Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 16

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

What order is best for the teams lists on race main articles? The lists on the teams and cyclists articles are ordered by the start list as it makes sense, but on the race article it doesn't. I've changed the recognised Tour articles to alphabetical order, but I'm now wondering what others think. Start list order with a note explaining why or alphabetical? BaldBoris 20:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cs-wolves, Disc Wheel, EdgeNavidad, Severo, and Zwerg Nase: Any thoughts? BaldBoris 21:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have ordered the teams according to alphabetical order in most of the Giro d'Italia articles. I don't think a note would be a bad idea. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@BaldBoris: I don't have any strong feelings about this. I think alphabetical is probably the most intuitive for readers. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Disc Wheel: I should've checked the Giros before hand... The only reason changed some of the Tour ones to alphabetical was because of a comment in an FAC. @Zwerg Nase: My feelings aren't exactly strong either, I just wanted to get a consensus, going forward. It's just not good to have a list in a seemingly random order without explanation. I think alphabetical is best for the main article and start list order for the teams list article. The only issue I see is the possible confusion of the differing orders, therefore, a note on the teams list article is needed. BaldBoris 17:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cyclists with a cycling-related death/archive1. Shearonink (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#FAC reviewing of sports articles if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Cycling since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

CCC Racing Team wins is a unnecesary article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CCC_Racing_Team_wins), it's clear that the team is a continuation of BMC Racing Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebas1953 (talk • contribs)

Article listed for deletion, List of BMC Racing Team wins moved to List of wins by BMC Racing Team and its successors. Kevin McE (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thinking again, it should be retained as a redirect to List of wins by BMC Racing Team and its successors. Kevin McE (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And it is now a redirect. Kevin McE (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Warm Showers is created. Help is welcome!Geysirhead (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

is I suspect the owner of the brand True Temper as used for frame tubes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ames True Temper if interested. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Selle Royal needed a lot of work. It seems like someone (maybe from the company) included a lot of non-verifiable information which really gloated about their accomplishments. I tried to remove the unnecessary while not being overly critical. I'm not often making edits on wikipedia, but I'd like to be. Please let me know anything I missed or maybe if there's some wiki-editor-etiquette I can follow.

Link to the old: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selle_Royal&oldid=931568702

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmidy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

New photos --Nicola (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi There,

I am seeking help on writing a wiki page on Singapore Cycling Federation.

You see they were once call Singapore Amateur Cycling Association and now with new logo and new name.

I have check with the help chat and they advise me to ask for help from expert like you all.

Thank you for taking your time and I hope to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotgums (talk • contribs) 09:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You haven't really told us what it is you need help with. There is already a very short article at Singapore Amateur Cycling Association. If SCF is definitely a continuation of SACA (there is nothing explicit about it on the cycling.org.sg site), then that page should be moved and edited to reflect the changes. That would still be a very stubby article though. So then you can expand it a your knowledge and desire to research allows, but remember to keep it neutral in tone (don't let it sound too promotional), verifiable (cited facts from reliable sources, not too reliant on cycling.org.sg) and relevant to what a reader is likely to want to know. There are lots of articles about is sister organisations here: you will see for yourself what does and does not look like a well written informative piece. Note that even for major cycling nations such as France, Spain and the Netherlands, there is not much there, but if you are ambitious, you could consider the content of Cycling Australia or Cycling Ireland as models to guide you. Good luck. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I started a section here for cycling. I'm sure there's more, and if anyone has the time + resources to add to it, please do. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Several articles on cycle routes use the term "traffic-free" to describe roads and paths which are not available to motor vehicles. This seems self-deluding at best: traffic is traffic, and has been since well before the invention of the motor engine. Can a more term rather more rooted in reality not be found? 80.7.125.9 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point. Agreed. “Car-free” appears to be a commonly used term for that. ——В²C ☎ 16:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Apart from metropolitan cycles lanes (routes), the only thing considered traffic to cyclists are motor vehicles. It is a very widely used term in cycling, just Google "traffic-free" (with the quotations). I wouldn't be against a change to "motor traffic-free". We use "car-free" for pedestrians (see Category:Car-free movement). BaldBoris 16:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Since bicyclists are traffic, subject to the same traffic laws as vehicle drivers, "traffic-free" implies "bike-free". --В²C ☎ 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

"Traffic-free" cannot imply that when talking about "paths which are not available to motor vehicles". BaldBoris 01:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And the Car-free movement article is heavy on cycling: The goal of the movement is to create places where motorized vehicle use is greatly reduced or eliminated, by converting road and parking space to other public uses and rebuilding compact urban environments where most destinations are within easy reach by other means, including walking, cycling, public transport, personal transporters, and mobility as a service. The photos there depict cycling. —В²C ☎ 22:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean we use it for pedestrians so we can't use it this. Do you prefer "car-free" over "motor traffic-free"? BaldBoris 01:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Car-free is commonly used with this connotation. "Motor-traffic free" is contrived. Violates WP:NOR. --В²C ☎ 04:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Since "car-free" seems to have some notability as a term, perhaps that should be the one to replace "traffic-free", even though "motor-vehicle-free" would be a more literally correct term? 80.7.125.9 (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Benno Bikes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

There seems to be enough evidence to show the notability of this bicycle company. Debate over WP:Notability and WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Team Smartstop was disbanded in 2015 and I have just cleaned up the article. I noticed that when Katusha Alpecin was disbanded the template for its riders got deleted. Can someone either delete this template or point me in the direction of how to go about it: Template:SmartStop riders. Cheers Paulpat99 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this news article about the death of Eva Mottet, aged 25, who crashed at the 2012 world championships and never fully recovered. I would say it’s notable enough for having an article? If so, maybe someone likes to do it. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I was bold, and just started the article :). SportsOlympic (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The new UCI ProSeries and its 2020 edition got some attention, but how about the UCI Women's ProSeries (d:Q94150939) and the 2020 UCI Women's ProSeries (d:Q94140053). Well, you could argue it's only a first season, only eight races were scheduled and only one race has been raced so far, but it is definitely notable as it is. - FakirNL (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The opening sentence of "The 1962 Tour de France was the 49th edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours." has caused quite the kerfuffle when the article was featured on the front page a few days ago. Firstly it was the use of the word "edition" and then it was the repletion of "Tour de France". I've mention these issues aren't specific to that article and have brought the discussion here. I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere before. Offhand from our recognized content, the articles not using this typical wording are 1987 Giro d'Italia and 2016 Amstel Gold Race, which use "The 1987 Giro d'Italia was a cycling competition and the 70th edition of the race," and "The 2016 Amstel Gold Race was a one-day classic cycling race that took place in" respectively. BaldBoris 00:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at some examples from featured sports articles:

• The 1956 Winter Olympics (names in other languages) officially known as the VII Olympic Winter Games (names in other languages), was a multi-sport event held in Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy, from 26 January to 5 February 1956.
• The 1877 Wimbledon Championship was a men's tennis tournament held at the All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club (AEC & LTC) in Wimbledon, London.
• The 2019 World Snooker Championship was a professional snooker tournament that took place from 20 April to 6 May 2019 at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England.
• The 1926 World Series, the 23rd playing of Major League Baseball's championship series, pitted the National League champion St. Louis Cardinals against the American League champion New York Yankees.
• The 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup was the third edition of the FIFA Women's World Cup, the world championship for women's national association football teams.

My favourites are the ones that don't say the "version number" in the first sentence, so the first three examples above. Based on them, I quickly came up with three alternatives, that surely can be improved upon:

• The 1962 Tour de France was a cycling event held in France, from 24 June to 15 July 1962. (It was the 49th time that ...)
• The 1962 Tour de France was a cycling event over 22 stages, starting in Nancy and finishing in Paris, France. (It was the 49th time that ...)
• The 1962 Tour de France was a cycling event over 22 stages, starting in Nancy on 24 June and finishing in Paris on 15 July 1962. (It was the 49th time that ...)

I think in general it is important to say what it is (a cycling event), where it was (France), and when it was (1962), but I think it is obvious that the "1962 Tour de France" was in France and was in 1962, so for me it boils down to how much detail we should include in the first sentence: should we say it was a stage race of 22 stages? Should we say the start and finish towns, and say that Belgium and Luxembourg were visited? Should we say the exact start and finish dates? I think it is all possible, and hope somebody can come up with a good sentence. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer "cycling race" or even "professional cycling race", because "event" is quite vague. But other than that, I would be fine with changing it across the board. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a common assumption that the first few words of the article absolutely must include the article title in bold. The maual of style says, "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." So there is no problem with, for example, "The 49th edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours, was held in June and July 1962". Kevin McE (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We still have article space [[UCI ProTeam]] as a redirect to UCI WorldTeam (it never has been correct, although it is common in Wiki and elsewhere, to speak of World Tour teams); it is now the designation for what were until last year called 'Professional Continental' teams (but for which we don't have an article, except a once recentist, now outdated, list). We have a template for ProConti teams, but the link for that is to the system of continental tours, which is even more inappropriate in the light of the existence of the new ProTour than it was last year. How should we progress this situation? Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

For your information : Tamara Balabolina and Tamara Dronova are the same person. Bordurie (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you: is the name change due to marriage, and is Drovona the correct current name? Kevin McE (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't known. Bordurie (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Bordurie, User:Kevin McE - I have tagged the two articles for merge. I do not plan to be researching the issue further. (I only came here to make a different request.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Will someone please review whether the subject satisfies cycling notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon I'm of two minds about this Draft. The subject would satisfy notability parameters except for the fact that all of his championships so far have been at the junior trials level...so that would seem to be a No. BUT he has competed and won multiple world championships in more that one year and he competed with the German national team that won 2nd place at the 2018 Urban Worlds so YES. But also No... I think the subject seems to satisfy GNG but the cycling notability-parameters are somewhat problematic. I would think that if he continues to compete and maintains his present level, when he moves up to general competition he will most probably become fully notable under the WikiProject Cycling criteria.

One caveat is that the Draft uses a Wikipedia article as a reference. Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Shearonink - You answered my question. I declined the draft because it used Wikipedia as a reference. When that is dealt with, it becomes Someone else's problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This WP:FLC can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cyclists with a cycling-related death/archive2. This is my second try at getting the List through a FLC, the previous attempt (September 2019 through January 2020) can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cyclists with a cycling-related death/archive1. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: The List has been renamed List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death. The present FLC can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death/archive2. After extensive feedback the List now has 2 Supports - myself (the nominator) & another editor. Thought members of the Project might want to take a look. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please could someone help assess Draft:Gordon Ian against WP:NCYCLING? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer - As an aside the draft needs additional Wiki-linkage. I had to go look up some items to make sure but Yes, this Draft subject qualifies as notable because he fulfills #5 of WP:NCYCLING: "Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships)". Ian was the British National Time Trial Champion three years - 1955, 1959, and 1960. That he won these 3 national championships/events before the modern era with the present classifications shouldn't be held against him as an indication at odds with WP:GNG/Wikipedia:Notability (people). Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Excellent, thank you so much for your help. I had tried to find an article about those time trials but wasn't sure what to search for, so that's really helpful. I will add the Wikilinks. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone pitch in on whether he is notable? While not being recognized by Guinness, his trip around the world is reasonably well documented. He didnt race it though.Zyntra (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Has now been approved. FrankSier (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Some consistency is much needed with the locations of the Aftermath and Doping sections in race articles. Both are either within the Race overview or right at the end. BaldBoris 11:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In the quality grading scheme > B > "More detailed criteria", the text "Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia" is linked to Wikipedia:Five pillars, I cannot see an explanation of the phrase at that location. In particular, what does "general encyclopedia" mean? (could examples be given?); and in what sense and to what degree is Wikipedia "more than" this? and what is the relevance to Class B in particular? FrankSier (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that the phrase seems to have come from here: Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria, and that is probably a better place to discuss this, so I will continue over there.FrankSier (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to propose a list of what should and should not be included in the List of wins by XYZ Cycling team pages.

What should be included is:

• Stage victories
• Overall Stage races
• One-Day victories
• World and National championships
• Wins in a Jersey competition, e.g. Sprint classification for Giro or for Tour of Colombia
• Most Combative rider in a grand tour stage and overall at a grand tour
• Team classification victory
• Olympic games, continental championship wins

What should not be included:

• Details about leading classifications or the Overall in a non Grand tour e.g. Tour of Qatar, Led Jersey General classification on Stage 1

National champion wins should be listed using the country flag not the winning jersey, the jersey can go in the National champ section on team main page. Also the championship should link to said championship page.

When listing TTT wins or Team classification win it would be good to add a note saying who the riders were.

I would like to hear others thoughts on this so as to set a standard for all to follow cheers, Paulpat99 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an issue that has been laying around for a while, without giving names I've had conflicts with this topic before, so it's a good time to settle this. My opinion is as following. The very principle of the lists is wins of each team, as hinted in the title itself. Therefore I agree with all of the inclusion achievements. I also agree with removing the led notes, as discussed in Talk:List of wins by Sky Professional Racing and its successors, since they are not actual wins, and the page is not about achievements. Another topic to discuss about, do we just throw results of any discipline in the list? (road, cx, track, xc etc) Footnotes for team wins and flag instead of jerseys are also great shouts. So it's a total yes from me! LegofanCy (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

By the measures noted above three of the things you have on your list should be omitted. Wins in jersey competitions are not recognised as victories by the UCI and should therefore not be included (if we are as strict with the wording as LegofanCy suggests). Also, a World Championship is won with the national team, not with the trade team, so it should definitely NOT be on these lists. Same applies for Olympic medals and continental championships. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about Nicholas P. Clark? There's a discussion going on at Talk:Nicholas P. Clark#Unverifiable claims, prompted by a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Should this_page be deleted?. As I mentioned at the Teahouse, PezCycling published an interview with him last month but it seems to have been deleted, which I find odd. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I see someone has moved the Team Ineos to Ineos Grenadiers, does anyone know if the -Grenadiers a permanent team name update or just for the Tour? If its just for the Tour then I would presume no page move as per the Lotto Soudal / Fix-All naming? If its temporary could someone move back? Cheers XyZAn (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Unlike the Lotto equivalent, it seems that Ineos Grenadiers is the name they have adopted for all races, not just some. Therefore, if they revert back to Team Ineos for 2021, so be it - we deal with the page moves again at that point. Craig(talk) 18:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Intrinsically, this relates to two separate areas within cyclist article pages, but I think it may be best to raise it in one go...

Courtesy ping for the WikiProject frequenters: Pinging Kevin McE, Parklands cobbler, BaldBoris, Seacactus 13, Paulpat99, XyZAn, Zwerg Nase, LegofanCy, Lugnuts, Severo, Disc Wheel, Sebas1953, EdgeNavidad, and Benjamin112:

Giro di Lombardia/Il Lombardia

Having seen some previous back-and-forth in relation to the name of the race, I think it's fair that it should be discussed here, and how to approach it going forward. Historically, more than 100 editions have run with the Giro di Lombardia name, but from a quick search of the UCI results archive, the first instance of Il Lombardia appears in 2011. If memory serves me correctly (I believe that Eurosport/GCN mentioned this on commentary at Gran Piemonte about a month back), Lombardia and Piemonte (adopting Gran Piemonte) races changed names at this point.

The garibaldi for the 2020 Lombardia here. Article 1 of the rules on page 22 does state the 114th edition of "IL LOMBARDIA", and although Luca Gialanella's foreword does mention about the 114th Giro di Lombardia, it also mentions about Il Lombardia the paragraph below. The web result on Google also has Il Lombardia - Giro di Lombardia Official Site, so they can't really make their minds up!

All races prior to 2014 are currently at xxxx Giro di Lombardia, and all races since are at xxxx Il Lombardia. The main race page is at Giro di Lombardia, as it stands. There have been instances where Il Lombardia articles are being piped to Giro di Lombardia (which I believe has caused the back-and-forth reverts between other users). Historically, that would meet WP:COMMONNAME, but there's also the scenario that Il Lombardia is the WP:COMMONNAME, as race organisers have promoted as such, since 2011.

Thoughts? Craig(talk) 18:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing back-and-fourth at Ben Hermans. I've dropped a note on Parklands and Kevin's talkpage to discuss the issue here, to hopefully avoid any more edit-warring. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

My thinking was as you've mentioned, if the official organisers can't make their minds up, it is best for continuity to stick to the original name, therfore for each yearly race use 20?? Giro di Lombardia and for the introduction on the page use Giro di Lombardia (English: Tour of Lombardy), also known as Il Lombardia. There is a historical aspect to the monuments that should be respected. User:Parklands_cobbler 11:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: That was probably my fault with the multi-ping - didn't work like I imagined! Craig(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Parklands cobbler: I do think that a lot of historic races do retain a lot of their heritage, even though that they may change their names. Examples that I can think of, off the top of my head, being Paris–Brussels becoming the Brussels Cycling Classic (after almost 100 versions), and something relatively newer of Giro del Trentino becoming Tour of the Alps. I would imagine that a lot of people would still refer to the races as their former names. Not that Google search results make much of a difference, but to refer as some reasoning - 2020 Giro di Lombardia brings back 13.3m results, whereas 2020 Il Lombardia brings back 106m results. It may well be that both have been WP:COMMONNAME at individual stages during the years, but it is slightly awkward. Craig(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is always a tough thing, especially when you have sponsor names coming in more and more as well ("Milan-San Remo by Namedsport" and crap like that). I think we can agree that we don't have to include sponsors (unless it's a case like Amstel Gold Race), but an official name change is a whole different thing obviously. I would actually say let's take the new name from all editions where it was the official name, change the name of the main article as well, but make it clear that it was run under a different name for most of its history. EuroEyes Cyclassics is an example where this has already been done (another one of those stupid sponsor names...). I have in the past worked quite a lot on Formula One articles and the same reasoning has always been applied there in terms of Grand Prix article names. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: I think the sponsored names for the articles have almost always been moved to some form of unsponsored names - the Tour of California being an example of that, and I know personally I have moved it from xxxx Amgen Tour of California to remove Amgen - where possible. Amstel is one example where we cannot use an unsponsored name, because it has always been referred as such. But bringing up the Cyclassics: that's one that has had some form of sponsorship since the beginning, but in theory, that can be moved to an unsponsored name - Hamburg Cyclassics (which I know I have seen on rider's results tables - the same tables as the below) or Cyclassics Hamburg, noting that their official website URL is cyclassics-hamburg. I've been um-ing and oh-ing over moving it for a little while. For Lombardia, it could be a halfway house between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Craig(talk) 17:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

General classification result timelines on rider pages

I've been going through results for races from a few years back, so we have all noted races and that they haven't been missed or anything like that. While doing that, if I have encountered a rider that has five or more years listed as columns in a GC/Classics table, and no results through not contesting the races. Using Fabio Aru as an example, I have been changing the format from:

Monument	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Milan–San Remo	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tour of Flanders	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Paris–Roubaix	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Liège–Bastogne–Liège	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Giro di Lombardia	DNF	DNF	9	—	11	7	54	—	DNF

To this format, utilising the {{N/A}} template.

Monument	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Milan–San Remo	Has not contested during his career
Tour of Flanders
Paris–Roubaix
Liège–Bastogne–Liège
Giro di Lombardia	DNF	DNF	9	—	11	7	54	—	DNF

Now, I notice today that Parklands cobbler has introduced an alternative format, removing the N/A template, and replacing with a different background colour:

Monument	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Milan–San Remo	Has not contested during his career
Tour of Flanders
Paris–Roubaix
Liège–Bastogne–Liège
Giro di Lombardia	DNF	DNF	9	—	11	7	54	—	DNF

Now it may just be me, but it just doesn't look quite right when looking at that particular section. I think before any further amendments are rolled out to rider articles, it may be best to reach a consensus for the best format for the results. Thoughts? Craig(talk) 18:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says that articles should use enough contrast for accessibility (WP:CONTRAST), so I checked it using "Snook's color contrast tool" listed there. The one using the N/A-template is compliant ([1]), the alternative style with grey text on a white background is not compliant ([2]). So the MOS does not allow us to use the alternative option. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It was also in response to the NH (Not Held) events due to Covid-19, it just seemed to dark and took eyes away from the actual results, maybe there is a colour inbetween the two to use? User:Parklands_cobbler 11:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@EdgeNavidad: That's interesting, thanks for the link to that tool. Craig(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Parklands cobbler: Might be worth having a trawl through the options at the bottom Template:N/A, to see if there are any other ones that could be used in replacing that particular one. It could be that the text for style="color:#ccc;" is just too light for the standard wikitable. I've had a play about using the link that EdgeNavidad provided above, and it appears that it would have to go as dark as style="color:#4D4D4D;" (77,77,77) to be compliant in the tables. See example below, again using Aru:

Monument	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Milan–San Remo	Has not contested during his career
Tour of Flanders
Paris–Roubaix
Liège–Bastogne–Liège
Giro di Lombardia	DNF	DNF	9	—	11	7	54	—	DNF

That could be the best compromise of a too dark N/A, and a too light #ccc. Craig(talk) 18:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. User:Parklands_cobbler 09:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I thought that the second option from the three above would have been my preferred, based on aesthetics and meeting contrast, but seeing the one above I think that is best option to move forward with. XyZAn (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Background is correct, but is the lightest of #4d4d4d to please us or the readers?? BaldBoris 17:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@BaldBoris: That is the $64,000 question for me, personally. If it does get applied to the rider articles, is it the most pleasing method for us, the readers, or everyone? It's hard to tell at this stage – it was just the alternative format that I hadn't seen previously, that resulted in this section. It may be the case further down the line that such tables get enveloped through Lua, and potentially gets developed through Modules, just like Module:Sports table. Kinda hoping it doesn't, but have this funny inclination that it will – could be another Wikidata debacle! Craig(talk) 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the conversation it seems, but here's my two cents. I second XyZAn's opinion; I would have preferred the second option of the three, but I think this new one is a good compromise. Benjamin112 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

About as equally tardy to the party here, hope all are well. I think the font within the box should be the traditional black which provides the ideal contrast. I see no reason why the font color should change for this table or just this phrase within the table, when all other tables on a riders page are either with black text or the hyperlinked-blue. My #1 is the original N/A template (second in the post), while the most recent table posted would be suitable too, provided the font is black. Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, a suggestion for some editor. Alaphilippe and Van Aert deserve a table for results in championships (Worlds, European, Nationals). In the case of Van Aert for RR and TT. Thanks! Sebas1953 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that on several articles about the 2003 and 2004 seasons, the wrong "Dominica Vacanze" team is linked. The team that competed under the name "Dominica Vacanze" in 2003 and 2004 is the one that eventually became Aurum Hotels, but there are articles where it mistakenly links to the De Nardi team that ran under the name "Dominica Vacanze" in 2005 after the sponsor switched teams.

I have checked on Template:Ct and there is the code DVE that links to De Nardi, but I didn't find any code that links to Aurum Hotels, so that could be the cause of the confusion, with articles from 2003-2004 using the code DVE not knowing that it links to the wrong "Dominica Vacanze" team. There is, however, the code CTA that links to Cantina Tollo, which is the same team as Aurum Hotels but the article only covers the 1996-2002 period, while the Aurum Hotels article covers the full history of the team, so maybe those two articles should be merged so that the code CTA can be used for the full existence of Aurum Hotels. 90.103.137.135 (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly yes, Aurum Hotels and Cantina Tollo are the same teams. Bordurie (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for the WikiProject frequenters: Pinging Kevin McE, Parklands cobbler, BaldBoris, Seacactus 13, Paulpat99, XyZAn, Zwerg Nase, LegofanCy, Lugnuts, Severo, Disc Wheel, EdgeNavidad, and Benjamin112:

I am struggling to know what to do with some results in other disciples even sports diferents to road cycling, that I know maybe are not relevant for this WikiProject but I consider they are interesting as biographical info: (a) The results of the UCI Cycling Esports World Championships should be in the medal table? And in the case of Ashleigh Moolman maybe in her results? (b) A english entry for Ben Zwiehoff should include MTB results? (c) The Anton Palzer page should include medal table in ski mountaineering? (d) Finally, all these things remind me, even Primož Roglič and Quinn Simmons have medal results in ski jumping and ski mountaineering, respectively that maybe can be put in the table

I think that the results should go in the medal table. Regarding the e-sports its more cycling like so would fit into the results the same way that track does with road results. The results from other sports I'm not too sure as adding them to the article as normal would work, however how are they added to article of straight Ski-jumpers or such? Also I think the ping for more than one person didn't work I didn't get a notification. Paulpat99 (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would think that any results that are notable should be included (go to example in my head is if Roglic had any notable ski jumping results - I don't know if he did..) however I guess its an order of precedence. Using the Roglic example, his cycling achievements would be the main focus, but other notable sports should be mentioned. Perhaps you'd break it down by section - a cycling narrative section, followed by palmares. Then a ski jumping section, followed by major results achieved and so forth. On the esport-world championships i'd split it into a seperate section for 'e-sports'. So for example if Filippo Ganna rode in the 2021 esport world championships his palmares would be split into 3 sections: track, road, esports. FYI ping didn't work for me either. XyZAn (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? Is this anything other than a reluctance to remove a section even when that section was time limited and will never be updated? Why is it relevant or desirable on, for example, the Katusha Alpecin page to show a team that includes Harry Tanfield and Jenthe Biermans, but not those that featured Joaquim Rodriguez, Alexander Kristoff or Tony Martin (or, for that matter, Alexey Tsatevitch or Marco Mathis)? I would suggest that they be removed, otherwise they provide a meaningless snapshot of names (yet alone ages that they once had) preserved in virtual aspic forever. Kevin McE (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The final roster being there shows how the team was when it ended. I do understand what you mean by it not showing the best roster or most notable riders. Preserving the ages is like a snapshot of the season, so people look and go oh this rider was this age then. Otherwise an extreme example could be in the future someone goes oh Ian Boswell is currently 47, which is not relevant to the article. The way to get around this would be to include the final roster and set a link showing the main article for the section being 'List of Team Katusha Rosters'. Paulpat99 (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should not just remove them completely, if you feel it is incomplete, then create a page with all the rosters rather than having none. The age at the time should definitely be kept, as it would be ridiculous to show current age on a 10+ year old roster.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

But why is "how the team was when it ended" any more relevant in the long term than how the team was 3 years before it ended, or when it was formed (which might give more of an impression of its purpose), or at any other random point? What is the value of a snapshot out of context and with no reference to the historic achievements of the team? Are we saying, "Look, this is how far they declined before finally collapsing!"? Yeah, in 2038 it will be "not relevant to the article" to read that Ian Boswell is 47; why will it be so important to the article in 2038 to be able to read that Ian Boswell, who rode fewer than 20 races for them, without ever troubling the top 20 of a race or a stage, was 28 in 2019? There are already season articles for the main teams: those are the only places where a snapshot of that particular year has any relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I would maybe go with a list of the most notable riders (GT / Major week stag race winners, Monument / Classics winners and then World/Olympic Champions) and the seasons they were at the team? Would be a reasonably succinct list, of the most notable riders that had ever ridden for the team. Ties into the 'Major results' section too. XyZAn (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I have seen several old teams that have such a thing. That would be a good choice, as well as in some cases a list of rosters. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

If, as an example, you chose to look at Ineos in this way, I would understand an article covering their roster for each season (in its own separate article: List of Team Ineos rosters. I would then convert the 'Final roster' section that the article would (currently..) have into a 'Notable riders' section detailing the rider, the race(s) they're known for during their time at the team and the seasons they rode.To keep race notability easy I'd go with the same list of races we use on the rider article results tables (think from memory this covers the grand tours, world-tour one-week stage races (Paris Nice etc), monuments, classics, olympics, worlds. To keep the list reasonably short you could go a step further and say the rider needs a couple of instances where they hit one of these criteria, then you weed out any one-off miraculous results.XyZAn (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Much more sensible to have a major riders list (for existing as well as defunct teams). The quality of race-win necessary to make the list could vary according to the prestige of the team: GT stage wins would be a very major achievement for some teams, even a WT one week race stage or a prestigious 1.HC would be noteworthy for others.

I think a series of List of riders in Biketeam and its successors articles makes more sense as an objective than List of Biketeam rosters: rather than have some names repeated, have the riders in sortable tables, with columns for years they were there. The list of rosters would just be a series of copies from article seasons, and give us nothing new in a more useful way. Kevin McE (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A wikitable of listing all would work, but that is quite complicated to do compared to having rosters, so I am going to just stick those for now, feel free to convert those if you are up to the daunting task. The list of rosters is beneficial for teams without articles on very season of their existence, which is nearly all. Also only listing riders with the most major wins I fell in not complete, as many riders have rode as an important helping role for many years on a team, such as Tim Declercq and Haimar Zubeldia, who I feel it would be wrong to leave out, as they are still very noteworthy in their teams' history. Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed something problematic in the CCC Team/Circus–Wanty Gobert takeover. When Israel bought Katusha license, this last one folding and all the new updates and statistics go to Israel article. With the case of CCC, it looks like the Circus-Wanty owners buy Continuum Sports and I cite "We are therefore very proud today to take over the project from Jim Ochowicz and Gavin Chilcott and present to the UCI the continuation of Continuum Sports in the WorldTour." https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/ccc-team-sells-worldtour-licence-to-circus-wanty-gobert-470908 Even more, they now are using the old CCC social media accounts https://twitter.com/IntermarcheWG https://www.instagram.com/cccteam/ labeling themselves as "Continuum Sports // Successor of Team CCC". This situation make puzzling to know where the new updates should go, given for example that in the UCI World Tour article it was assumed that CCC not longer exist.

I just saw this but I was having the same confusion. It was pretty much assumed by most that CCC would fold and cease to exist, with IWG taking its place as a WorldTeam, much like the situation with ISN and Katusha, as you mentioned. However, per most official records, it seems like Wanty is the one that is disbanding and IWG is a continuation of CCC; this is the case on the UCI website and with the team's social media accounts. It's also interesting that with the ISN/Katusha case, some CyclingNews articles call it a merger instead of a takeover like with CCC/Wanty, and on the UCI website, both of ISN's predecessors have a separate lineage that ends in 2019, which seems to give the appearance that ISN is a new entity and not a continuation of the former ProTeam Israel Cycling Academy (not the newer Conti dev team of the same name). It'd be appreciated if someone could elaborate on the differences between the two situations. My interpretation is that UCI lists the lineage of licenses, not teams, which would explain why IWG is shown as a continuation of CCC, but not so much for why ISN isn't a continuation of either Katusha or ICA. And as for the social media accounts, it would probably be easier for IWG to retain the accounts with the much higher followerships (CCC). Benjamin112 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to contribute, but am amazed that ‘’cycling’’ only refers to a sports activity. Being Dutch, cycling is so much more. Foremost, it is a means of transportation. Is that aspect covered well enough in this project? Please let me know.Gallimons (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

From the project page: "This WikiProject aims primarily to create, improve and organize articles relating to the bicycle and cycling. This includes but is not limited to the history of the bicycle and cycling as a competitive sport, as recreation and as transportation." So transportation is explicitly included in this project! I agree that not much attention is given to that aspect, at least not on this talk page. But you are certainly allowed to contribute and focus on that part! EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A new editor added changes saying the club's name had changed to BEAT Cycling.[3] That seems consistent with the official web site but I wanted someone familiar with the topic to verify it.

If the team has changed names, please move the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This name change is consistent with how the team is listed on the UCI website (https://www.uci.org/road/teams/TeamDetail/15359/1003107/276). I'll move the page to reflect this. Benjamin112 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Just a quick query, I think I already know the answer. When we talk about notability of a cyclist and being a national champion, do we only mean the elite champion? Or is Under-23 and Junior notable too. I think the answer would be just elite. But I just wanted to check. Cheers Paulpat99 (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(TLDR: Yes, but sometimes no.) I think as long as a cyclist meets the notability criteria listed for WikiProject Cycling, they would be considered notable, regardless of level. Beyond that, I think it varies from country to country, kinda by default, for lack of a better phrase. For example, U23 or junior champions of cycling-prominent countries, like Belgium or France, are pretty likely to meet the aforementioned notability criteria. However, for the same champions of countries where cycling is not as prominent, like Kyrgyzstan or Tonga, they are not as likely to meet those criteria, so then they would have to meet the general notability criteria to be deemed notable. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Benjamin112 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have found 3 sources for notability for cycling they're similar yet different Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Consensus decisions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Notability, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling. But yes you did indeed answer my query. As I found a page where the only notability i could find was a junior champion result. Paulpat99 (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, just doing some tidying on Pavel Kelemen. Do you know if there's a category for European Track Championship winners? I have tried my usual way (go find someone else who won and see what their cat boxes say), but none of them have anything. Red Fiona (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. For your information, Svetlana Vasilieva and Svetlana Kuznetsova (cyclist) are the same person. Bordurie (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have given my best go at merging this thanks @Bordurie: for the heads up. Paulpat99 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a description about historical changes of road-cycling team categories, such as Division III Trade Team, Continental, Professional Continental, ProTeam, WorldTeam? --Fukumoto (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Years	First division	Second division	Third division
Before 2005	Division I Trade Team	Division II Trade Team	Division III Trade Team
2005-2014	UCI ProTeam	Professional Continental	Continental
2015-2019	UCI WorldTeam	Professional Continental	Continental
2020-	UCI WorldTeam	UCI ProTeam	Continental

Bordurie (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like it somewhere in the article space, perhaps somewhere in Road bicycle racing#Teams or UCI Professional Continental team and UCI Continental team. (Besides, why UCI Continental team is a redirect to Template:UCI Professional Continental and Continental teams?)

It looks like sometimes the word "Tier" is used to mean "Division" (eg. [4]). Was it official or just informal designation?

Currently UCI ProTeam is a redirect to UCI WorldTeam. I think it should be a disambiguation page. --Fukumoto (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Howdy, this User User talk:2A02:587:E235:800:493A:F15C:5ECD:F2D8 kept adding 2nd place in a stage finishes for Cavanga to his major results. I left them a message and they replied. I am unsure how to reply further with evidence or a reason as to why we do what we do. Is there a list somewhere with a consensus decision as what to include. I looked before I replied to them and before posting this. Cheers, Paulpat99 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked the consensus decisions but it seems quite outdated and in need of updates. Would there have been any archived discussions on the project talk page that relate to this? If anything, it seems to be a longstanding consensus, if not an implied consensus, that top 10 results are not deemed notable enough, unless they are top 10s for GC or for one-day races, which are generally more visible and memorable. There also seems to be a similar line drawn for victories in one-day races, which are not listed in the infobox unless they are of a certain caliber. Also, can you imagine how much longer Mark Cavendish's or Peter Sagan's respective articles would be if top 10 stage results were included? Sheesh. Don't think this really helped, but it does highlight a need for more/permanent documentation for future reference. Benjamin112 (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think from memory, discussions have taken placed and they're not deemed to be notable results, with the 'Major results' section of a cyclists' page being purely stage-wins and top-10 GCs / one-day race results. If the only result a rider had was 7th place on Stage 3 of Paris-Nice, they would not be notable for their own article, so back-tracking the logic would leave you with the result not being notable enough for an existing palmares (that would be tracked on something like ProCyclingStats. XyZAn (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of what we do. I was more wondering if there was a place I could quote so that people not familiar with the standard and see the standard and become informed. I guess this is kinda what we are doing now. As Benjamin112 was saying I think we need to go through and update or create consensus decisions/the basic template for a cyclist biography. Paulpat99 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

On a related note: recently, the major results of Mathieu van der Poel were moved to a separate page, List of career achievements by Mathieu van der Poel. So far, so good. However, there now is a (minor) dispute about whether the main page should only have a link to that new page and nothing more[5], or whether a section with the truly major results only (about 1/10th of the former section) should be kept in the main article[6]. All comments welcome at Talk:Mathieu van der Poel#Major results section. Fram (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. Also, article creation based on Wikiproject Guidelines would be curtailed. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kevin McE:@Parklands cobbler:@BaldBoris:@Seacactus 13:@XyZAn:@Zwerg Nase:@LegofanCy:@Lugnuts:@Severo:@Disc Wheel:@Sebas1953:@EdgeNavidad:@Benjamin112: Courtesy ping for this change to how we create pages. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Howdy, we need to do something about how the Pro conti teams are now called UCI ProTeams, as the UCI ProTeam page refers to the UCI WorldTour old name. Currently on PCT teams the UCI ProTeam link leads to UCI ProSeries. It's a little confusing. I suppose we cannot make another page. Are all PCT teams invited to Proseries races like the WT equivalent? If not then i suggest a merger of the List of PCT teams and proseries pages to make one with the description of team type and format for that tier. Paulpat99 (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The first idea that came to mind was to take a similar route as what was done for Euskaltel–Euskadi and Euskaltel–Euskadi, but I think what you proposed is a more efficient solution. Not entirely sure on how it should be implemented, though. I don't think all ProTeams are invited to all ProSeries races, as all 19 ProTeams at once would leave little room for WT or Conti teams, so which ProTeams are invited is up to the discretion of each race's organizers.Benjamin112 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi All, "User talk: 162 etc." revised the following cycling content redirect as follows:

See revision notice here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_reach&diff=next&oldid=853081131

Latest revision as of 16:19, ]]] 18 April 2021 (edit) (undo) (thank) 162 etc. (talk | contribs) (←Changed redirect target ||from Dooring#Avoidance to The Reach) Tag: Redirect target changed

Editor's summary: ←Changed \\ redirect target from Dooring#Avoidance to The Reach

which sends the reader to a Stephen King mystery novel entry for The Reach, not to the Dooring - Avoidance or Prevention section, but preferably to the Dutch Reach entry proper.

I don't know how to fix this. Can you kindly help? Thanks!

Mcha6677 (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)mcha6677

Can you explain why this is an erroneous edit? If I search for "The reach" on my favorite search engine, and exclude Wikipedia results, I first get results for hotels, for Game of Thrones, and for Elder Scrolls, and far down is the Stephen King novel. Nothing about opening doors. Even the Wikipedia article that you want to link to does not call it "the reach", it calls it "Dutch Reach". So what is wrong with the edit? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cycling Project Team,

I provide cites below to support the need to disambiguate & redirect as needed "The Reach" to specify the Far Hand Reach / Dutch Reach etc. as debated above.

1) An example of a Canadian Member of Parliament's petition web page advocating for "The Reach". https://www.maritstiles.ca/teachthereach

2) As reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Co: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/biking-windsor-dutch-reach-1.5074505

Here are examples in colloquial & deliberate slogans such as "Teach the Reach" & "Preach the Reach"

3) Here it is on Lyft's website teaching the Dutch Reach:

How to Do the Dutch ReachWhy Teach the Reach? https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/do-the-dutch-reach

Here it is used in publicizing a bike safety campaign in Portsmouth, Maine in SeacoastOnline:

“A recent ’dooring’ in Portsmouth, where the rider was lucky to escape with only scrapes and bruises, inspired our effort to “Teach the Reach.”

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2020/10/05/cycling-safety-event-coming-to-portsmouth/42725129/

"Preach the Reach" is also used by members of the biking community, for example this first comment to an article about a serious dooring injury in The Gothamist, NYC:

"Sean Gordon Downtown-Pete • 2 yrs ago By all means preach the reach, [--- but if people don't care enough to look then why would they care enough to open their door in a weird way?]"

Man On Electric Scooter Suffers Severe Head Trauma After Getting Doored In Brooklyn https://gothamist.com/news/man-on-electric-scooter-suffers-severe-head-trauma-after-getting-doored-in-brooklyn

It should be noted from a disambiguation point of view that Teach the Reach & Preach the Reach are also used by members of Christian groups for proselytzing etc., and the Reach Around - which has sexual connotations - also appears regularly in comment sections about the Dutch Reach. So helping direct the curious to their desired subject matter seems a useful goal.

Should it be required, I would be glad to add specific language & one or more of the above citations to the Dooring/#DutchReach section if permitted.

Thanks for considering this! Mcha6677 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)mcha6677

All I see from your examples is that the method is generally called "Dutch reach", and that the campaign to teach it is called "teach the reach". So I would be in favor of making these two terms link to the article. Not "the reach". EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Best I got for you is a link to Dutch Reach on the disambiguation page for Reach. That it's referring to as just "the reach" in awareness campaigns is more for marketing purposes, as it rolls off the tongue better. I'm not sure what other option is just as good and efficient. Benjamin112 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin112, Others, I'm okay with including Dutch Reach as a disambiguation for the Reach (noun) ( redirecting to the DR entry, though usually it is used with the definite article as "the Reach" whether in what you call a marketing campaign or as the simplest way to reference it.

I would strongly suggest that the disambiguation entry specifically note the cycling safety usage of "Reach"  or preferably "Reach, the" (noun) as Dutch Reach itself does not indicate that this is related to bicycling, dooring or road safety.

Thanks for your review & solution. Michael C Mcha6677 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)mcha6677

I have nominated McDonald's Cycle Center for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Would anyone like to create 2020 in cycle sport and start 2021 in cycle sport, along the lines of 2019 in cycle sport? We could then redirect 2020 in cycling and 2021 in cycling there. Those titles, used in {{Year nav sports topic5}}, are currently dabs which only cover road cycling. Previous discussion: WT:Disambiguation pages with links#Years in cycling. Certes (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Heya, as I was trawling through editing pages I came accross this request here Talk:2019 Women's Tour of Scotland. "Event has only ever happened once, in 2019. 2020 race was cancelled and the organisers have now folded, so no future events are likely to be held. Therefore, don't need two articles for the same one event" I was wondering what the consensus might be on this page or if anyone would like to add to the discussion. Cheers Paulpat99 (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw a comment on a user talk page about some inappropriate content at Single Speed World Championship. It was schoolkid vandalism from several years back, and when I had removed it I looked at the rest of that article, which is not in great shape. There are no independent sources in the article, and there's a lot of insider jokes and trivial details – at least, they seem trivial to me. I did a quick Google search and it looks like there is independent coverage so I think it's probably a notable event, but I don't know which sources are reliable when it comes to articles about cycling. I also don't know what kinds of details are usually acceptable in a cycling article and don't want to be too heavy-handed, so I simply removed some blatantly inappropriate stuff, and added some tags to the article[7]. It needs more TLC than I have the time for right now.

Since the race is arranged by a different team of people each time, and like it says in this source it "doesn’t take itself too seriously", the article has probably been updated by the enthusiasts arranging each year's race, who add whatever details they think are particularly fun or interesting. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"SSWC is not sanctioned by any governing body", so it is not in any meaningful way a world championship. It has not proved itself to be the subject of any remotely formal ongoing journalistic coverage (occasional 'look at this informal group of slightly kookie people gathering together' articles aside). Any attempt to impose a remotely encyclopaedic standard on its content would reduce ot to about two sentences at best. I would suggest AfD. Kevin McE (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: Thanks! I wanted to wait a few days for any other opinions, but now I'll take it to AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

And now deleted. Kevin McE (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello all,

I've noticed edit conflicts between two editors on both Bauke Mollema's and Tadej Pogačar's articles. Seems like there's a need for third-party input, if anyone is interested in taking a look.

Thanks. Benjamin112 ☎ 03:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

As one of the involved parties, please do. While there are subsidiary issues at play, such as sourcing, informal tone, non-standard time representation, national bias and statements of opinion, essentially our conflict is over the basic principle of whether Wikipedia exists as a pseudo-journalistic collection of detailed race reports or an encyclopaedic project that conveys the essential facts and refers the readers elsewhere for further details. Kevin McE (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have identified with examples some of the specific points (short of the overall encyclopaedic vs journalistic issue) in the talk page of Mollema's article. Kevin McE (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I was working on a new article about Colin Strickland, and I noticed that there is not anything mentioned about Gravel Cycling on the cycle sport page or it's own page. Unbound Gravel was the only race that I found a page for, and there is a small section on Mountain biking. Is the subject worthy of it's own page? --Hdevine825 (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend expanding the section at Mountain_bike#Gravel_cycling to begin with. Then once it gets big enough, you can split the content off into a new page. In the meantime, maybe add a mention of gravel cycling somewhere at Cycle_sport#Racing too. Meticulo (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Since this might be of interest to your project in particular, please see the section with the same header at WT:SPORTS. Thanks! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The infobox template for cyclists asks for us to divide a rider's career into amateur and professional stages, but many (most?) riders spend some time in the semi-pro world of UCI continental level. There may be some payment, but these teams are not (as I understand it) covered by the UCI's minimum salary levels. They do much of their racing at .2 level events, which are not classified as professional races. The name by which the level above them is known (ProTeam, formerly Professional Continental) makes professionalism the distinguishing feature of the higher echelon. I would contend that these teams are internationally registered, and eligible to take place in some races alongside professionals, but are not professional teams, and as such should be in the amateur section of the infobox.

But we don't know the details of the terms under which a rider is signed: whether it is a living wage, whether a rider is expected to be committed full time, is not in the public forum. Many of the teams are development squads: are they considered to be professionals under development, or riders whose potential to become professionals is being developed.

Or is the distinction just not tenable, and we should simply list teams without distinguishing amateur from pro?

And what of the text: do we describe, e.g., Primoz Roglic as signing his first professional contract with Adria Mobil in 2013 or with LottoNL in 2016? And if the latter, can we talk of a non-professional contract with Adria Mobil? Kevin McE (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

From my understanding and what has been talked about in the media in New Zealand; although the definition of professional does mean earns money I see it being around as any UCI registered team is classed as 'professional'. After doing some quick research I cannot find the definition of a Continental Team only Pro-conti. My view on this is to keep the conti teams in the professional section because they are UCI registered. My guess is it will all come down to what the UCI define them as. Paulpat99 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The UCI defines (Art 7 para 1) a 'new professional' as any rider who joins a UCI WorldTeam or UCI Professional Continental Team for the first time no later than during his twenty-fifth year.(Sept 2019 document, so older name for 2nd rank of team). So UCI seems not to define Conti as pro. Kevin McE (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

But with typical UCI consistency, it describes (2.17.004) a continental team thus: A UCI Continental team... will comprise riders who may or may not be professional, in the elite and/or under 23 categories. So the UCI cannot tell us whether Conti should be listed as pro or amateur. Kevin McE (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've always taken the wikipedia version of a 'professional' team to be any team that's registered with the UCI, i.e. Continental and above. I've then take National elite teams to be the Amateur ones. I accept this is probably an imperfect solution, but it's easier to manage from a content creation and maintenance point of view and like has been said above, the UCI can't even decide... XyZAn (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We can also consider to update/improve the template. I don't think there are many cyclists for which their amateur teams are notable enough to be in the infobox. But that still leaves the problem of defining what is amateur and what is not, so this comment might not be as useful as I initially thought. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

UCI (road racing) world ranking is a thing now and it seems unimportant one. I was thinking that cyclist's infobox could contain, placed between pro teams and major wins, a segment with "career ranking" and "career international titles" (all titles won on UCI recognized races) - it's similar to how tennis player's infobox is done. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What do you propose are classed as "career international titles" is that not just the major results section? Paulpat99 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

We have Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux as the updated title of the article that was previously BMC Racing and CCC Pro Team, but my understanding is that the old Wanty team bought the licence from those behind BMC/CCC, not the team identity and history. Intermarche's website identifies as being of 'Want you cycling ASBL', the Belgian organisers of Wanty for many years, and still has the url wanty-groupegobert.be/. The website carries the boast "UCI Europe Tour winner 2016-2017 & 20182, which was the achievement of Wanty, and the piece about their team for the 2021 Tour de France says, "This Saturday, June 26 in Brest, Intermarché-Wanty-Gobert Matériaux will participate in the fourth Grand Départ in its history," a count obviously drawn from the history of Wanty, not BMC/CCC. Want You bought Continuum's licence, and Continuum was thus wound up/absorbed: the current team is the continuation of the purchasers of, not of those selling, a resource (a WT licence).

I propose therefore that all changes since the beginning of the current season that are currently on Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux should be reverted, and that article renamed as CCC Proteam, and edited as the article of a team that has been wound up, and all this season's details, team membership etc, be applied to the page currently at Circus–Wanty Gobert (which should then be renamed as Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux). This would be consistent with the Wikipedias (wikipediae?) of other languages in which cycling is an major sport (Danish, Italian, German, Spanish and, most relevantly, both Dutch and French), and follows the ancestry recognised by Procyclingstats, CQranking, First Cycling etc. (I have placed notes at both team talk pages, and the talk of Cs-wolves, the architect of the current situation, suggesting centralised discussion here.)

I see there was some discussion at the turn of the year between @Sebas1953: and @Benjamin112:. Kevin McE (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

At the time, this stemmed from the continuation of how the UCI presented the team details on their website. This is what I have referenced in my edit summary on 1 January on the Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux page. "As per the UCI (https://www.uci.org/road/teams/TeamDetail/15230/1001372/279), 2020 it was CCC, 2021 it is Intermarché. No 2021 option for Circus-Wanty Gobert (https://www.uci.org/road/teams/TeamDetail/14012/1001393/266). Therefore, the team [Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux] hasn't disbanded." However, these links can no longer be followed, following the UCI's recent redesign on their website. As the previous WorldTeam licence for CCC existed until 2022, they had to buy out the licence holder Continuum Sports. This differed from the most recent change of licence before that: being the Team Katusha–Alpecin–Israel Start-Up Nation "merger". As Team Katusha–Alpecin's WorldTeam licence expired at the end of the 2019, Israel Start-Up Nation did not have to buy out anything – as everything was due to expire at the end of 2019 they assumed control, which I believe is the reason why separate pages exist. Craig(talk) 14:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, given the particular phrasing and undertones (e.g., Circus–Wanty Gobert moving up to WT, a tearful farewell to CCC Team) in various media and by my own understanding, Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux seemed to be the successor to Circus–Wanty Gobert instead of to CCC Team, even if the former bought out the license of the latter. I was wracking my brain to come up with a similar case, whether in the cycling world or otherwise, but could not; perhaps Family A moving from House 1 to House 2, the latter of which was formerly owned by Family B, but Family A retains its identity as Family A. I had considered the aforementioned Team Katusha–Alpecin–Israel Start-Up Nation situation but as Craig/Cs-wolves pointed out, the circumstances were different. At the end of the day, I yielded, considering that a) I was comparatively inexperienced with such moves and b) I could not fully produce or articulate a thorough explanation of my thoughts. While WP:COMMONNAME would not directly apply here, I might also imagine that a poll of cycling fans would indicate that most would consider IWG to be the successor of (or correlate to) CWG and not CCC. Probably a flawed argument but that's my two cents. Benjamin112 ☎ 15:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that complicated. If company A buys company B (or an asset from them, the articles of the time were not altogether clear) and subsumes company B entirely, not retaining any of its branding, but continuing in the name A always had, then surely it is B that has ceased and A that continues. Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, there you go. Same idea with less words -- thanks for articulating that better. But going back to the original proposal, I would support the aforementioned changes. Let's see what others think. Benjamin112 ☎ 19:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

So is there agreement that I put up a WP:RM for Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux ⇒ CCC Team and Circus–Wanty Gobert ⇒ Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux, with 2021 info at the latter? One would hope that pre-discussion here would be influential in showing consensus? Kevin McE (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There is agreement on my end, but I am not totally familiar with how much consensus is needed first, unless anyone has any last objections or points of discussion. Benjamin112 ☎ 03:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. People of this project may be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NCYCLING] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I created a draft for Budget bike, the cheap bikes commonly sold at big box stores. They are the subject of an article here: [8] Not sure they are notable enough for an article. Would really appreciate help with sourcing if there’s any out there. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Another potential source here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We have Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux as the updated title of the article that was previously BMC Racing and CCC Pro Team, but my understanding is that the old Wanty team bought the licence from those behind BMC/CCC, not the team identity and history. Intermarche's website identifies as being of 'Want you cycling ASBL', the Belgian organisers of Wanty for many years, and still has the url wanty-groupegobert.be/. The website carries the boast "UCI Europe Tour winner 2016-2017 & 20182, which was the achievement of Wanty, and the piece about their team for the 2021 Tour de France says, "This Saturday, June 26 in Brest, Intermarché-Wanty-Gobert Matériaux will participate in the fourth Grand Départ in its history," a count obviously drawn from the history of Wanty, not BMC/CCC. Want You bought Continuum's licence, and Continuum was thus wound up/absorbed: the current team is the continuation of the purchasers of, not of those selling, a resource (a WT licence).

I propose therefore that all changes since the beginning of the current season that are currently on Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux should be reverted, and that article renamed as CCC Proteam, and edited as the article of a team that has been wound up, and all this season's details, team membership etc, be applied to the page currently at Circus–Wanty Gobert (which should then be renamed as Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux). This would be consistent with the Wikipedias (wikipediae?) of other languages in which cycling is an major sport (Danish, Italian, German, Spanish and, most relevantly, both Dutch and French), and follows the ancestry recognised by Procyclingstats, CQranking, First Cycling etc. (I have placed notes at both team talk pages, and the talk of Cs-wolves, the architect of the current situation, suggesting centralised discussion here.)

I see there was some discussion at the turn of the year between @Sebas1953: and @Benjamin112:. Kevin McE (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

At the time, this stemmed from the continuation of how the UCI presented the team details on their website. This is what I have referenced in my edit summary on 1 January on the Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux page. "As per the UCI (https://www.uci.org/road/teams/TeamDetail/15230/1001372/279), 2020 it was CCC, 2021 it is Intermarché. No 2021 option for Circus-Wanty Gobert (https://www.uci.org/road/teams/TeamDetail/14012/1001393/266). Therefore, the team [Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux] hasn't disbanded." However, these links can no longer be followed, following the UCI's recent redesign on their website. As the previous WorldTeam licence for CCC existed until 2022, they had to buy out the licence holder Continuum Sports. This differed from the most recent change of licence before that: being the Team Katusha–Alpecin–Israel Start-Up Nation "merger". As Team Katusha–Alpecin's WorldTeam licence expired at the end of the 2019, Israel Start-Up Nation did not have to buy out anything – as everything was due to expire at the end of 2019 they assumed control, which I believe is the reason why separate pages exist. Craig(talk) 14:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, given the particular phrasing and undertones (e.g., Circus–Wanty Gobert moving up to WT, a tearful farewell to CCC Team) in various media and by my own understanding, Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux seemed to be the successor to Circus–Wanty Gobert instead of to CCC Team, even if the former bought out the license of the latter. I was wracking my brain to come up with a similar case, whether in the cycling world or otherwise, but could not; perhaps Family A moving from House 1 to House 2, the latter of which was formerly owned by Family B, but Family A retains its identity as Family A. I had considered the aforementioned Team Katusha–Alpecin–Israel Start-Up Nation situation but as Craig/Cs-wolves pointed out, the circumstances were different. At the end of the day, I yielded, considering that a) I was comparatively inexperienced with such moves and b) I could not fully produce or articulate a thorough explanation of my thoughts. While WP:COMMONNAME would not directly apply here, I might also imagine that a poll of cycling fans would indicate that most would consider IWG to be the successor of (or correlate to) CWG and not CCC. Probably a flawed argument but that's my two cents. Benjamin112 ☎ 15:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that complicated. If company A buys company B (or an asset from them, the articles of the time were not altogether clear) and subsumes company B entirely, not retaining any of its branding, but continuing in the name A always had, then surely it is B that has ceased and A that continues. Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, there you go. Same idea with less words -- thanks for articulating that better. But going back to the original proposal, I would support the aforementioned changes. Let's see what others think. Benjamin112 ☎ 19:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

So is there agreement that I put up a WP:RM for Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux ⇒ CCC Team and Circus–Wanty Gobert ⇒ Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux, with 2021 info at the latter? One would hope that pre-discussion here would be influential in showing consensus? Kevin McE (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There is agreement on my end, but I am not totally familiar with how much consensus is needed first, unless anyone has any last objections or points of discussion. Benjamin112 ☎ 03:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdgeNavidad:@Kevin McE:@Benjamin112: I just picked this discussion back, when I was directed to Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux from another wikipedia. English wikipedia is the only one that puts the current team as the continuation of former BMC and not from the belgian Continental Team Circus–Wanty Gobert, which I think is wrong (and also its the opposite of wikidata). All the news, state that CWG bought the license from CCC (as you can read here). Its also the understaning of Procycling stats (here) and you can see that 2021 IWGM Rooster was mainly composed by CWG riders (20) while former CCC were only 3. I'm not sure but I think the people who took part in discussion above mainly agreed with the move, so I think its time to clarify this and make the moves if that is the agreement.Rpo.castro (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I'm 100% on board with this. Unfortunately haven't been able to get to it between school, life, and updating everything for the 2022 season, but I'd appreciate if someone is able to step in and finally tie up this loose end. Benjamin112 ☎ 18:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Howdy, so yeah I looked at trying to do this I got my head around all the page moves and data that needs to be added/subtracted but then I tried to move a template and well I don't really know the proper way of doing it. I had a quick search up but if someone could give me some help or guidance I would be happy to proceed. Paulpat99 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I requested the delition of CCC Pro Team so we can move Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux there. Then, after the move we have to delete Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux so we can move Team Circus–Wanty Gobert there. What will become CCC Pro Team has to reverted to later 2020, adding information about team ceasing, and changing categories. The information reverted must be added to new Intermarché-Wanty-Good-Lord-what a long name. And correct the categories, infobox, team purchasing the license from CCC.Rpo.castro (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: I made some changes in the articles (I was asked to make them before the moves). You should be able to change the articles despite the moves haven't be done yet. I'm correcting also templates, categories, other pages linked there.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rpo.castro: Are you able to have a look at moving the Seasons templates around to the correct names and also the categories. Cheers Paulpat99 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Paulpat99: I had a look at categories and templates and I think its almost done. If not just write here. Template:Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux seasons is waiting to be deleted and the Circus-Wanty Gobert moved here, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Template:BMC Racing riders to be deleted. Please go there and support this deletion or I think it will remain like this.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the decision, but somebody will then fix all the subsequent mess (e.g., page for wins, UCI World Tour, UCI ProSeries, etc...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebas1953 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think i've fixed UCI World Tour and luckily UCI ProSeries doesn't need changing. I will have a look for other results and template fixes. Paulpat99 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Paulpat99, really appreciate your work!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebas1953 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I came across this user in Category:Stale userspace drafts. This user has multiple userspace drafts on real events, but with false information. See for example these three drafts in terms of the Classification tables, lead and infobox. Individual stage userspace drafts made by this user also have false information such as these ones. Since there's numerous ones, I would like some help going through these userpages by this user and determining if there's more that have issues in terms of false information. All can be found here (you have to search under user). Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Heyo, I went through a few of the articles and found one called User:Formula164457/sandbox/2014 UCI World Tour (fiction) so it seems its a work of fiction the whole st of pages. So it's as if the user was just playing around and mistakenly added articles for creation to the page. I am pretty sure all are false and even if they were true there is already real articles for each of them so they are useless in terms of Wikipedia. Paulpat99 (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

On top of what Paulpat99 has already pointed out, some of the other drafts which don't already have real articles have far too much information than what would be deemed standard or "necessary" — spelled-out startlists are only for the Grand Tours, secondary classifications are only updated in a dedicated section instead of being listed out for each stage, and intermediate points are never included. Not to mention the use of outdated formatting conventions. Given that the user has probably also forgotten about them, they are probably worth deleting, however that happens. Benjamin112 ☎ 03:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Paulpat99: @Benjamin112: Thank you both for looking. Should I speedy nominate the ones that are indeed false under hoax or under notwebhost? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I would have suggested to first ask the user in question if they had some legitimate purpose for those drafts, but given how infrequently active the user is, we might not get a response anytime soon. Now, I'm not well-versed in WP:CSD, but from what I understand after reading all the criteria, I'm leaning towards hoax. Would WP:G13 also be valid? (P.S. If I had to guess a non-Wikipedia reason for the drafts' existence, I would say that someone wanted a space to record their progress in the Pro Cycling Manager video game, as that might have been something a younger and naiver me would have done to practice basic HTML.) Benjamin112 ☎ 05:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not call this a hoax, because that suggests bad intentions. The user made a fictional version of the 2014 UCI World Tour, and kept it in their sandbox. They can (but don't need to be) deleted, but be nice to the user, I don't think he or she did bad things. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey all, I tried asking @Andrei loas (the excellent creator of the many, many TDF maps) to do one for the 2022 Tour de France Femmes. I haven't had a reply, so is there anyone here who can produce one? The route is here (https://storage-aso.lequipe.fr/ASO/cycling_trf/download-the-2022-map-route.pdf) I can also provide you with the individual stage PDF maps if you want more accuracy. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I've asked in the map workshop for this. Turini2 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

And one has been made! Turini2 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

As Le Tour is currently on the front page in the WP:ITN section, I believe the articles (GC winner, main page) for the inaugural 2022 Tour de France Femmes be updated to meet a similar quality standard to honor the winner and then submitted to be put on the front page. Now Le Tour de France is an WP:ITN/R article which guarantees its notability, so there may be pushback on doing so for the first women's tour. That shouldn't stop me from trying to get it on there. Omnifalcon (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Omnifalcon me and @Kiwipete have said exactly the same thing! Turini2 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think this will need to be focused on once the women's tour is close to being, or has, finished. The front page ITN entry for the men's tour didn't appear until 2-3 days after it finished, IIRC. Kiwipete (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A lot of that time is bureaucracy involved with getting a consensus. If the TdFF article is as good quality as it's counterpart, as is the winners page, it'll be easy. If Marianne Vos wins her article is stellar. If another wins, we have some work to do. Adding a summary of the race action and ensuring no cn or red links will get it shipshape. Omnifalcon (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We did it, friends! TdFF is also likely to get ITN/R which means it's agreed to be newsworthy (but of course quality and completeness demands still exist). Great for an egalitarian Wikipedia but also to honor the winners of a damn good race besides. Omnifalcon (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Over the last two seasons, editors have dutifully created articles such as 2022 UCI Europe Tour and 2022 UCI Asia Tour etc etc. But we don't actually have any evidence that these tours, in any meaningful way, still exist. The UCI's calendar makes no mention of them. The websites associated with each tour no longer work. The names only exist now as far as I can see it:

• on Wikipedia
• on the UCI ranking pages. These though are now simply rankings of riders by continent eg the African ranking is headed by Biniam Girmay, but all of his points are from races in Europe, the Oceania Tour is headed by Richie Porte, but all of his races are from Europe and Japan, etc. This ranking is not what the UCI Continental Tour pages on Wikipedia are about. Even the continental team rankings are based on points from global races: so Human Powered Health are second on the Americas Tour, with their top points scorer Pier-Andre Cote getting his points from the Grand Prix Criquielion and Bredene Koksijde Classic. Again, this use of the tour names on the UCI website does not reflect their use here.
• as Instagram accounts, but these seem to just share vaguely-relevant cycling related news. For example, the UCI Europe Tours' most recent posts are to share images of Biniam Girmay winning Gent-Wevelgem, and the TdF promoting that it is 100 days till its start: neither of these would be UCI Europe Tour events, if it still existed.

If you look at third parties - newspaper/websites - they do still refer to the tours when describing races, but I wonder the extent to which that is habit, partially fuelled by their continued presence on Wikipedia. I can't find any articles which explicitly refer to the tours and their status any later than 2019 - the only mentions since then are along the lines of "Race X, a 2.1 Race on the UCI Europe Tour", but that is not evidence of the continued tours, more habit (or article-writers copying directly from Wikipedia).

The only conclusion I can reach is that these Tours no longer exist, and that therefore we should look to delete the 2021 and 2022 articles. The status of 2019 and 2020 is debatable too, but for now I am minded to cut the amount of extra work for us to do, and there is at least one source which talks about the Tours at some length (https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/alpecin-fenix-all-but-seal-tour-de-france-invite-after-topping-latest-europe-tour-rankings/)! There is also, for 2020, there is evidence of some race websites which refer to themselves as races from the 2020 Europe Tour (etc). I don't know if the UCI has deliberately dropped the tours, or if they essentially fell into abayence during the pandemic. It is possible that the Tours will be more formally resurrected in future, in which case great, but I don't think they can have been meaningfully said to exist over the last two seasons.

I would propose creating an annual page to cover all UCI Continental Races, called 2021 UCI Continental Races or 2022 UCI Continental Tours (perhaps at 'Races' with 'Tours' as redirect?) (etc), that would merge the results and schedules from the 2021/2022 tours into a single page - this also would limit the extra editing needed. However for now I don't think it is possible to say that these tours verifiably exist beyond Wikipedia's imagination. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep – TLDR: The UCI Continental Circuits are still very much in existence. There's a lot to unpack here:

The current UCI structure, which saw the introduction of the second-tier UCI ProSeries in 2020, relegated the Continental Circuits down to the third tier of events. Races that were promoted to the UCI ProSeries were mostly former .HC races (and some .1 races) in their respective Continental Circuits, but the other races remained as constituents of their respective Continental Circuits.

If you wanted an explicit indication of their existence (or for lack of a better word, a smoking gun), UCI Regulation 2.1.002 (as updated on 1 January 2022) definitely outlines their status and what constitutes each race series.

Admittedly, the revamp of the UCI website last year also didn't exactly promote information about the Continental Circuits in a clear and obvious manner. There's this outdated info page on the UCI website, but if you wanted to find out which races were in which series, you would have to search for it yourself by selecting certain filters, like I showed here for 2022 UCI Europe Tour races.
Elsewhere, there are many mentions of the existence of the Continental Circuits, though not often in places where the average/casual reader might (care enough to) look:

• Discussing a team's 2022 plans: Project Echelon also plans to return to Europe for a select block of racing on the UCI Europe Tour in 2022
• From USA Cycling on clothing regulations: Latest guidelines for UCI Continental (third-tier) Teams on having the logo of their respective race series as part of the jersey design, which can be seen in practice here on the Go Sport–Roubaix–Lille Métropole and here on the L39ION of Los Angeles jerseys
• To refute the argument of describing races out of habit, many official race books and regulations also clearly indicate to which race series they belong, as can be seen in the 2022 Settimana Internazionale di Coppi e Bartali racebook (page 3) or the 2022 Tour des Alpes-Maritimes et du Var racebook (page 28). Or in the race regulations (page 2) of the 2022 O Gran Camiño, a race that only began this year (and whose existence on Wikipedia wasn't a thing until the morning of the first stage).

Information about a race, including Race X, a 2.1 Race on the UCI Europe Tour, is usually grabbed from these documents (when publicly available), so perhaps the real issue is just the need for much more explicit attribution to point readers to such documents and texts, if only for due diligence instead of for additional literature that will actually be clicked on.

I don't really blame you for not knowing more, especially since every year, WP:CYCLING sees an uptick in editors who only contribute for the Tour de France and then f--- off (to express my slight annoyance and frustration) for the rest of the year, so there aren't enough editors who have enough time and dedication to maintain a high standard of upkeep across the entire scope of the WikiProject.

Comment – Regarding your proposal to [create] an annual page to cover all UCI Continental Races, it might be something worth exploring after having a formal discussion about it. However, it should be mentioned that the UCI Europe Tour will always dwarf the rest of its sister series (which are basically stubs) given its sheer size and number of events (pandemic effects on cancelled events notwithstanding), but I can see how certain elements from articles like the 2021–22 FIS Cross-Country World Cup and the 2021–22 Isthmian League can be used to execute a seamless merge. Even then, creating a new cover-all article will require a lot of maintenance to fix redirects and wikilinks. And as for [limiting] the extra editing, the best current remedy for that would be to figure out how to hammer home the need to cite sources when adding content, even after multiple warnings and notices.

Hope that helps clarify a few things. Especially outside of Europe, the UCI has never been too good at promoting their Continental Circuits, which is also why dedicated articles don't exist for many of those individual events for notability reasons. Benjamin112 ☎ 00:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Benjamin112: - that's assuaged my main concern, which was basically that none of the articles offered any verifiable evidence that these tours exist, I couldn't find anything on the UCI website pointing me to them. I can see why it was difficult to find that evidence! Re: a 'master page', the other article which I had in mind was something like the 2022 ATP Challenger Tour article, which also has a good model of how to mass-list the results for lots of events. I would not necessarily advocate for such a move though, as long as the continental circuits genuinely persist, even if the UCI buries them. Thanks for your comprehensive and excellent work here. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Paris–Roubaix was listed as a good article in 2009, but the article looks to be way short of the current GA standards. I've left some comments on Talk:Paris–Roubaix, and wondered if anyone would be interested in trying to improve it? If not, it's liable to be nominated for a GA reassessment, and I expect it will be delisted as a GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Paris–Roubaix has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Paris–Roubaix/1. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Heyo all just to let you know there is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_7#Template:Sports_links regarding the use of the sports links template Paulpat99 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Heyo there seems to be a few individuals who want to combine Team Qhubeka and Team Qhubeka NextHash pages however these two teams although linked are separate entities. I am correct in saying that these two articles should not be merged as one is the conti and other the ex world tour. Any help in making sure the merge doesnt happen or any comments are greatly appreciated. Paulpat99 (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Paulpat99:! I mean...just simply reading the content of both articles should have been enough for one to discern that the two are separate, albeit related, entities. But just to be safe, I added a note to the top of both pages in a similar vein to those found on the Euskaltel–Euskadi and Carlos Sainz Jr. articles. Hopefully this does the trick. Benjamin112 ☎ 21:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey - who updates the cycling team name templates? Just I had trouble with a few of the codes when doing 2022 La Flèche Wallonne Féminine - and instead having to put the team names in manually. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Turini2: just had a look and made the corrections on that page. If there is a men's team and a women's team that have the same name (which often means they also share the same code), they should be differentiated by XXX men and XXX women (e.g., TFS men for Trek–Segafredo vs. TFS women for Trek–Segafredo). This doesn't apply to all teams, though. Human Powered Health use different codes for the same name (Human Powered Health vs. Human Powered Health), UAE Team uses the same code for different names (UAE Team Emirates vs. UAE Team ADQ), and other men's/women's teams that are linked but don't have the same exact name use different codes (e.g., EF Education–EasyPost vs. EF Education–Tibco–SVB). Here is the directory of all the codes if you want to have a browse around, as some teams' codes are less straightforward than others (but annoying they've all been sorted under C for Cycling data instead of by the actual code). Hope this helps! Benjamin112 ☎ 16:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and fixes! Turini2 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Heyo can some people add their opinions to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fangio (cycling team) regarding the page from a cycling perspective. Cheers Paulpat99 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The article needs more attention to quality sourcing and empirical research. (t · c) buidhe 22:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Heyo an editior has changed the way we show Major results on Pavel Sivakovs page and I was wondering if anyone knew what to do about it. When I asked the editor about it they replied with this:

" This is a question of the HTML that MediaWiki generates. Per the HTML specification, description lists must consist of zero or more groups each of one or more terms (marked up in MediaWiki with a leading semicolon) followed by one or more descriptions (marked up in MediaWiki with a leading colon). Using only colons produces only descriptions, which is invalid because the terms are required. Probably you should be using unordered lists instead, perhaps unbulleted lists (see {{unbulleted list}} and {{plainlist}})."

This discussion can be found here: User_talk:Hairy Dude#Pavel Sivakov

Which to me means not much, I was hoping that someone here knew something more about it maybe @Benjamin112:.

Cheers, Paulpat99 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What he seems to be saying is that there is a list, for example, for 2014 containing several items, one of which, "1st Overall Ronde des Vallées" itself contains a list with one item, "1st Stage 1". Therefore, this item needs a bullet point. But, yeh, it's a very technical answer. Kiwipete (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a claim here that it was named "UCI Juniors Track World Championships" before 2016. In the table of each year's events, there are also various headings such as "World Juniors Track Cycling Championships" and "UCI Juniors World Championships". There are no sources to clarify what previous name(s) might have been used. Does anyone know of such a source? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd welcome your thoughts at Grand Tour on how to include major women's races (Giro Donne and Tour de France Femmes) in the Grand Tour article. Turini2 (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:L'Étape du Tour#Requested move 3 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news § Remove ITN/R: Sports cleanup.
Currently one or more of this sport's events are listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items, meaning that they have been judged significant enough that, if nominated, they will always be posted to the In the news section of the main page (subject to article quality being sufficient). However a proposal has been made to remove some that not been nominated recently from that list. If the proposal is successful, the event(s) may still be nominated but the nomination will debate the significance of the event as well as article quality.
The event(s) relevant to this sport are: UCI Road World Championships.
To avoid splitting discussion, please leave your comments in at the linked discussion rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:List of teams and cyclists in the 2022 Tour de France: should we use a different symbol? EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's my post. When I scrolled down on the page, I saw a list of riders of which one person had a † behind the name. That symbol usually says the person is dead, so it shook me, and my thoughts immediately went to Joaquim Agostinho, Fabio Casartelli, Wouter Weylandt, and a few others. 'Not again!' I'd love to see the symbol changed into a ♣ or something else, because this † is morbid. Emmarade (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Seacactus 13 @Parklands cobbler @XyZAn @Kevin McE @Severo @Sebas1953 @EdgeNavidad @Benjamin112 @Cs-wolves There is a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#WP:NCYCLING that I think we need to pay attention to. Paulpat99 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I missed the team flag on the 2022 Tour de France Femmes infobox, and started a discussion on Template talk Infobox Cycling Race. Before posting, I did search for a previous discussion, but didn't find any. Now I've been pointed at an archived discussion from 2009, which concluded that "teams don't have a nationality", and team flags were erased from templates. I suggest an update and change of vision, to confirm the possibility to show them flags again.

A new development since the 2009 consensus, are the 2012-2018 UCI World Championships TTT. On the podium, the winning professional team's national anthem was played and their national flag was raised (see on YouTube: Insbruck 2018 (2:47:19)). It shows that just like individual riders, teams do represent a country, and their nationalities and flags matter. I think this reflects the vision of traditional cycling countries. Most other language Wikipages do use team flags in their infoboxes, so we're the odd ones out.

The lack of a clear and uniformly perceived identity is a thing of both individual riders and teams. Why do Britt and Senne Knaven ride for Belgium and their sister Mirre, Mathieu van der Poel and Max Verstappen for the Netherlands? Why do athletes like Bart Veldkamp and Elvan Abeylegesse switch nationality? Each choice or change tells a different story, and it helps to identify the athlete, team and circumstances. A license might feel like a futile piece of red tape, but it decides what flag to raise.

Can you agree with the current UCI standpoint that teams actually do have a nationality? Emmarade (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Do the teams get country recognition at events other than the world championship. The world championship is fully run as country verse country so even though trade teams were present I belive those teams were representing the nation. In other events such as the Tour de France they represent the team and not the country so although the flags look nice on the pages I do not believe they are anything other than decoration. Paulpat99 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The same holds for cyclists: they represent their country in continental/world championships and their trade team in races such as the Tour de France. Is it then logical to remove all flags from the Tour de France articles? (My answer would be 'no'.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That is true, well I guess my point is mute. So I see no reason why they cannot be there. Paulpat99 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Could someone consider creating this article? He is mentioned in 2022 Tour de Pologne as the 5th place in the "Active rider classification" section. This should be sufficient merit for his own article, shouldn't it? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say no he is not notable enough to have an article, even winning that classification alone wouldn’t be notable. He hasn’t achieved anything notable in his career, unless there is a showing of general notability of him maybe in Poland news? Paulpat99 (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey all, we are having an issue where WorldTour riders are being deemed non-notable because they have not won a 1.1/2.1 race or higher. Can anyone offer suggestions or advice to handle this situation. Do stages at races of this caliber count? Is there anyway to have a look the notability and make it more realistic as riding for a WT team makes you a superstar in my country and many people know who you are. Paulpat99 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the guidelines definitely need modification. They were changed recently, not sure of there was even consensus around that, but they definitely are not well put right now and need serious modification.Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the cycling specific notability guidelines works for notability per the Wikipedia standard. If the Wikipedia was cycling specific then the notability standard could be widened. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

After more consideration and with the project having the majority of the pages as low importance stubs (14,190), I suggest that the notability standard should be tightened so that quality over quantity can be focused on and the current large backlog of edits required get dealt with. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The first of these links redirects to the second, which is an article about a cyclist born 1891. The first link appears in several articles of around that period (he won bronze at the Olympics in 1912). A couple of the articles of that period also link directly to Walden Martin. Looking at the sources for that biographical article, some have his name as Walter and some as Walden. And there are a couple of references to Walter Martin (cyclist) in articles of a much later period (c. 1959) that can't be the same person. Can anyone clarify this tangle? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris It appears they are different people, PCS has Walter Martin Dying in 2020 which if they were the same would make Walden quite old. [9]. Also Walter is Italian and Walden is American. Two separate people. Paulpat99 (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not in any doubt that they are two separate people. The problem is that the older one appears to have been known by both names, according to the sources, and the younger one (presumably exclusively Walter) has no article. So how to disentangle them? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see, well I guess you just put in the brackets (cyclist born in 1891) and (cyclist born in xxxx) Paulpat99 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic bicycle

Bookku (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I've posted some brief COI edit requests at Talk:Pan-Mass Challenge – mostly updating annual figures. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello.. I just added myself as a member of this project, because I would like to know how to move a template, because I've done almost (??) all moves related to the Quick-Step team to reflect it's new name, but don't know how to move the template Template:Cycling_data_QST to Template:Cycling_data_SOQ, so I'm writing this to ask someone to perform this move or to describe how I can do this. Tiagomagalhaes (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to WT:CYCLING, @Tiagomagalhaes! You don't need to, and indeed shouldn't, move the template. The whole point of these templates is that as and when the team name changes, you just add a new entry to the template. That way, all articles referring to this template will always show the correct name. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kiwipete if you have a look at the page history, if the UCI code is changed then yes we move the page to the new code. @Tiagomagalhaes This must be done at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and you must have a source linked showing the new UCI code. Comment This means that as an example both RAB (Team Jumbo–Visma) and TJV (Team Jumbo–Visma) both give the same team if used with 2022 as the year. This is to ease usage in races so we don't have to hunt around for the code. If this was the case then MOV might still be BAN for Banesto or REY for Reynolds. Paulpat99 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

But the template has been moved 6 times in the template's history and the current one's not even the original name Tiagomagalhaes (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Islamic bicycle—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There are several articles that include "–Rundfahrt" in the title, where I believe the endash should be converted to a simple space. The endash is usually used to connect two destinations (as in Paris–Tours), but Rundfahrt is a description, not a destination. These are:

• Bayern–Rundfahrt --> Bayern Rundfahrt
• Niedersachsen–Rundfahrt --> Niedersachsen Rundfahrt
• Brandenburg–Rundfahrt --> Brandenburg Rundfahrt

Also,

• Rheinland–Pfalz Rundfahrt --> Rheinland-Pfalz Rundfahrt (correcting endash to hyphen in Rheinland-Pfalz)

Also,

• Circuit Franco–Belge --> Circuit Franco-Belge ("Franco" is a combining form, so hyphen should be used, per WP:ENDASH)

Any comments? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

As part of my WP France assessment drive I've come across various old articles such as 2002 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 10, 2004 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 9, 2005 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11 (and I'm sure there's others from around the same time) which look like they date from the early days of Wikipedia when enthusiasm was valued more than modern standards of referencing. That means they take the form of stage-by-stage writeups with minimal WP:REFERENCES. Would someone with more experience of cycling articles care to take a look? Cheers. (and ping @El Sandifer: and @Penwhale: who look like they were involved with those articles among others) FlagSteward (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what happened. I remember writing these up during the Tour those years, and I was basically just writing recaps off of that day's coverage on TV and cyclingnews.com. So they were referenced to what happened at the time, and you could probably dig up the cyclingnews.com coverage for any given stage, slap it on as a reference, and have an accurately sourced paragraph, but yeah, I don't think WP:CITE even existed yet. El Sandifer (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I found that Draft of German Cyclist Per Christian Münstermann. Can someone publish that Page? He already got a Page in German, French and Spanish. English is still missing. 94.121.173.168 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting attention @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic bicycle (2nd nomination)

Bookku (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

All of these year-specific articles (from 1932 GP Ouest–France to 2022 Bretagne Classic Ouest–France) have an endash in the title, but it seems to me that this should be a hyphen, as Ouest-France is just a hypenated noun, not a bridge between two equal components. Any comments? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)