Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 5

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.

Great Ohio Bicycle Adventure (via WP:PROD on 8 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing a bit of work on medal tables recently and I noticed how many are incomplete. Many have been started with Olympic medals but don't show medals in world championships. I was wondering just how many medals we should show in these tables. I think there is little argument in including Olympic medals and medals in senior world championships. I think we should include all medals given out with the senior world championships - so that if an event also covers under-23 and junior, these medals should also be included. I would also like to see medals from multi-sport events such as the Pan-American Games, Commonwealth Games and Asian Games—there are however lots of these so maybe there should be a second criteria on them. I'm not so sure, and tend to shy away from, continental championships. I think that national championships should definitely not be included. Severo^TC 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include all world championship medals, olympic medals and medals from multi-sports events. Medals from continental championships & national championships shouldn't be included, but that's just my opinion!! Mango101 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this topic meets the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. I know that Alleycat races have been the subject of several films. The most popular are Lucas Brunelle's videos, which have several thousand views on youtube. Mr Brunelle's videos have also had large audiences (100s at different screenings), at various Bicycle Film Festivals. Alleycats have been the subject of several dozen media 'life-style' articles. But does this make Alleycats notable? Should the article be deleted?

I would like some help with this. This article needs substantial improvement, but I am not willing to take it further without guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalo Bill (talk • contribs) 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article Portable bicycle could use some attention from competent editors. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The UCI has already updated the databases of the teams with the riders/staff for most of the teams (17 UCIProTour teams so far). Here is the link. And the cycling website cyclingnews.com recently published the rosters : 2008 Teams Database. I think we should begin updating the teams. Regards.--Drunt (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, just be wary the UCI often gets things wrong (such as identifying William Walker and Robert Gesink as neo-professional riders). Severo^TC 12:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy cr**! Team High Road wasn't exactly a piece of cake.--Drunt (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merlin (bicycles) (via WP:PROD on 3 January 2008)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Other bicycle manufacturers have Wikipedia pages. Merlin is a notable enough bicycle brand that I would think the article should be imporved instead of deleted. --dmp (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was recently editing the story of Albert Richter, and found that we're missing any record of the world track cycling championships prior to 1958, and its pretty spotty even that far back. I'm going to start fixing this up, and converting the layout to match UCI Track World Championships, Women. For a while I'll be reformatting tables offline, rather than editing the pages, since theres a ton of data, should get something up this weekend. Any comments or suggestions welcome. --Bazzargh (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was working on this a bit through December. Take a look at UCI Track Cycling World Championships. I've been deprecating the information at UCI Track World Championships, Men because there's a few problems with it, namely how much information is being displayed on that single page. Also, when that page was made, there was no information relating to each event, which we have now started and will definitely be keeping up for the 2008 UCI Track Cycling World Championships. Anyway I've been creating separate pages for each event so the medalists can be properly recorded. This is how far I've got:

And all this just for current events! Anyway, I think there's a lot of work here, so all help is great! Severo^TC 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. The UCI archives go back waaay further than those though, and I'm a programmer so its easier for me to massage the data in different ways offline rather than make individual edits; pulling in the corrections people have made to the UCI results here too. As well as the split you have there, I was thinking of generating a (big) page with palmares for each rider, so they can be easily copied into bios, putting this in subpages of my user page to begin with rather than creating hundreds of non-notable stubs. Anyway, talk is cheap; I'll be back with something to look at. --Bazzargh (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you found a way into the UCI archives online? I can never find my way around their site, I always get lost somewhere so have to rely upon third party websites! Severo^TC 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see the ref on the Albert Richter page. And yes, they are ridiculously hard to find. --Bazzargh (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Something I noticed today, up until 1996, the track worlds and the road worlds were always held in the same country. Is there more to this, such as were they held at the same time? Or were they awarded as a package? How did it work? Severo^TC 01:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Template talk:Infobox Cyclist—please reply there.

Current fashion is not to have flags in infoboxes. Here, we have a nationality field which typically used a flag, which is being replaced by some editors to just say the country name. This brings up the question as to whether its better to have a nationality field or a place of birth field, or both (for when nationality is not the same as place of birth). Thoughts? Severo^TC 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some substantial edits to the Grand Tours article over the past week or so and I believe it is no longer a stub-class article. Any improvements and comments are welcome. Anurag Garg (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the proper way to enrich/improve the article at Warm Showers ?

Roger Gravel (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to get it off the ground so it's not deleted, you need to provide some reliable third-party sources about it that help to assert its significance. For help after that, take a look at Wikipedia:Article development. Regards, Severo^TC 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a few recently created templates you might be interested in.

• {{Infobox Hill climb}}—the infobox for articles about climbs used by cyclists or in cycle racing
• {{Cyclingwebsite}}—provides a standardised link to biography pages at http://www.cyclingwebsite.net

Also, note {{Official}} which, although not a new template, provides a useful standardised way to link to official websites.

Happy editing! Severo^TC 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When I created the {{Infobox Hill climb}} I was thinking about Murs/Walls and hills. For mountain climbs like Passo del Mortirolo and Angliru the {{Infobox Mountain pass}} could be used. The problem is that the last one needs to be improved... And maybe both Murs and big mountains should use the same template? But then the name 'mountain pass' couldn't be used for climbs like Alpe d'Huez (mountain climb instead of mountain pass?). Oh, and thanks for the cyclingwebsite template.--Drunt (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not really sure about what to use for steeper climbs, because those articles usually have information unrelated to cycling so perhaps working on {{Infobox Mountain pass}} is best. I say if no one from the Mountains project wants to help us out (and we have requested their input) then we just go ahead and change it. The other thing about bigger climbs is there is often more than one approach. Regards, Severo^TC 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally got round to making one for each edition of a cycling race (i.e. 2006 Tour of Antartica etc), at {{Infobox Cycling race report}}. I haven't put it into articles yet as I'm not sure about any additional fields or maybe too many already? I also have a couple of ideas on some technical aspects (image sizing and date spans) which I need to do a little bit of work at. Happy editing! Severo^TC 17:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok. I'm not sure about the Weather one(what about grand tours?). Most stage races also have a classification for teams. Other also have their own competitions like Combination Classification(Vuelta/Dauphine) and Sprints(with or without the Points one). The last time I checked all ProTour races were limited to 4 different jerseys, so with the 'Team competition' we would always have 5 classifications. I think we should include all the competitions with a jersey and the team one(leaving out the 'most combative' and the endless list of Giro d'Italia competitions). Maybe we could also use a black line between 'Winner, Second, Third' and the other jersey competitions(like the one used at the bottom of the 'caption' in {{Infobox Hill climb}}). I hope you understand me!--Drunt (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning for weather was for races like Paris-Roubaix, but as I can't see it being extended to perhaps any other race, then it will probably be best removed. Nice idea about the line to separate the classifications. I was thinking of the extra classifications, but I'm not entirely sure, as the last thing it needs is the countless classifications some races (i.e. the Giro!) have to be added! But Sprints/Metas Volantes and Combination seems fair enough. And I did mean to put teams in first place! Another thing to think about is how to represent riders in those fields. The Formula 1 race report infobox has a nice idea. Flagicon next to the name, then the team name in small (we could change the infobox to have fields of {{{winner}}} and {{{winner_team}}} to facilitate this), like: Tom Boonen Quick Step. A further thing to think about is how well it can be used in other disciplines e.g. cyclo-cross and mountain bike. Anyway that's enough of my rambling for now :) Severo^TC 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry to keep blabbering on, but I have one more comment. I'm looking at a way to convert the distance from km to miles or vice-versa automatically, so you would type km=131 and the output would be 131 km (81.4 miles). But I'm still looking at how to manipulate {{convert}} for that. Severo^TC 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could add the weather category now in the template (and show it on Usage for one-day races). It's not as important as in Formula1 but last year it proved to be decisive in Roubaix... The way you display the rider name and the team looks great but maybe the team name should be aligned to the right. And that black line after the 'Winner, Second, Third' doesn't fit for one-day races. Any idea on how to avoid the line being displayed? Regarding other disciplines I have no idea, probably the template could be used as in one-day races. And I have no idea of how wikipedia code exactly works to answer you about the conversion from miles to km. I think that's all!--Drunt (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done the automatic conversion, you just have to enter in a different field that units (e.g. |distance=52 |unit=km gives... 52 km (32 mi)). I have an idea about the line... if you enter "|stages=1", then I think I can make it so that it doesn't show up how many stages (because it doesn't need to), but if you enter that then the line will disappear (but I haven't played around with that yet). There's another option on that to add something after the bar which always shows up. I was thinking of adding a small text line above the photo maybe saying what competition it was part of and perhaps a round number (which matters say in World Cup races), similar to the F1 infobox (e.g. [2007] UCI ProTour). With the weather, does it matter for any other race? Maybe condition would be more appropriate? I'm not sure about it! In Roubaix, the weather should be generally noted in the lead (I'm not saying it is, but ideally...). Severo^TC 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented all of the above, entering |stages=1 makes the line disappear. I think it's just about there, maybe a few cosmetic things to play with. Severo^TC 12:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we could do something pretty neat with this about current events to. It could automatically place a {{current sport}} banner at the top of the page, and we could update the list of leaders after every stage so they appeared in the infobox. Or is this making it all too complex? Severo^TC 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Too complex and probably too much work for us! For events like ProTour it could useful because the rankings aren't updated every day, but for a stage race it's just too much work updating it every day.--Drunt (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Two more ideas for this template: the winner's time (and average speed), and; the start and finish locations. Severo^TC 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. If you know how to display average speed automatically...--Drunt (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to work that one out :) Severo^TC 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a deletion discussion on the article Tarck bike at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarck bike. Please weigh in there if this is a real topic that deserves its own article or at least explain what this topic is so that others can decide if it should have an article. Thank you! Royalbroil 13:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't heard yet, Sheldon Brown died yesterday. The layout of Portal:Cycling doesn't seem to have a news section, so I'm not sure where else to put it. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we are 1 article short of reaching the benchmark of 5000 articles for this project! (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Assessment) Unfortunately we have an important lack of quality articles! Regards--Drunt (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest count puts it at 5018, with another 750 or so non-article pages (i.e. templates, categories and so on). Severo^TC 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The categories for 'year in cycling' are named 'year in cycle racing'. Shouldn't it just be 'cycling' instead of 'cycle racing'?--Jeff79 (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the categories refer specifically to cycling racing and not cycling in general. So the naming is correct. Will.law (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why there shouldn't be a Cat:xxxx in cycling', but I doubt there would be many articles to fill each year? Severo^TC 11:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cycling is cycling. When is it not a race?--Jeff79 (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When it's utility cycling or recreational cycling. These aren't races. Severo^TC 09:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So that's your argument for not calling the categories "XXXX in cycling"? Because maybe there's a need to differentiate between the year in recreational cycling, the year utility cycling and the year in cycle racing? I understand that in the olympics it's called cycling. In fact I don't think there's a world organising body that doesn't refer to the sport as 'cycling' so you're kinda on your own here aren't you?--Jeff79 (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to get stressed here. If you wish to propose Category:Years in cycle racing be moved to Category:Years in cycling then you will need to build consensus and you need to take it to Categories for discussion where I and I'm sure many others will be happy to discuss this. Severo^TC 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a stub on this, mainly because I had a reasonable photograph. Not sure about the importance of this, does it deserve an article?

• I think it is historical, in London at least - no sign of any activity since 2006.
• The white bicycle thing is a powerful image which I think is worth recording even it was short-lived.
• I couldn't think of an existing article where it would fit in.
• I'm not qualified to write about the Seattle original but that needs covering to make a half decent article.

Views/contributions? ProfDEH (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already an article at Ghost bike. I'd suggest merging it there. --Vclaw (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't find that - will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfDEH (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Severo deleted the word "fringe". What's wrong with calling Ghostbike a fringe organisation? My point was it's not exactly the London Cycling Campaign, unlikely more than a few people are actively involved. This is a minor element of cycling subculture and the article needs to make this clear. Any more information to clarify? ProfDEH (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to ask this question everywhere - keep it on the relevant talk page. I will reply there. Severo^TC 09:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the Moots Cycles article had been deleted due to inadequate demonstration of notability, so I started a new article with lots of refs to establish it as notable. Any help with this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! Fbagatelleblack (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is permissible to add a link to the company website http://www.moots.com

Could you explain more what is special about the company - to what extent they are hand built, unusual or especially well thought out features. Are they exceptionally expensive? Who buys them? Maybe if you email them they would provide a photo.

ProfDEH (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

there are currently 11 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there's no entry for Ardennes classics. Shouldn't we have a page? Smilo Don (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. The classic cycle races article is also rather poor.Drunt (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Classic cycle races has a too loose definition. Ardennes classics or maybe Ardennes classic cycle races does have a much clearer definition. Be bold! Severo^TC 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe for now a subsection of Classic cycle races. Smilo Don (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

When it gets big enough, we can always spin it out for its own article. Severo^TC 14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is something fundamentally wrong with the explanations of stability at Bicycle and Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics. As anyone learning to ride a bicycle knows, you can have the easiest, most self-steering bicycle in existence and you will still fall off. The initial tendency is to make large steering adjustments which induce wobble. After a painful learning process, you discover the knack of making small adjustments, and once that becomes a reflex, the experience of riding is just the same as if the bike stays upright on its own.

The way a bike stays upright is by making constant small corrections. I'm not a physicist but dynamic instability is the term that comes to mind - possibly dynamic equilibrium (neither has a Wiki entry that is remotely relevant here). It is highly misleading to suggest that some bikes are self stabilising. Until you get into the realms of powered computer-controlled systems, e.g. Segway, this is simply not true. Yes, a lot of rake increases stability but it does not eliminate the need for corrections.

There is some similarity with the way a car is steered, but with the added requirement to stay upright.

There is an interesting essay on the subject, here How two bike mechanics taught the human race to fly

Any views on this please, before I consider editing anything. ProfDEH (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Look for response on Talk:Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics -AndrewDressel (talk)

Hi
I'm a franch user. I wanted to let you know that I uploaded pictures from the Four Days of Dunkirk. You can find it here on Commons. There will be new ones in the next hours. fr:User:Vlaam/82.127.188.201 (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the quality is superb.Drunt (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, they're great! Severo^TC 20:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The (new) Surly Bikes article has been tagged, apparently in need of more verifiability and to defend its notability. There's currently some background info, a head badge image, some notable products (which alone, I thought might put make Surly worthy of mention, but that's my opinion), and some references to third party sources. Apparently this isn't enough, so if anyone wants to take a quick look and maybe contribute something I think we could have a stronger stub in no time! Cheers! --Ds13 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Have expanded the article referencing a few sources I knew of, a quick google also revealed some very useful info. It's difficult to establish the notability (to wikipedia standards - otherwise it's notability is unquestionable) of a culture which prides itself on NOT being mainstream!! Thaf (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribs. I'd like to hear others' support or criticisms of this company being worthy of note. There are product innovations and cultural/trend influences that I think we have sufficiently made verifiable now. --Ds13 (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is almost completely incomprehensible unless you already know what all this is about. Worth persevering though. The brand is well known in serious cycling circles - most good bike shops will have something Surly on offer, even in the UK - and their frames are definitely innovative. ProfDEH (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A discussion has developed at the 2008 Giro d'Italia talk page concerning how riders leading classifications should be shaded in stage results tables. We currently don't have an accepted form between two styles, namely whether the leader of the classification either during the stage or following the stage, should be shaded. My thought is the stage results should record how the leader of the classification during (rather than following) the stage fared. Severo^TC 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I pass Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2008-Jan-UCI on to you to deal with as you like. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This article was just created and I was just wondering if riders at this level are generally considered to be notable - will there be more relibale sources avaialble with which to verify the article? Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Segregated cycle facilities could use some help; there is confusion re what is a segregated cycle facility. --Una Smith (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Cycling Project, although I've done quite a bit of courtesy tagging for you guys via the Italy Project. Just thought I'd alert you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Banner standardisation, which proposes having all Project banners at the form "WikiProject xxxxx". Which {{WikiProject Cycling}} currently prevents, as it is a userbox. Might I suggest that you think about migrating that template to something like {{User WikiProject Cycling}} (there's less than 100 people using this one, so not a big job), thus freeing up this template for {{Cycling project}} to be moved to {{WikiProject Cycling}}. Obviously that would leave a redirect in place, so nothing would get broken, but I can say from personal experience that there's several cyclist pages that I would have tagged for the Project, but didn't because the "standard" template name format didn't "work", and I really wasn't that bothered as to actually go hunting for the "right" template. Standard names are good for the Project.... PS Another thing, whilst I'm here - someone's obviously tried to clone {{Infobox Olympic Cyclist}} from {{Infobox Swimmer}} but left the original field names. Might be easier just to make a generic "Olympian" infobox based on the swimmer one, as the swimmer one rather neatly includes the current medal infoboxes. FlagSteward (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's something I noticed a while before the cited WikiProject Council page was created as it is a bit peculiar that our banner isn't fashioned {{WikiProject Foo}} like many others. I think it's worth looking into. Plus, thanks for the heads up on {{Infobox Olympic Cyclist}}. I think it would be good both to have a generic Olympian infobox and to incorporate features into our current {{Infobox Cyclist}}. I'll look into them. Cheers, Severo^TC 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject talk page banner is now at {{WikiProject Cycling}}. Severo^TC 16:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at some mountain bikers' pages today, such as Rachel Atherton. I understand that 'Palmarès' refers to a list of honours for a cyclist but in mountain biking I think this is meaningless - I can only assume it refers to track cycling or other disciplines. I think it would be more appropriate to head this section 'Honours' or 'Achievements'. I would appreciate any comments on whether its ok to depart from the template like this. the past is only the future with the lights on 09:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC) (by Cbhaf)

Palmarès is predominantly used in road bicycle racing. However, for MTB, use whatever you like and whatever sounds appropriate. Severo^TC 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep the List of teams and cyclists in the 2008 Tour de France page up to date. In the process of doing this, I've used virtually all of the 20 team pages (which include all but one of the Pro Tour teams and several Professional Continental teams. One of them (at least) has a warning that its not up to standards and so forth. They are all organized pretty differently. I'd work on that not very good page (Milram) if I had some idea what the best of the other pages is, to use as a model or if there is already a template for these pages or if some folks agree on which of the 20 is best organized and I can work from that, etc. -- which is why I'm asking here rather than on an individual team page. The Milram page has both writing/editing, information currency and organization issues, in my opinion. DocOctopus (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably about time we thought about developing a style guide for this. What are the important topics? I'd say (to get things going) sections on history, ownership, achievements, riders and staff. A lot of articles now are very listy. Team CSC Saxo Bank is the best example of a cycling team article and has the best prose but I find the lists towards the end of the article somewhat overwhelming (especially prominent past staff, for who is to say they are prominent?). Milram keeps getting re-written from a POV stance by anon IPs which makes it a difficult article to deal with (unless there is obvious copyright violation...) Severo^TC 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Very listy is putting it mildly on some of them. I agree that Team CSC Saxo Bank is a good one among these 20 or so (I haven't looked at Astana yet since I've been focusing on the 2008 Tour de France). Prominent past staff, if they are really prominent, will be mentioned in the history section, no? (Ah, well, now I know why the Milram article is so poorly written. It's clearly the worst.) To add to your list: history, ownership, results (achievements), riders and staff, team equipment. Lots of folks who follow professional cycling like to know info like team equipment. I'd like to see the results organized in some sensible way. There's no reason to have a section for "major" results and another section for other results as some team pages have; others just have a list or a table of "notable wins." The results for a given year can just be listed and a column in the table can show what level the race is (using UCI codes) - and some text for past years that sums up the year's achievements. The (current) riders and staff section, most of which are just tables, could also include some text about the general makeup and such (some teams aim to represent a country, some particularly support young riders, some go for diversity in citizenship and so forth). Ok, I'll stop rambling. I just think with the 2008 Tour de France a week away, these pages will get used a lot. DocOctopus (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about prominent past staff - a well written history will already tell the reader about them and why they are important. I think you raise a good point about listing victories. In developing a strategy here, should lesser placings be noted as well, for example finishing on the podium of the Tour is a more impressive result than winning the Tour of Benelux (nothing against it, it's just not as good). In noting the UCI code we'll have to be careful - it's a little bit too "in-universe": for people unfamiliar with the UCI and so on, it's confusing. We could add a standard key to such tables, which could provide a compromise there. Severo^TC 17:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A podium place on a grand tour is definitely worth listing. Perhaps podium on other stage races (say Tours of Switzerland, California, etc?), as well? Are those important enough (they are 7 to 9 stage races, mostly, I think)? I agree, the UCI codes don't have to be used per se (to minimize jargon confusion), but they are good indicators of the level of the race, for sure. Winning a national championship race should also be noted, I think. What about winning a mountains/youth/sprint jersey? For example, Mauricio Soler's mountains jersey in the 2007 Tour de France was certainly a big deal, even though he wasn't on the podium. Now, here's another question: Is the discussion limited to only the men's parts of the teams. Team Columbia nee High Road, for example, is both a male and female team and both genders have performed well. That's not true of all teams, of course, but it's an oddity that will need addressing. DocOctopus (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)