their articles, so a new project with strict rules has been created directly on Wikidata to permits users to work together, and it works very well this function is the biggest success. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat late to this discussion... We still need to establish procedures for this on this Wikipedia. I do not think that's been achieved yet. I am not convinced about the cryptic Wikidata link (the title-less, alt-less icon). I am not convinced we've established sourcing in the same way as exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. (It's not enough that we're consistent between Wikipedias; we also need to be consistent within this project.) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the styling is contrary to what we use on this project. This is a problem and needs correcting. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick, I am more than happy to work with you on how we do this (it's not complicated – we just need to separate the formatting from the module code). Relentlessly (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Everybody use the same formatting in 20 languages. EN Wiki will evolve little to little like others. Even for we on FR Wiki these tables were new at the end of 2014 season. The change is now datas for cycling are an unique and multilingual project.

I am interested in revenge to have your standards in sourcing. The program have code to display references but it is not again activated. It will become very very important because for roster we will become able to display an arrival or a departure and causes, this type of datas needs absolutely sources (it is mandatory on Wikidata Cycling), and we have to discuss about these references through examples. On another hand, we will be able to display classifications and the question to display the source will also come. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick. I think it's possible to make the code work in a slightly more decoupled way. See, for example, my code at Module:Sandbox/Relentlessly/Cycling race/teamroster. This does all the data processing in Lua (in which I'm not fluent, so there may be better ways of writing the code) and farms the formatting out to templates (User:Relentlessly/cycling race/top, User:Relentlessly/cycling race/row and User:Relentlessly/cycling race/foot). The output would look something like this:

Rider Date of birth  Davide Ballerini (ITA) (1994-09-21)September 21, 1994 (aged 21)  Manuel Belletti (ITA) (1985-10-14)October 14, 1985 (aged 30)  Marco Benfatto (ITA) (1988-01-06)January 6, 1988 (aged 27)  Alessandro Bisolti (ITA) (1985-03-07)March 7, 1985 (aged 30)  Raffaello Bonusi (ITA) (1992-01-31)January 31, 1992 (aged 23)  Mattia Cattaneo (ITA) (1990-10-25)October 25, 1990 (aged 25)  Luca Chirico (ITA) (1992-07-16)July 16, 1992 (aged 23)  Marco Frapporti (ITA) (1985-03-30)March 30, 1985 (aged 30)  Mattia Frapporti (ITA) (1994-07-02)July 2, 1994 (aged 21) Rider Date of birth  Francesco Gavazzi (ITA) (1984-08-01)August 1, 1984 (aged 31)  Matteo Malucelli (ITA) (1993-10-20)October 20, 1993 (aged 22)  Fausto Masnada (ITA) (1993-11-06)November 6, 1993 (aged 22)  Kevin Rivera (ITA) (1998-06-28)June 28, 1998 (aged 17)  Iván Sosa (ITA) (1997-10-31)October 31, 1997 (aged 18)  Matteo Spreafico (ITA) (1993-02-15)February 15, 1993 (aged 22)  Rodolfo Torres (ITA) (1987-03-21)March 21, 1987 (aged 28)  Andrea Vendrame (ITA) (1994-07-20)July 20, 1994 (aged 21)

This allows for all the complex code to be the same universally, but for local formatting to be done on individual projects as desired. What do you think? This might not be the best place to discuss this – where's the ideal place? Wikidata? Thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your proposition for teamroster is interesting. I am interested if you can directly adapt the super module : giving the nationality as you do plus the age (I suppose the sum is done at the 1st january of each year, interesting for older seasons) should beneficiate at all Wikipedias, not only EN Wiki (this new feature is so interesting that users will be very excited). But I need a little Wikidata logo to permit users direcly modify the source of datas at P527 if it is necessary (cyclist that enter or left the team, as exemple). Note that we will become able to display the previous team in a third column in few time (with Anthony59999, I start to enter this type of datas in cyclists items). Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC) PS : we have something new today thanks to Molarus (only on FR Wiki at this day) : it is written when a cyclist enter or left the team or if it is a trainee. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of thing that can be worked out on each project. For example, {{Infobox medical condition(new)}} has a link saying "edit on Wikidata", which I think is a better solution (certainly on this Wikipedia) than the icon, which is in my view bad for several reasons but especially because of accessibility. You'd simply edit the "top" template to put a link in. The date code simply uses {{birth date and age}}, long-established code on Wikipedia. (Another of my concerns about the module as it stands is that it is duplicating lots of existing code.) I still need to work out how to do the nationality: some of those riders are not Italian! Relentlessly (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikidata logo is a solution of transition. I think in one or two years it will become useless when everybody know that we fill all infoboxes and the whole tables on Wikidata. On FR Wiki, except for the program Cycling race and its functions, all Wikidata infoboxes give a little sign when the data come from Wikidata, see this example. In the future, we will all share the same infoboxes, so traditionnal users will work to write texts when an other category of persons will work with datas. For this second category, language will not be a problem because all can be translated on Wikidata.

Yes, the code can be described as "bizarre", but note that it is regularly improved. If I look again in my cristal ball, some functions like the dates will become an independant module that will be improved and used by all future Wikidata programs. An evolution is that programs will can come directly from Wikidata, without copies that we currently have. I see again one or two function that will have specific developments. We are the first to work with a common program, so people look how it works.

Interesting your problem for nationalities. I work on around twenty Wikipedias, and I always have histories to tell. On a Wikipedia, an user say he will rewrite the program just for its Wikipedia two months ago (when we had only two functions, not again the infobox and the teamroster). He tries successfully until he discover that he must display nationalities and flags. Since, he abandons all developments but caused a delay in this Wikipedia that have big problems to update. The nationality is something extremely complex to code, because there is specific cases. For example, Chris Froome change its nationality in 2008, it is the case of other cyclists. 25 years ago, Yougoslavia, East-Germany and USSR disappear, countries change of name and cyclists of nationality. Yesterday, I discover that Croatia change of flag in 1990. The impose me to enter code in the module to display the good flag at the good period. Note that with this program, we must be able to display the roster of a team in 1970 (for example), that means sometimes different countries and/or different flags. It appears to be easy when it is very complex. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The use of Wikidata is somewhat uneasy on me. First of all, I seem to remember way back that on a GAR (for which one I cannot remember), the flagathlete was the preferred method for showing nationalities in a roster box and such like, rather than just a flagicon – for instance, the flags for the Netherlands and Luxembourg are relative similar (of course the Luxembourgish flag has a lighter blue), but for a potential non-cycling fan to stumble on a flag fest with no nationality description, it may be something to look at. Thinking outside the box, apologies. Secondly, as detailed on the Wanty–Groupe Gobert page at present, the Antoine Demoitié situation, the note in that context is not great. It elongates the roster, when it could be incorporated with a footnote; but that style for the roster box would be applicable for say, season pages, but for the team page, it should be a live editable roster – it should be current, and not be consigned to coding on Wikidata, which may delay the information getting to the page especially if that user does not how to work Wikidata. Therefore, Demoitié would be removed from the roster on the team page, but on the team's season page (if, and when it gets created), a note would be created. Akin to Weylandt in 2011 Leopard Trek season. Thirdly and finally, the 2016 Tour de Suisse just has logos and no descriptor until you hover over the links; no guaranteeing that a screen reader would pick that one up, if blind users were to try and edit the page. It's good to see Wikidata being developed, but there are some major concerns to being implemented across all WP:CYCLING articles. My 2¢. Craig(talk) 20:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with craigs comments above in that on team pages it need to be a live editable table, not dependant on outside data. If editors arent familiar with wikidata (i had a look when creating a new Team Soigneur-Copenhagen Pro Cycling page recently, and frankly, it was total un-intuitive as to how to put a roster there so i stuck with good old fashioned table setup). I think for now, until theres a clear easy way for people to create the tables so we have consistency across all articles, and until theres a clear easy way to update and edit the tables, then its too early to be using them. Dimspace (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

And the Wanty/Gobert page just looks a mess. :( "died due to a competition" Isnt even english (another issue with shared template across multiple language wikis) Dimspace (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, what significance does a rider's previous team have in relative terms to the team's actual roster for the year in question. As I said previously, they might be alright on the season pages, but not the team's article. Wikidata is still in its infancy - but there's still plenty of work to be done before I would feel comfortable in distributing over all of the WikiProject's articles. Especially with certain articles, Lokosphinx for instance, showing today's date for dates of birth. Craig(talk) 18:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I will respond on some points. First, I am French and I live in France. Traditionnaly we speak only French, so my English is not perfect. Cycling race is a program that works in more than twenty languages. The idea is to centralise the datas to permit at all Wikis to be updated. If EN Wiki is the biggest Wikipedia, a big number of teams don't have their 2016 roster. We have a similar problem on FR Wiki, and it is worst on other Wikipedias, except ES Wiki (but just for roster). We work on team in Wikidata to develop this algorith since six months. The work should be finished at the beginning of the 2017 season. Next month, we will surely start to develop the functions for classifications. Wikidata Cycling is the project, it is a subsidiary of my illustration project nicknamed Wikimedia Cycling.

You guess that functions evolve little to little. The program is very different and very improved when we compare to its version of the 1st january. So it is not finished and it rests ideas to test and to display then.

• For Dimspace : the super program is d:Module:Cycling race. All functions have a documentation that exist in English and other languages. You can find a kit to translate : d:Wikidata:WikiProject Cycling/Kit to translate. You can have it in your watchlist, and you can improve translations.
• For WGG, it has been corrected. The program evolves.
• For Soigneur-Copenhagen, it is long to do because it is a small team, and cyclists are not famous so they don't have articles. On this case, the solution is to create one by one all the items for cyclists, with basics informations and statement to ProCyclingStats, and to add the cyclists one by one in the item of the 2016 season of this team. Typically, it is interesting to do only when two Wikis or more need this roster. But once it is done, it is done forever. We share an infobox in 19 languages (you don't have it). When we list the different winners, we only have to add the name of the cyclist and its victory, the program is able to find the birthdate (for the flag of the country, specific cases in Europe at the end of the previous century), the nationaly (even when a cyclist change its nationality) and its team. We start little to little to have a good database. It takes time to fill because the project is new, but it works, see fr:Tour des Flandres 1985 or fr:Équipe cycliste Saint-Raphaël. More generally, we try to find specific cases to improve the program. In the future, we will have users that will works only with datas and users that will save time and choose to write texts. I see that for all, but specificly for races. Users with talents will stop to spend their time in entering classifications (and will can write articles or do cartography, or photo ; I can't be everywhere). When an user need some infos for him, me for the fr:Paris-Roubaix espoirs 2016 today, he do the work for everybody.
• Cs-wolves : when you have the date of today, it means that it lacks the birthdate of the cyclist. In this case, Anthony59999 adds cyclists in more, but don't see that it lacks information. By the past, the function bugged and we guess that there were a problem. Now, a date of today is more precise, it is finished the time we must verify item by item. But we work fast, little to little we will have all datas. I start to work in the same time we develop functions because thanks to this, we detect specific cases and specific situations, and we prepare the work for the future. In this moment for exemple I enter successive teams for cyclists. We use it to display the previous team in a roster, to display the current team in an infobox, and we will use it to display in the classifications. It supposes that a big amount of work is done in june. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Just a quick comment, when we're adding the 2016 rosters to team pages can we either delete the old seasons roster(s) or if we have a number of them move them to a page like List of team rosters of Team ABC by season (or something to that effect - other ideas are welcome)? Only some team articles have just got rosters upon rosters.. XyZAn (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The idea is to have the rosters of a team since its creation. I don't know if we must do lists of rosters as ES Wiki, and season articles as FR Wiki. Note that in the future we will be able to list the victories of a team. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article 2016 Amstel Gold Race has been a good article nominee since 19 April 2016. You can review it according to the good article criteria. See the talk page for a link to start the review. – Editør (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello cycling experts. Here's a draft that has some references. Is this a notable cyclist? Are the references appropriate?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anne Delong, briefly looking at the article, it doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:NCYC so at the moment I'd say no, Craig Etheridge is not notable. XyZAn (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, XyZAn.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with this template. Orica–GreenEDGE changed the name to BikeExchange before the Tour de France, but all 2016 competition should read Orica–GreenEDGE. --Osplace 18:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Osplace isn't it a matter of just changing the 'ct' template?

• Team Jayco–AlUla^{[template problem]} (2016) (you can see that this brings in the error message)
• to Orica–GreenEDGE (2016a) (no error) for everything pre-TdF
• to Orica–BikeExchange (2016b) (again, no error) for everything for the remainder of 2016..?

Someone messed about with the template data, removing all the 'a' and 'b' variants, I've reverted their edits. XyZAn (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, everything looks fine! --Osplace 19:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Osplace no problem, but it looks like we'll need to keep three variants, 2016 for the cyclingteamlist template, 2016a for pre Tour ct templates and 2016b for during/post tour ct templates

The 2016 variant needs to be removed. The template error is deliberate to identify where the a or b should be added. This is consistent with all other teams who have changed their name mid-season who we have loaded through the ct system. That the cyclingteamlist doesn't work is a problem with that template that has been brought up before. Severo (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As 2016 brings up BikeExchange now, all pre-Tour mentions should be changed to 2016a. It seems like the new code is OBE. BaldBoris 21:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

{{GBR}} →  United Kingdom or {{GBR2}} →  Great Britain, which should be used in List of teams and cyclists in the (GT race)? List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France (FL) uses GBR2 and List of teams and cyclists in the 2012 Tour de France (FL and soon to be front page) uses GBR. See: Great Britain at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships. BaldBoris 15:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to lean towards Great Britain, seen as we have British Cycling and media reports use Britain/Briton "Fellow Briton Dan McLay"? XyZAn (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but someone from the UK is called British, not Great British. I only just realised that List of teams and cyclists in the 2012 Tour de France is on the front page today, so can we come to a quick consensus please. TBH I don't really know, but as the columns are for nationality should you say Great Britain? List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Olympics uses Great Britain. BaldBoris 01:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The Olympics is complicated by the fact that the UK competes under the name of "Great Britain" or "Team GB" at the Olympics (see Great Britain at the Olympics). Personally, I would use "United Kingdom" in other contexts, where we are describing their nationality rather than the name of their national team. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Northern Irish riders are covered by Cycling Ireland, so rUK riders should be under Great Britain (this is also how British Cycling name their representative teams). Severo (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's true to there is a single governing body for the whole island of Ireland, but that doesn't mean that Northern Irish people necessarily represent Ireland. People born in NI are eligible for either/both British and Irish citizenship, per the Good Friday Agreement. According to our article Great Britain at the Olympics, "the BOA explains that it is the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

hi, please just have a look at the following proposal → Talk:2015 Tour de France#Layout Final standings. --W like wiki (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Cycling members; I have a bit of a problem over at Talk:2015 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11#stages 3 & 4. Can someone please help me! - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

When uploading team cycling jerseys (from the UCI website), what is the licence they get put under, as in exactly what licence to we put it in as (all sections). Had uploaded one for Team Soigneur-Copenhagen Pro Cycling‎ but apparently I didnt use the correct licence (I used exactly the same as the various other cycling jerseys i had checked out.. non-free, logo will be copyrighted but its fair use, sports jersey, etc.. The editor who deleted it was pretty unhelpful to be honest, wasnt really keen to tell me what the licence should be. Dimspace (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering how we deal with the new UCI World Ranking for riders who've done well in it? At the moment, the classification seems to have had very little attention, although that is in part because as a 12 month rolling thing it's still not quite fully formed. On that front, I suggest that we probably don't want to over-emphasise it (tennis players have their world ranking in their Infobox - I think we're far from there for cyclists!). However, perhaps being World #1 deserves to be listed in a rider's palmares or major achievements? At the very least I can see being year end #1 as important, but as this is intended to be rolling then there will be some prestige in ever reaching #1? My suggestion is probably to go with listing reaching #1 in a Palmares, and having year end #1 as a 'Major Achivement', but does anyone have any other thoughts? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

La Madrid Challenge by La Vuelta, the equivalent of La Course by Le Tour de France for the Vuelta, is missing an article. It's the high profile women's single day race companion for the men's Tour of Spain

Also, what's the name of the equivalent race for the Giro to La Course and La Challenge?

-- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded images of the 2014 Iranian national track cycling championships. See commons:Category:2014 Iran national track cycling championships. Someone good with names? Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

In order to standardize all the List of wins by WT teams, the Team Sky page have some uniques features compared with the others: 1. Too many boxes and images 2. Secundary classification of small races 3. Lead general and secundary classifications I consider that is important to discuss if all that is necessary in order to start modifying the pages of the other teams to have a standardized format. Sebas1953 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)‎

What does the abbreviation OTL mean in cycling results e.g. [5]? I'm thinking Over Time Limit, but never seen the abbreviation used. Joseph2302 19:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. More input is needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just added Amber Neben to the template {{UCI Road World Champions – Women's time trial}}, but there's also another {{UCI Road World Championships – Women's time trial}} which looks to be doing exactly the same job. Should there be some difference between the two templates? --Bcp67 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Champions and the other one for the event pages. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 05:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

For info, I've nominated this for In the News. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Cycling/Archive 13 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a proposal being placed to delete all of my bio articles, including ~850 cyclists who competed at the World Championships or World Cups (road, track and BMX). See for the proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know that Kaldari has suggested that the last updated parameter should be removed from {{Infobox cyclist}}. See: Template talk:Infobox cyclist#"Infobox last updated" notice. BaldBoris 15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, just incase people haven't seen there's a number Sander.v.Ginkels cycling articles at AfD - typically National A at B Championships - apparently these aren't notable in themselves so I was wondering if rather than have Great Britain at the 2008 UEC European Track Championships - whether an amalgamation to Great Britain at the UEC European Track Championships would be more better? XyZAn (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For info, the 2017 Tour of Qatar has been cancelled. It had previously been included in the 2017 UCI World Tour. I've updated the basics in both articles, but would be grateful if someone could look at the latter, in regards to how this information should be recorded. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cyclist articles that will probably end up being deleted, and quickly. Please see this for more. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)