Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

We don't need this, do we? Categories for individual teams grow to be unmaintainable and meaningless, especially if the team changes names (I recall a Category:T-Mobile Team existing just last year before I had it deleted). OK to CFD this? I seem to recall past instances of similar categories being the very reason the team roster templates came into existence. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem? It is (was) only populated by the template of current team members. It isn't clear why Category:T-Mobile Team was deleted beyond it being empty. Adambro (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

From memory, Category:T-Mobile Team had three pages in it when I found it - Jan Ullrich, Michael Rogers, and Michael Barry (cyclist). Aside from any concerns about manintanability, there's just no functionality to a category hardcoded into a template. It's redundant. The template also shows only current team members, and allows navigation among them. While I guess it's true that hardcoding the category into the template addresses concerns over manintanability, I'm just not seeing why it's necessary, either. What other pages, beyond the article for the team itself, and their seasons, would go there? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A category that is no more than an alternative presentation of a squad template is indeed of little use. There are, however, categories that gather together all the players that have been part of a team at any time in its history in many sports: might this be of use? Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be open to that, though for certain riders it would mean a great deal of new categories. Presumably, there would be categories for each team name, not just each team, such as, say, Category:Phoenix Cardinals players and Category:Arizona Cardinals players are separate for the same NFL team (Category:Chicago Cardinals players for that matter). If we're okay with having the Lotto and Columbia riders in at least a half a dozen new categories, I don't see any problem with this. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not advise this option, because I think it would be overcategorisation (I hope this is the correct word). I would be in favor of removing all these categories. But this reply will probably be the last action I take with regard to these categories, so you won't offend me if you keep them ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be too far outside wp:commonname to have the category as the sports compamy rather than the sponsored team name (eg Riis racing as opposed to CSC/SaxoBank/whoever it might be next year)? The category lead could list the sponsored names. Kevin McE (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would really hate to do this, as I think removal would reflect an incomplete picture of the race being run. Leading the classification at the end of the day is no more important than wearing the jersey during the stage. It might even be less - do Egoi Martínez' team and its sponsors care more that he had the most points in the mountains classification for a few days, or that he got to wear a special jersey which meant he, and the team, would be the focus of many photographs. Furthermore, if we are to say that caretaker wearers are of no real significance, then I think the other jerseys' preliminary wearers, except maybe the leading GC jersey (and even then maybe only the yellow jersey in the Tour), are of no significance. Jussi Veikkanen was in the breakaway and was the first over a couple of hills in one road stage...so what? He and his team and his sponsors benefited like Martínez', but the significance stops there. I really think the significances of jersey-wearing-but-not-jersey-winning for these two is every bit the same as it is for, say, Amets Txurruka.

The reason I bring this up is because it's been suggested by an outside reviewer, again. And I think some here have expressed a desire to do away with these sections, too. So let's have the discussion. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While I can see some argument for retaining it ("How come I've seen a picture of Bradley Wiggins in green?"), my preference would be to ditch it: we are compiling an encyclopaedia, not a day by day race guide for followers. Even if Wiggins' CV were rather more modest than it is, it would be unlikely to claim "wore points leader's jersey on stage 2 of 2009 Tour": that was more a bronze medal for stage 1 than it was a points leaders jersey.

But if we are going to retain the section, can we please, for reasons of readability, revert to the bulleted list rather than a paragraph of prose. Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the bulleted list was specifically said to be contrary to the MOS. A caretaker wearer isn't necessarily significant in the context of that rider, though it could bear mentioning in article prose (it would be far more apparent to mention for Txurruka than for Wiggins). I think knowing who wears the special jerseys each day is part of the charm and appeal of cycling, and it would be a gap if it were removed. There is, however, an option I hadn't previously considered – ditch the section below the table, but mention in prose for each stage when this happens (Di Luca ended the day as the general classification leader and wore the pink jersey in the next stage; since he also continued to lead the mountains classification, the second-placed rider Menchov wore the green jersey in stage 6. and so forth) Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm intrigued as to how the bulleted list is contrary to MoS: I think that sometimes driveby comments on reviews are treated as if they are the final word on an issue, a status they rarely deserve. I think that an inclusion that is based on readership at the time of the race, rather than for posterity, would fail scrutiny as to whether it is encyclopaedic rather than a race guide (an argument I have made before in relation to wearers of national champions' jerseys). I'd have no objection to including it in the stage descriptions: what I really dislike is the paragraph of what is essentially number and name data in prose, which is tortuous to read and even more so to write without continually repeating phrases (no disrespect to the author: Shakespeare would quail at the task). Kevin McE (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend not to treat the word of one reviewer as gospel, but if two or more are saying the same thing, I generally think they know what they're talking about. On the latest PR for 2009 Giro d'Italia, the reviewer has told me to list authors in citations as Last, First rather than First Last. I think that's probably just his preference, and that as long as I'm consistent it doesn't make a difference. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in one of the 2009 Giro reviews, if I can be bothered to find it. So incorporating it into the stage descriptions would seem the best option then? I'll wait shortly to see if anyone objects. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the review here? Because there it says that the bulleted list solution is the best...

I see things from a different angle: I am more interested in the earlier Tours de France, but I would like to keep the style consistent with the new races. For example, I would like the classification leadership progression of the 1953 Tour de France to be shown in the same way as the 2009 Giro d'Italia. The leaders of secondary classifications during the race are not easy to find, but they can be put there with sources. But when a rider lead both the points classification and the general classification, it seems nearly impossible to find sources that say who wore the points jersey. It looks like nobody thought in 1953 that this was important information.

Things can and will have changed since 1953, so it is not a reason not to put the information in recent articles. But if style consistency is a goal (I don't know if it is), that goal is best served by putting the information at the stage descriptions. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this really an article we need? It's woefully out of date, for one thing - it says Petacchi was cleared of doping charges from the 2007 Giro, but no, he wasn't. I just further don't see why this necessarily needs to be split from 2007 Tour de France. It was fairly remarkable for two whole teams to be removed from the race, but that's hardly all this article is about (it's got a ton of fluff) and the doping section in 2007 Tour de France is quite small. It's not that this a poorly written article or anything, quite the opposite, I'm just not seeing the notability over doping cases in any other years, of which sadly there are many. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One idea occurs to me after the first ProTour result of the season - should we separate criteriums from traditional one-day races in the infobox at the top of the pages? Certainly, a victory in the Cancer Council Helpline Classic is nothing like a win in, say, Paris-Roubaix, but under the current way the pages are built, they'd be counted the same. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the separation is not so of criteriums (cue shudder from the last vestiges of a classical education) from those races that go from A to B, as Grand Tours/Classics over .HC over .1 over .2 races. (The Down Under Classic is not, of course, a ProTour race.) Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think, to pick random examples, that the Volta a Catalunya is less different from the Giro d'Italia than the Helpline Classic is to the cobbled classics, but that's certainly another option. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to 1903 Tour de France talk page. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This team is no longer known by this name. It is licensed to compete in 2010, but it does not yet have a name sponsor. Odd, I know. [1] So it would seem this article should be moved...but to what? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest keep it where it is until it competes in a race, and then see what name they race under. Team High Road was the name of the sports club, not a sponsor, was it not? Kevin McE (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

UCI and cyclingnews both refer to it as Noris Cycling: I've moved it there, if only temporarily. Kevin McE (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone from this project please take a look at the article Silver Strand bikeway? I have a lot of problems with this article; it reads like a travelogue (which Wikipedia is (WP:NOTTRAVEL), is completely non-encyclopedic in its language, and has spam links. I was planning to transfer the real information into another article and then either nominate it for deletion, or blank it and make it a redirect. But I thought first I should ask advice here. Is this article within your guidelines for an article about a bikeway? Is it worth saving as an article at all? Thanks for any advice, and please reply at the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any bikeway that should be included in Wikipedia, but for some reason they are included. The Silver Strand bikeway does not even try to show that it is notable, so I would advise to stop trying to save this article. But maybe I could learn something about why bikeways can be notable. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Interesting that you say that - that there are few or no bikeways that should be included in Wikipedia. I came across this article kind of by accident because I edit/monitor stuff about San Diego. It turns out there is actually a category, Category:Bike paths in San Diego, California. The category lists a total of three bike paths, and the other two - Mission Bay bike path and San Luis Rey River bike path - suffer exactly the same problems: nothing to show notability, no references, and written like a travel guide or a how-to article. Do you think I should nominate all three for deletion? Oh, and there is also a list, List of San Diego bike paths.

And wow, here is a much bigger list, List of Los Angeles bike paths - including 20 or more paths with wikilinks. So I don't think I'll try to save the world in this case; I think I'll just stick to cleaning up San Diego! But I will wait a few days to see if anyone else chimes in. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Kill it with fire. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent Arroyo Seco bicycle path (a different bicycle path article in a bad state) to AfD, to see what happens. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that page was created using the same template as all the others. They were all created in 2005 by one User:Tom guyette, who was/is actually a member of WikiProject Cycling (and who posted his template on this page for discussion back then). He has not been active recently.

I was thinking of PRODding the Silver Strand article (after transferring any useful information somewhere else) but I'll wait and see the response to your AfD. See if these pages have any fans or readers at all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has WikiProject Roads, WikiProject Bridges, and WikiProject Schools. Items of named infrastructure like roads, bridges, and schools are uncontroversially notable, despite not being especially interesting to most people. It is unfortunate that the original author of these bike path articles incorrectly assumed that usefulness is sufficient and failed to adequately defend his work against deletion by providing sources, but that is a problem we could repair if we took a constructive rather than destructive approach. --Teratornis (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I updated the {{Palmares start}}-template, such that a source can be added. I think it increases the verifiability of the project, so I would advise everybody to use it. I am not really a big fan of how it looks, so if you think you can improve on the looks of that source option, go ahead. -_EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So i like to use cqranking.com as my primary source for results when doing them on a retroactive basis so i would just put a link to the particular's years page for the cyclist from cqranking? Phil Nolte (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess to the cyclist's main page would be best.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

...a near-total rewrite of Giro d'Italia? I'm trying to make a featured topic out of Giro d'Italia (I'm, like, 2% of the way there after three or four months, so it's a looooong-term goal). What I'd like to have as the article for the race itself would bear little resemblance to the current state of the article. I could whip something up in the userspace first. Either way, I'm not going to get to this until the Olympics are over. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I would not mind, improvements are always welcome. Maybe userspace is best for the first unfinished version, but I think it won't take you long to have a version that's better than the current one, and then the main space is the best option. By the way: your idea of making the Giro a FT inspired me to add the goal to make the Tour a GT. Currently I am at 0% of the way there, so you are "winning"! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this – that's excellent! Now we just need someone to take up the Vuelta :P Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am putting together a list of sourced professional races on User:EdgeNavidad/Professional. The idea behind this is that someday it can be used to see which races should be included in a cyclist's palmares. I don't know if I can finish it and ever make it into something useful, but it's a start. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yo, I'm new, I'd like to get involved in cleaning some stuff up, getting the research done etc... where should I start, and who's up for newbie watching :P Megodbike (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You could take a look at Category:Stub-Class cycling articles, and pick an article that you like to improve. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

haha... 4xxx articles... I'll pick the Tour du Maroc then... great place Morocco :) Megodbike (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the Tour du Maroc is almost unresearchable... started on early classics :) btw, how do we decide to promote pages to Start class? Megodbike (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Early classics are a good place to start =) If you wonder how to decide between the classes, take a look at the quality scale. Although Tour de France is a stage race, it might be profitable for you to look at ~its 1903-edition, which EdgeNavidad has been working on lately. It is in the process of being a Good Article, so it would be something to reach for, with respect to the limited references found on early races. lil2mas (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just been editing 1896 Paris–Roubaix and 1907 Milan – San Remo... I am willing to start working on subsequent years, as the template at the bottom of both pages suggests that we want to fill all the years. What's the consensus on whether that's encyclopaedic? Megodbike (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, those both have the makings of nice articles. Just don't write one-sentence "articles" like this one or articles consisting of little other than a table, like this one. That's more just a personal preference of mine, since some people (clearly) believe that uber-stublets are just fine, but that's only the case if they eventually do become articles of greater substance. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur... I'll do my best :) Megodbike (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

After trying to do something with the 1927 article, I've found that being able to find a decent amount of information on the race is the exception not the rule, I guess there will be interesting (or more modern) editions that can have more of an article Megodbike (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There isn't enough information or enough to say of interest for most editions of single day races to warrant more than a stub on them, so maybe grouping together editions in periods or decades would make a good series of articles. Megodbike (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There will be enough information for nearly all of them, but in offline and perhaps non-English sources (the archives of L'Équipe, for example). I'm not sure that putting say five editions together serves any more useful purpose than having the same information spread across five articles, but then I am of the opinion that some information in a stub article is better than no information in a non-existent article. Severo^TC 14:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If all that would be present on an article like 1909 Paris–Roubaix is "The 1909 Paris–Roubaix was won by Octave Lapize." we don't need a separate article for that. That's already present on Paris–Roubaix itself. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And there also wouldn't be a need to merge five articles like that into one for the same reason. Severo^TC 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to do that. Surely you're not disputing why that information is present on Paris–Roubaix? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I was disagreeing with the idea that maybe grouping together editions in periods or decades would make a good series of articles as suggested above as if the only information used is like in your example, there's no point in creating either specific year articles or articles on decade groups. Severo^TC 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I did miss where Megodbike said that, yes. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, I'm not sure where I stand when it comes to stubs like that... Now for the train to paris to break into L'Equipes articles :)... There definitely isn't enough online sources, and I don't have the resources to find all the offline sources Megodbike (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like there's nobody checking this talk page, so I'm just posting a link here if anyone could fix it? Thanks, in advance. lil2mas (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Sorry that I missed it before! Severo^TC 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Severo! =) Looks good now... lil2mas (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried something different with the career results of Francesco Ginanni with a sortable table with dates, placing, race name etc. The listing by bullet-point of results isn't really effective as it doesn't give much information on what results are good and where, and they don't allow like races (say, all races in Belgium) to be put together. I think a sortable table is the best solution to this but I don't know if the one I have created here has enough or maybe too much information! What do you think of this table? Severo^TC 22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

First comments: I can understand the need for the country column, but does the 'location' column give necessary information? Secondly, the 'Rating' heading should be linked to something, I thought there was an article somewhere about these rating but I can not find it right now.

And my feelings: I think we really should do something like this. But honestly, the table looks amateurish like now. Probably it is because it is new, and I first have to get used to it to like it. I think the main problem is the large number of columns. I would try to combine the third and fourth (nameless and "Race"), the fifth and sixth ("Country" and "Location") and the seventh and eighth ("Competition" and "Racing"). I know that something is lost then, but for me it would be enough information while still compact.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Solid concept, but it seems a bit much. I don't really like the nameless column. It would go just fine with the "Race" column, like I do with the team season articles. And I continue to believe that second in an individual stage of a stage race is not a notable result. Having the "Location" column itself be sortable doesn't seem to serve much purpose, but it would really work if you could combine the "Location" and "Country" columns and have them still sort by nation. Just a thought. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the table in a way that pleases me. What do you think of it? Just revert it if you hate it! ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I started a page on cycling notability, based on the one from the WikiProject Football. I tried not to write down my opinion, but to base it on the rules of professionalism. (Notable cyclist should have "competed at the fully professional level" (WP:ATHLETE), and I assumed this transfers to teams and races. As the header at the top shows, it is not a policy or guideline, but it might be useful to determine which biographical stubs (those are the largest problem of this project, I think) are not needed. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Our project's fourth (really, third, because did any of us have anything to do with McDonald's Cycle Center?) FA, it may be a useful template for future articles (or revisions on existent articles) for individual editions of the Grand Tours.

And were it not for Tirreno-Adriatico starting tomorrow, I'd probably be going for a short break, too, but I'm gonna get to see that race firsthand, so that won't be an option ;p Next step is to get it on the main page - something tells me May 8 would be a good day for it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations :) Megodbike (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This'll be the third and last time I try bringing this up, since no one has seemed to want to discuss this. Both of these teams have said they are brand new teams. Both of these teams have obvious antecedents to 'defunct' teams from last season, and their licenses are held by the same people. We moved CSF Group-Navigare to Colnago-CSF Inox (but did nothing else with it! The lead still says CSF Group-Navigare is...), but we did not move LPR Brakes-Farnese Vini to De Rosa-Stac Plastic. I'm curious as to why. If there's a good reason, I'll go ahead and update Colnago-CSF Inox further, but I've held back on doing that for just this reason. They claim to be a new team - what's our basis for saying they aren't? What's our basis for saying that De Rosa-Stac Plastic is a new team (as no article yet exists for them)? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the team pages on the UCI site (which ought to be fairly authoritative), LPR was run by BF Cycling Management Ltd of 35 Central Chambers, Dublin 2, and De Rosa is under the auspices of California Sport Ltd of Lombard Street East, Dublin 2. The rise of one may have been dependent on the fall of the other, but that seems no less a new set up than, for example, Katusha emerging whence Tinkoff had been. By the same token, Colnago management (Aster Sport ltd) have changed address, but retain the same website and phone number (even though the website has no 2010 update on it), so that does appear to be no more than a rebranding with a new sponsor. Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense, but how did we decide that Katusha was necessarily distinct from Tinkoff, for that matter? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I had only mentioned it in passing as an example, but it passes the same test; Tinkoff 2008 was run by Tinkoff Sport Management SRL of Calendasco in Italy: Katusha 2009 by Katusha Management SA of Geneva, Switzerland (which raises the question of why it is considered a Russian team). Kevin McE (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The UCI website considers Katusha Russian (they also considered LPR Brakes and CSF Group Navigare to be Irish, so this is what we go by, isn't it?). I suppose I won't press the matter further, but Colnago-CSF Inox seriously needs to be updated. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My aside was not wondering why we report Katusha as Russian, but why the UCI does, as a company in Switzerland is, presumably, outwith the jurisdiction of the Russian cycling federation. The Dublin addresses of the management companies involved makes the Irish registration of LPR and CSF perfectly logocal. Kevin McE (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rule 2.15.051:

The nationality of the UCI ProTeam is determined, at the UCI ProTeam’s choice, by:

1) The country of the registered office of the paying agent; or

2) The country of the registered office of the holder of the licence; or

3) A country where a product or service is marketed by the or a main sponsor under the name of

the UCI ProTeam or of a component of this name.

Katusha will fall under 3) I guess? Professional Continental teams have a slightly different criteria. Rule 2.16.007:

The nationality of the professional continental team shall be determined by the country of the registered offices or professional domicile of the paying agent.

Severo^TC 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: that makes sense of it, although I wasn't aware that people in Russia or Kazakhstan can go out and buy the products called, or made by a company called, Katusha or Astana. I guess money talks, and the name of an umbrella organisation whose members have products is taken as incorporating all the companies under that umbrella. Kevin McE (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

After much discussion, I split Electric bicycle off from the Motorized bicycle article. With more than 100,000,000 million ebikes in use world wide, editor consensus favored giving them an article of their own. Now, how do I relink the new article to WikiProject Cycling? Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You do that by adding {{WikiProject Cycling}} on the talk page, I added it for you. Good luck with the article! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I shudder to think how many we have. The majority can be jettisoned and no one will miss them. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is up to your project how you handle unreferenced BLPs. I show no unreferenced BLPs on the list right now, but that maybe a problem with entering info for the bot. I will check and make sure that everything is okay with your entry. thanks. Okip 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Vuelta al País Vasco#Requested move. Give 'er a look when you have a sec. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What would be an appropriate infobox for Brian Cookson? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention here that I started an AfD for Ben Jacques-Maynes, a male American road cyclist who races in a UCI Continental team. I have nothing against him or his article, but I am trying to find out whether being in a UCI continental team is considered as competing on a fully professional level, a criterium for athletes to be notable. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He is notable for three separate reasons:

1) He has won some Elite level professional races

2) He is a elite category professional cyclist

3) He is a member of a UCI registered cycling team.

Racklever (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Has there been any official (read:citable) word that they've met the UCI's license requirements? Tomorrow is the last day for their phoney baloney "temporary" ProTour license. They've gotten official invites to races later in the year, but I've not seen anything that explicitly says their license is ship-shape. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

They have apparently added another sponsor (Geox - not a name change), and their inclusion on Giro and TdF lists give the impression that they are planning for the long term, and being included in plans for the medium term. On the other hand, Vacansoleil's consolation in hearing that they had not been inited to the Tour was to be told, they claim, that they are 1st reserve. Does that suggest uncertainty over the ability to compete of one team? Kevin McE (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

[2] I guess they waited for the expiry of the temporary license to give word. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant articles updated. Kevin McE (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class cycling articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lance Armstrong#RFC on team name presentation If this is considered forum shopping, I'm sorry, but I figure people who read this talk page would like to weigh in. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are repeatedly cropping up with jersey icons. I have been ignoring them in most circumstances although correcting/deleting ones where the jersey colour is wrong. I have been reading WP:ICONDECORATION and can't see how they offer either a navigational or layout function beyond any aesthetic value, so I think as a rule we should not use jersey icons within infoboxes.

Whilst I'm on the subject on infoboxes, WP:MOSFLAG says that as a rule, flags should not be used to identify nationality in an infobox. I propose changing the use of the "Country" field in the infobox to a "Place of birth" (and also add a "Place of death" for consistency). If medals are won while representing a cycling nation, the flag would still be displayed as part of the medal table, whether that is integrated into the infobox or not.

I bring these to your attention so we can find consensus before I do any action en masse. Severo^TC 21:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the icons. The nation thing is a bit thorny - what of riders like László Bodrogi or Linda Villumsen who represent a nation other than that of their birth (and, actually, in both of these cases, previously represented their birth nations as well)? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the thinking is that by removing it from the infobox, any thorniness on the issue of nationality can be explained in the prose and I would guess would be explained in the lede in most situations. Severo^TC 11:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Have we ever reached consensus on what should/should not be included in the palmares section of a rider's article? Is there a universal rule, or is a lower threshhold of acheivement acceptable for riders with a less illustrious history? Only wins? all podiums? How far down the field is noteworthy in a Grand Tour?

Either way, posting 14th in yesterday's Amstel Gold Race on Óscar Freire's article, and a few similarly over-enthusiastic edits by Piterland have been reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For raw listings, I think we should err towards universality and less. If a lower placing is notable for a particular cyclist, then it should be explained why it is notable in the prose. However, I'm not sure what the threshold should be. Severo^TC 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ATHLETE needs to be incinerated. I'll be interested to check that out. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn. There's no consensus there. Nothing will change. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody care to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Cycling? I've put some criteria in, but I think it still needs mroe work and thoughts :) Severo^TC 15:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's too broad. Notability is not temporary, so is Cayetano Sarmiento truly and forever notable just because he's the last warm body on Garzelli's team for this year's Giro? Really? Would his article ever grow beyond a sentence or two? If it did, I think it would be as the result of actions that would more clearly establish notability themselves. I just really don't like "articles" like that for, as an example, the last warm body on Evans' team, Danilo Wyss. We don't necessarily need to link every name in every article, anyway. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that just Wikipedia:I just don't like it? I would rank competing in the Grand Tours, Monuments and World Championships at the top of the sport. If we compare the guidelines through other sports, automatic inclusion for athletes who compete here isn't particularly controversial. What I think we need to look at is competition at the level below that - a lot of editors are talking about continued participation (although a clear-cut definition of continued is very difficult to find) - and the historical element. It also strikes me that there is bias towards riders from English-speaking countries - there are lots of articles about riders from the US and UK, for example, whose achievements have not reached the heights of riding in a Grand Tour. Severo^TC 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Severo on this... lil2mas (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like one-sentence articles that never expand beyond a single sentence. Shame on me. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: We shouldn't at all focus on what subjective standards someone needs to meet in order to "merit" (or whatever) a Wikipedia article. Someone "merits" one when a decent one can be written about them. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform you: I just nominated the 1904 Tour de France article for Good Article. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

PROMOTED =) lil2mas (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Via col/Mantova doping investigation is interesting. It's certainly no Puerto, but is it perhaps notable enough for an article? It sidelined Alessandro Ballan and Mauro Santambrogio, though Santambrogio has been reinstated. It is concentrated on the Lampre team (Ballan and Santambrogio rode for Lampre last year), who refused to pre-emptively suspend their targeted riders like BMC did. Apparently, the names will be named during the Giro. The investigations date back to 2008 and suggest coordinated team doping by the Lampre team up through this year (Petacchi and Bernucci have also been targeted). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another article I'm looking into writing is one on the Coppi-Bartali rivalry. Each rider's article has a little on it, but I think a fine standalone article could be written. There's a suitable category, Category:Sports rivalries, already in existence.

And at what point, if any, will the current Floyd Landis escapades merit an article? What should become of them now? Addendums to Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel, Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team, Floyd Landis, Floyd Landis doping case, any/all of the above? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first one is doubtful. But if you can find enough sources, it is notable.

The second one, the Coppi-Bartali rivalry, is certainly worth an article.

The third one, I guess the main information should go in the Floyd Landis doping case article, with other articles linking to that. But you should just do what you feel like doing. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you only have approximately 25 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many articles about bicycle drivetrains. There are articles that discuss various drivetrain mechanisms: Derailleur gears, hub gear, Electronic Gear-Shifting System, and articles that discuss theory and usage: Bicycle gearing, gear ratio, gear inches. There are at least three articles about bicycles distinguished by their lack of gear changing mechanism. There are articles about the components of bicycle drivetrains (cogset, crankset). There are articles that don't seem to be about much of anything at all: shifters. But there is no umbrella article to tie them all together.

The mechanism articles are constantly invaded by comparisons with other mechanisms, and with theory sections that are duplications. The Bicycle gearing article threatens to bog down with info on how the principles are expresses in each and every type of mechanism. Further, the Bicycle article has no central place to send the reader for details.

I propose an umbrella article Bicycle drivetrains where there can be a central, coherent breakdown of the various mechanisms, a place for comparisons, and for relating each mech to theory. It can be considerably more detailed than is appropriate in the top-level Bicycle article. It would be analogous to Bicycle brake systems in scope, but with subtopics complex enough to warrant their own articles.

IMO the project should also make a clear statement about the proper subject matter of each of the many drivetrain articles, and if necessary rename and/or consolidate some.

I welcome your opinions. Dmforcier (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for a bicycle drivetrain article along the lines of what you describe. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started it here. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Nice start! I'll chime in as I get some free time. Dmforcier (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know if there is any newspaper/magazine archives available online (specially in English) which we can consult and use them as references for old cycling articles. For instance, I know this one in Spanish, http://www.elmundodeportivo.es/hemeroteca/ , which covers all the newspaper history, since 1906. Is there anything similar for any American/English newspaper? Specially focused in sports would be the most interesting, of course. I'm planning on working on some 70's 80's 90's articles, but without valid references it would be difficult. Thanks. Gothmog.es (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, forget it. I found List_of_online_newspaper_archives. Gothmog.es (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Electric bicycle has been much improved since it originally received its "C" rating. If an objective editor is up to the task of reviewing the article and re-rating it, if a new rating is deserved, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As a heads-up, I have nominating all the sub-categories contained within this category to be renamed from Category:Wikilish cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Wikiland. The renaming discussion can be found here. Severo^TC 00:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Judging by what Cydebot has just done to my watchlist, I might be too late, but I do find the phrase "based in" rather vague: are Sky, for example, based in England, Belgium or Italy? (from lead of article: The team is based in Manchester, with a logistics base in Belgium and an operational base in Quarrata, Italy.) Are Colnago-CSF Inox based in Ireland, or do they simply have a management team with an office there? (They don't even have an English (or Gaelic!) version of their website) Such unclarity is why we decided not to assign nationalities to teams as a matter of course. If nationality is to be used to subdivide the category, would Cycling teams registered in Fooland be more precise? Kevin McE (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I started an article on Ron Baensch, an Australian cyclist from the 1960s. I've pretty much exhausted my references and can't add much more, but if anyone can contribute further, go for it! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Matt Cooke (cyclist) has been proposed for deletion for lack of notability. I suspect he actually is notable, please look at it and decide whether you want to contest the decision. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just discovered Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject which contains pages of WikiProjects' most popular pages, updated monthly by bot. I thought that this might be a good idea for our project, to see what people are actually looking at. What do you all think? Severo^TC 16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So we have to sign up or something? Yeah, go ahead. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have just been bold but on the bot sign up page it asks where it has been discussed at Project level. Personally, I can't see how the stats could be harmful. Severo^TC 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lucas Brunelle doesn't qualify as a notable cycler, but his work filming alley cat races and international bike events should pass muster. I put together this page over in my user space, I'd like to propose moving this draft version into main article space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kate_morrigan/Lucas_Brunelle Kate morrigan (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have come across Category:Cycling road accident victims and am not sure how we should handle it. It consists of people who died while riding their bike, but often weren't notable for cycling in any other capacity. How then should it be categorised? If they aren't people who are notable for cycling, it shouldn't be in Category:Cyclists or its parent cat Category:Cycling people. But where else to put it? Severo^TC 07:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice a lack of Fabio Casartelli and Saul Raisin in the category. So is it just for people who get hit by a car or something when riding a bike? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think so, it's in the Category:Road accident victims category. For racing cyclists who die during a race there is Category:Cyclists killed while racing (although in that cat you have, for example, Tom Simpson who wasn't killed while racing). Category:Cycling road accident victims seems to contain people who aren't necessarily notable for riding a bike... Severo^TC 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now proposed that Category:Cyclists killed while racing be renamed to Category:Cyclists who died while racing. Severo^TC 16:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an easy rename. The first cat you mentioned should probably also be renamed, or maybe deleted. It's much too vague. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In a great service to poor typists like myself, the team sponsored by the French lottery have changed their name to simply FDJ. But I noticed no major announcement of the change, I simply became aware of it when I challenged the page move. Do we know from what date {{UCI team code|FDJ|2010}} should be replaced by {{UCI team code|FDJ|2010b}}? Beginning of the Tour de France? (which, by the same critewrion, is now presumably TDF) Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Answered my own: even my very rusty O level (Grade B) can cope with translating "La Française des Jeux a renouvelé pour 4 ans l’engagement de l’entreprise auprès de son équipe cycliste, candidate à une nouvelle licence Pro-Tour. Dans le prolongement de création de sa nouvelle marque commerciale, la Française des Jeux a décidé de renommer son équipe cycliste FDJ®." which was posted to the news section of the team's own site on 2nd July. Kevin McE (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a link? I tried to find a news release announcing the change and couldn't find one. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.equipecyclistefdj.fr/actualites/tour-de-france-2010-38.html 2 July notice about Tour, name change not even in the headline, but has been picked up by UCI which still has the "vini" for Lampre) and by ASO which doesn't even have Farnese for Lampre!). Kevin McE (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can go by Lampre's own site, can't we? That's why we have Footon at that title, even though everyone else in the world omits Fuji - they use it on their website. Also: [3], and unless Petacchi's jersey is the only one wrong, "Vini" has been removed. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it appeared I was being argumentative over Lampre change: that wasn't my intention. But the naming of these teams does often seem to defy scientific/legalistic levels of scrutiny for evidence sometimes, I think you'll agree. There are so many words of jerseys that it is difficult to take that as defining the name, and (although I am not saying that this is the case in the Lampre case, where the simultaneous change in shirt and website text is compelling) a different suit composing a press release could potentially throw us. Kevin McE (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no, that's quite all right, I was just explaining everything I had seen to prompt the change. Cyclingnews is actually still including "Vini" in their results and photo captions (as the Petacchi photo demonstrates), but VeloNews has changed, as have the onscreen graphics during the Tour. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The pink and purple Italian team seems to have done similarly. There's no announcement of the name change, but a press release from June 27 says "Lampre-Farnese Vini" and one from the next day and all subsequent just say "Lampre-Farnese." This corresponds to usage in cycling media. I will make the necessary edits. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the official websites of cycling teams, such as [www.team-saxobank.com], considered reliable sources for articles on cyclists? Bart133 ^{t c @} 19:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use them, because the only thing I think they'd be good enough for on their own would be basic biographical details, which you can surely find elsewhere. For anything else, I'd say you need a further citation in addition to an official team site. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've listed 2010 Giro d'Italia for peer review after making extensive revisions to the article over the last week and a half. Your input is of course welcome, but I'd also like to get non-WP:CYC eyes on it, so if you'd like to leave comments you may wish to identify yourself as a member of the project. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Icons such as File:Mountainstage.svg should be removed per Wikipedia:MOSICON#Encyclopaedic_purpose we don't add icons for the sake of it , also per WP:OR we don't invent icons. And finally the flags should go also as the riders aren't racing for a country per Wikipedia:MOSICON#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason Gnevin (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The icons are debatable, and indeed contentious (I know Kevin McE hates them, some others like them, I really don't care), but you're off about the flags. Riders are registered with the UCI under their nation – if you look at results on the UCI website, or any cycling website, nationality is included. Indeed, the number of riders a nation is afforded in the world championships is at least partly dependent on how many points that nation has earned in the UCI World Ranking. So we have a good reason to emphasize nationality. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 14:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Awe I was wrong on the nationality issue but the icons are against policy Gnevin (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, not this discussion again... These icons have been debated several times, and always ended up with being kept. The icons are not WP:OR, as they are used by the official Tour de France organisers: Source. ...and as WP:MOSICON says; "...purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing navigational or layout cues outside of article prose." lil2mas (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Awe fair enough. I still thing they provide no navigational or layout cues but c'est le vie Gnevin (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And the WP:OR thing is not true: they were not invented here, but they were already in use, for example by ASO, the organisers of the Tour de France. -EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (lil2mas aready said this...)

But Gnevin is at least partly right about the flagicons: these flagicons should be removed from biographical infoboxes. And MOSICON says: "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." I don't think we ever use such an indication, but maybe we should. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox cyclist}} now includes {{{placeofbirth}}} and {{{placeofdeath}}} fields to replace the {{{country}}} field, and the guidance page for the infobox says that {{{country}}} is deprecated for that reason. There are, however, several thousand transclusions of {{Infobox cyclist}} to go through and I don't know any easy way to do that. I think we do pretty well with flagicons now, emphasisng nationality enough but not too much. Severo^TC 07:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin McE removed these from the lists for the last two editions of the Giro earlier today. I reverted (because I think discussion should precede the rupture of consensus, not follow it) and suggested discussion occur here. What does everyone think of these? I like them, but I'm not sure if I'm simply accustomed to them. I can't really say why I like them. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Further: Kevin suggests with his removal that these are only there for "spectator purposes" and have now become irrelevant. If that's the case, then he's unquestionably correct to remove. That's not why we write here, and even if it was, becoming dated is equally troubling. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have never added them in the first place. The national/world champion jerseys do not really have anything to do with the Giro: a national champion does not have any advantage in the Giro, and whoever wears the jersey is not determined in the Giro. If the goal were to aid spectators, I would have said something about these national/world champion jerseys in a footnote below the list. The "aid the spectator" argument is a little bit flawed: we don't show the jerseys of the other cyclists. The argument would only work if we had a jersey icon for every cyclist (which is a very bad idea). --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I had already replied at Talk:List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Giro d'Italia, but deleted that to avoid forking the discussion. I paste my comments from there here:

It is no secret that I don't like the national jerseys being on these lists: victory in such a race is not necessarily the most important result in a rider's season, nor is it in many cases one of the most competitive races in the season, nor does it provide much of an indicator of the relative abilities of riders in the GT in question; meanwhile it draws undue attention to a handful of riders, and spoils the aesthetics of alignment. I will never agree that it is important to mention in regard that Samoilau is the Belarus TT champion, but not that Garzelli won the Tirreno Adriatico, or why Schleklet's Luxembourg TT title is considered more important to readers of the 2010 TdF riders list in an encyclopaedia than his previous 2nd place in the Tour. Had Wiggins lived up to Sky's hype of his status as a potential tour winner, would his UK TT win be the highlight of his season?

These arguments in the past have been defeated on the grounds that it is of use to readers as a viewers' guide ("Why's that bloke wearing a strange jersey?") or to those putting together a fantasy team for some competition. I remain unconvinced of the encyclopaedic value of these arguments, but ceded to consensus.

However, a few days after the TdF last year, I posted on the equivalent talk page the suggestion that, since neither of these rationales for inclusion is of relevance after the event, the champions jerseys might be removed: a month later there had been no objection raised, so I removed them, and there has been no objection to that in the 11 months since. Thus I extended the action to the other instances of these additions yesterday. I would argue that anything that will become redundant in a few weeks should probably not be in an encyclopaedia anyway, but that might be considered overly contentious, so I have held back. Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the debate over including them in the first place was at Talk:List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Tour de France. DocOctopus and lilmas were the main supporters. Kevin McE (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that'd have something to do with it. I have the Giro list articles on my watchlist, but for the Tour I have only the articles on the yearly editions themselves on my list. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that the current option is not optimal because it only shows that some riders have an alternative jersey, without showing the standard jerseys? If you do, there are two solutions. The first one is to show all the jerseys for all cyclists. An example in this table below, if you allow me to simplify the standard Cervelo jersey to a black one:

Cervélo TestTeam
No.	Rider	Pos.	Normal	TT
61	Carlos Sastre (ESP)	4
62	Philip Deignan (IRL)	56
63	Simon Gerrans (AUS)	43
64	Volodymir Gustov (UKR)	54
65	Jeremy Hunt (GBR)	150
66	Ted King (USA)	113
67	Ignatas Konovalovas (LTU)	90
68	Daniel Lloyd (GBR)	114
69	Serge Pauwels (BEL)	33
Team manager: Thomas Campana

The other solution would be to not show the jerseys at all. I really really really favor this last option, because I think the jersey information is minimal, but if consensus is the first solution, I can live with it. If I am forgetting a possible solution, just say so. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To provide the accurate jersey in that expanded table might run into problems with fair use (although that is not a piece of legislation I have really given time to getting my head around properly). But if all three of us are agreed on simply omitting them, I would suggest that we re-remove the jerseys from the two Giro lists on which Nosleep restored them, and that the three of us remain alert to the construction of list of teams and riders at the 2010 Vuelta a España. Kevin McE (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that Cervélo table is obviously goofy. And I would say the arguments given by User:DocOctopus here are pretty weak (fantasy cycling teams?!? this is an encyclopedia). I wish lil2mas was around to give his 2 cents' worth, but there doesn't seem to be anything glaringly missing from that Tour list. I guess part of what gave me pause was that the 2009 Giro teams/cyclists list was promoted to FL with this information in it, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Go ahead and revert me to restore your removals. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it might seem kind of morbid, but this article is listed as being part of WikiProject Cycling and would probably benefit from some re-working by the members of this group.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember that a reference is required for each cyclist included.Racklever (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh absolutely! FYI - I just came upon the article today. Am hoping that you nice WIkiProject Cycling folks will edit it into a state of verifiability...and every single edit helps! (As someone who doesn't follow cycling all that much I was stunned to see that professional cycling can be so dangerous.) -- Shearonink (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, please tell me. Otherwise, let's reject this whole "other articles are like this" argument as the baloney that it is. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's against WP:MOSICON and the argument that other articles are like it just says the other articles are wrong. There's definitely no place for such images in an infobox and I don't like them in the major achievements listing either. Contador's infobox needs a good clean anyway, if people will use "major achievements" as "any win in any race" then we may as well not bother with it. Severo^TC 06:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The other articles are obviously wrong. I understand why people feel the need to put those jerseys there: it looks more professional. I think I also added some jerseys there before, because of that. But after reading WP:MOSICON and some more experience, I now see that it just looks more amateurish to put those jerseys there, and that it is more professional to have a short but indicative list of victories in the infobox. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside editor here. I know little about cycling, and consider myself to generally take a common sense approach to flags and icons, rather than letting the letter of MOS:ICON trump the spirit. I think it's the wrong approach to bundle together the issue of icons in infoboxes with the issue of whether it's appropriate to including the jerseys in the list of honours. The former is a clear-cut case (icons almost never belong in infoboxes), the latter is a matter of consensus.

I haven't done any research, primarily so that I can be considered a "novice" for the purposes of the discussion. Based on Alberto Contador's current article, the pink, yellow and red jerseys could be considered informative, but the others require further justification. --WFC-- 11:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! One question for you, we are mostly talking about the "Major wins" field of the infobox here (and I agree that we would need to look separately at the "Major achievements" section of the article proper and I apologise if my initial wording was ambiguous); so would you include the use of jersey icons within the infobox on the infobox-side of that article or on the list-of-honours-side? Thanks, Severo^TC 12:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we need them anywhere in bios, even on something like the heading of {{Vuelta a España winners}} for an example. They are used to identify a particular rider on the road during a road race. That's it. The yellow jersey of the Tour de France has a certain cultural significance to it, to a slightly lesser extent the pink jersey of the Giro d'Italia does as well, and to a far lesser extent the golden-soon-to-be-red jersey of the Vuelta a España also does. We don't need a green jersey for the points classification in Paris–Nice, or a jersey for the KOM in the Vuelta a Aragón (I don't know if that jersey was in there, I just remember it from someone's edit summary). I don't want them in the infobox, or in the "palmarès" section. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happens, it needs to be consistent over all articles. Right now, virtually the only high-priority cyclist articles that do not have jersey icons in both the infobox and the palmares section are those cyclists who were only active prior to 1930. Thus a change in format would entail retooling hundreds of articles. By the way, I think the title of this thread should be changed to reflect the topic being discussed, so that as many people as possible participate. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thus a change in format would entail retooling hundreds of articles. You realize, that's not really a reason to keep the icons in Contador's article, right? Better to have 1 right and 299 wrongs than 300 wrongs and 0 rights. But of course, even if it takes a few weeks, best still to have 300 rights. Nothin' a little elbow grease won't solve :) Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For me icons should convey something unique so when I see  USA, I ask why not just have USA , what Encyclopaedic purpose does this flag serve. To me these icons are the same the duplicate something just a few pixels away and do so it a much less understandable way. When I seen the green top it made me think it was other tour de france jersey. I only realised it was something else when I seen the link Gnevin (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I think we have consensus on infoboxes: no jersey icons. I also think (although less sure on this one) we have consensus on jersey icons elsewhere (such as in a Major achievements or Palmarès section): no jersey icons again. Severo^TC 08:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, for cyclist infoboxes. For Major achievements I think there is consensus to remove all jerseys except perhaps those for general classification of grand tours...

But now that we're on the topic: what about jersey icons in cycling race infoboxes? For example: 1988 Tour de France. I think that all six jerseys displayed in the infobox belong there, because they give information about the classifications. The fact that a classification has an associated jersey is relevant information, which can be shown in the infobox easily. Is there anybody who disagrees? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

in keeping this up to date would be greatly appreciated. The page I did last year wasn't 100% complete, but it was a big help in terms of keeping track of what templates to put on whose articles, and what to add to the team season articles. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Useful page if you haven't already seen it. Severo^TC 09:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I'd still like to have something on-site, though. It would help to have RS citations, as well, though if they're out there I'm sure I can find them. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that page has riders joining Caisse d'Epargne, but I haven't seen an RS state that team will even exist next year. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Scarponi to Astana? Uhhh, no. So, not gonna follow that, I don't think. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Only the boldfaced transfers on that page are confirmed, the rest are rumours. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't really see the point in listing rumors, but I guess that's good to know. Still, though, Scarponi to Lampre, and, hello, Contador to Saxo Bank were confirmed days ago. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi noobie here an in wikipedia land. I am looking to promote a wikipedia as a location for documenting history of Cycling in Western Australia. Any help would be appreciated- link to it, fix it, remove the warning, whatever Thanks Toby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cycling_in_Western_Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wainfoatcyclingorgau (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some problems with your article. I have copied the information you had to User:Wainfoatcyclingorgau/History of Cycling in Western Australia, where you have more time to get it up to the right level. Let's continue the discussion on your talk page. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The PROD is unnecessary. You could have just moved the article into Wainfoatcyclingorgau's userspace directly instead of copy and pasting. Userfying is always favorable to deletion. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I did not PROD the article. A move would have been better than a copy-paste, you are right, I try to solve that now. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In the GA-review of 1906 Tour de France, I am told that the following sentence is very strange:

"As in the previous years, the spectators still tried to influence the results of the race, trying to stop their favourite's opponents."

My problem is that it already took some time to come up with this construction, this seemed the least strange to me. If somebody have a quick idea how this would be phrased better, can they give a hint? Thanks! --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How about: "As in the previous years, the spectators tried to influence the results of the race by trying to stop their favourite's opponents." Perhaps replace "stop" with another verb? Severo^TC 20:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Two main problems with the original: still is redundant, and favourite's suggests that all the mischeivious supporters favoured the same rider. The spectators goal was to assist their own favoutites, so say so. In the interests of WP:VNE, let's avoid the potential row over the inclusion/exclusion of u in favourites. Suggest As in previous years, the spectators tried to assist their preferred riders by trying to impede their opponents. Kevin McE (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant suggestions. I wish I had such help while writing my thesis ;) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the articles has GA status now. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that transfer talk is accelerating, a reminder that according to the consensus we reached last December, announcement of contracts and phrasing such as "is scheduled to join Team SuperLux" are appropriate to the prose of the article, but teams are not to be added to the infobox until the turn of the year. Kevin McE (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...link to said consensus please? As I recall, you didn't want anything added to the articles. I don't see why one is fitting and one is not. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. I still think pretty much everything I did back then. So I guess I'm not to update those articles. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We should probably make a consensus decisions page where we can list them and link to where the discussion took place. I will make a start on it now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Consensus decisions. Severo^TC 08:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to post the start list for the Vuelta, but something went wrong and the tables aren't laying out they usually do. I stink at creating tables anyway, so I'm not sure how to fix it. Blowing it up and starting over would be a perfectly acceptable option :p Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have it right: not that I have a great understanding of table coding, I just copied the codes from a previous version. Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks right. Obviously more can (and should) be added to the article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be even worse than the ONCE/Astana thing, methinks. Lampre and ISD will merge for 2011, with a "feeder team" at the Continental level similar to the Orbea/Euskaltel relationship. And they've signed Cunego to "Lampre-ISD". ISD re-signed Visconti earlier this month, so........what's the lineage here? Is it "Lampre-Farnese" ----> "Lampre-ISD" for the ProTour team? It certainly seems that's the case, but there's been nothing specifically said of Visconti's 2011 team since the now seemingly outdated news that ISD re-isgned him. What then, of the current Italian-registered Ukraine-backed Pro Conti team? Obsolete? Does this all pend the name of the Continental level "feeder team," which may well have ISD's lineage.

It may not seem like this all matters much, but I think it's bound to come up in the future, and it would be good to, as soon as possible, iron it all out. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty we have is that we deal with teams by a temporary pseudonym: ISD-Neri is not really a cycling team, it is the public name of the Cycling & Go.com cycling team. This is why it makes sense to say that Astana Qazaqstan Team({{UCI team code|AST}}) is not related to Astana ({{UCI team code|ONC|2006d}}). I would wager that it is Cycling & Go.com that Visconti has signed a contract with. Do we know whether the new team will be under the auspices of Cycling & Go.com, or CGS Cycling Team, or a new operation? (tracking lineage would be much easier if UCI codes were related to the "real" team name). When we know that, we can say whether this is an absorption or a merger: if the latter, we may not know until January the 25 riders who will be in the ProTour squad.

The situation is more complicated in that ISD already have a second team: ISD Continental (DMPO Sports Club of Donetsk). The CyclingNews article is less than clear: it may simply be that the steel company ISD is going to become a co-sponsor, with Lampre, of CGS, and bring pressure to bear on the management to sign several Ukrainian riders (presumably largely from Cycling & Go/ISD-Neri). "ISD will continue to run a Continental development team that will act as a feeder squad to the ProTour team": I interpret this as meaning that ISD will continue to sponsor the existing Continental team, which is a separate sports club but with streamlining of transfers and some shared sponsors:- this is parallel to the RAB/RB3 or RSH/TLS situations. But wither Cycling & Go, and its contracts? Kevin McE (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Cycling News forum suggests that ISD (the steel company) and some riders from ISD-Neri (Ruslan Pidgornyy and Denis Kostuk) are joining the existing Lampre set-up, (who are losing a major sponsor in Geox); while Citracca's Cycling & Go organisation will seek a new name sponsor alongside Neri foodstuffs. So Lampre-ISD will be the 2011 version of {{UCI team code|LAM}}, and {{UCI team code|ISD|2011}} will give something like Team Neri-???, and should include Visconti (although there are rumours that he might buy his way out of the contract he has just signed). Kevin McE (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. My head is swimming just thinking about it. Hopefully a lot will be clearer once we know Visconti's 2011 team. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the news that 2010's ISD-Neri will become Farnese Vini in 2011 deepen the water your head is swimming in? Looks like we'll have Lampre-ISD and Farnese-Neri, instead of Lampre-Farnese and ISD-Neri. Kevin McE (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainly for the cases of those like Bodrogi, Chris Froome, Nico Roche and others who ride for a country other than that of their birth, I would propose that we un-deprecate (Dedeprecate? Reprecate?) the nationality field, rather than subjugating it to place of birth. Rather than fork the discussion, can I draw attention to this? Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Cycling to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Today I read the 2010 Guide Historique for the Tour de France (here is Part 4), and it shows that the definitive classification of the 2008 Tour de France has still not been made, even though Ricco and Schumacher have finished their ban now. But for the 2009 Tour de France, it shows that Astarloza's victory has been removed and awarded to Sandy Casar, second in that stage. I searched for some news about this, and I found it mentioned in passing here. I guess that's enough evidence to change the results on the relevant wikipedia pages, and if I have time soon, I will do it, but I don't mind if somebody beats me. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The even more long-since-resolved 2007 Giro d'Italia has no official winner of the points classification or five stages. Those vacancies (meaning the '08 Tour) could very well remain vacancies forever. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A few cycling articles have come in a massive copyright review (you can read all about it here, but you probably won't want to), and there is a question about the creativity of some lists that have been copied verbatim. Basic overview of the copyright situation here: the U.S. law that governs us does not protect effort in lists, so it doesn't matter how hard they are to compile. What matters is if they are creatively compiled: that is, if information is creative (e.g. "the best of....") or if organization is creative. As a community knowledgeable in cycling matters, some of you could be very helpful in determining the creativity of the lists in question. If you'd be willing to opine, please see specifically Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#Cyclist tables. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there, but somebody else might want to give a second opinion. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a large number of cycling articles involved. I've had a bit of a look at page 11 of what starts [here]: Darius Dhlomo's edits on races, as far as I have seen so far, have no copyright issues, and are mainly formating and infobox addition.

However, his addition of palmares on articles for individual riders is problematic: he copied palmares so directly from www.cyclingarchives.com that he has even retained Spanish ordinal numbering (1º rather than 1st). Anglicising that, removing some of the more obscure results, and removing, or changing to the proper word, the trigramme used by Cycling Archives to represent the country in which the race took place (such unexplained abbreviations should not be seen in wiki anyway) will be sufficient to demonstrate that the external source is a source of data that we edit, rather than being open to an accusation of copyright infringement.

If we don't do this, expect to see lots of cyclists' articles reduced to merely a list of categories. Kevin McE (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the strong majority of the articles which would fall under our purview are the single-sentence "Joe Schmo is a Dutch professional cyclist for Team Foobar" that I hate so passionately. So kill 'em with fire for all I care. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a little heads-up, I've had my account renamed from "Nosleep" to "Green-eyed girl." I'll keep the same sig for a couple of weeks to help people get used to it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just had a check at Category:Unassessed cycling articles and found some triathlon articles there. I'm not sure it has been made explicitly outside of the scope of WP Cycling before, so I propose that all triathlon related articles are taken out of the scope of the project since there is a WikiProject Triathlon. On a similar note, only triathletes who have been notable as cyclists (say the have ridden for a time as a professional or competed in a cycling event at the Olympics) should be categorised as cyclists. (This would also apply to the other multi-sport events including cycling, such as duathlon.) Sound reasonable? Severo^TC 09:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to define what is part of the project, and what not. Cycling paths are also included in the project, but I don't think anybody relating to this project works on those articles. I could be wrong, but I have the feeling that the scope of this project is everything related to competitive cycling, as governed by UCI. Male/female road/track/mountainbike. Triathlon and duathlon are not part of this, so in my opinion we should not include them in the project, especially because there is a triathlon project. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be loathe to not include general cycling articles as the overlap is quite big: if people wanted to make a formal separation between racing and other cycling then task forces would be the way to go. The other one to think about is mountain bike orienteering - there is a WikiProject Orienteering which covers orienteering so I will post a message at their talk page to see how they define the sport as it's not so clear-cut as triathlon. Severo^TC 08:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a point to exclude some specific areas. Having overlapping WikiProjects is normal. Keep the scope simple, Wikiproject Cycling covers articles related to cycling. --Kslotte (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Then there would be no point in having WikiProject Triathlon as the scope of the project is nearly wholly within such a broad scope of WP:CYC. By the very nature of defining a WikiProject we exclude some areas - indeed everything but "cycling"... but the question is, what does cycling in this sense mean? Severo^TC 11:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any numbers about how overlapping Cycling and Triathlon is? --Kslotte (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want numbers for? If you use a broad definition and use everything within the category tree of Category:Cycling, then all triathlon articles are wholly inside of it (as Category:Triathlon is a subcat of Category:Cycling). Severo^TC 11:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean how many articles are tagged with both "Wikiproject Cycling" and "Wikiproject Triathlon". And, how many of these are possible inappropiate tagged as "Wikiproject Cycling"? Can we define exactly what articles should have both? What articles are the issue here? --Kslotte (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

List can be generated with Cat Scan. --Kslotte (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure what you are getting at here with numbers and everything... but anyway I edited most of the "offending" articles this morning: there were several (not huge numbers) about elite triathletes that had been tagged as {{WikiProject Cycling}} and not as {{WikiProject Triathlon}}. The remaining articles tagged by both WP:CYC and WP:Triathlon are about sportspeople active both as elite triathletes and cyclists. Severo^TC 11:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

To try to explain why I don't understand your angle: my question is about scope, whether the articles are tagged or not, rather than what specific articles are tagged. Severo^TC 11:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope is about what articles should be included within WikiProject Cycling or Triathlon (taggged with templates). By doing research of current situtation (list and numbers) we find out what is the current scope (1). We write down the scope definition (2) in more detail based on issues with current template tagging. We change the article taggings to match our newly written definitions (3). We cannot decide on new scope if we don't even know the current situation. --Kslotte (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This still assumes scope and current tagging are the same thing. I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere? Severo^TC 13:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My own sugestion something like this ...

For triathlon related articles the following are within scope:

• the most fundamental triathlon articles where cycling has an essential role
• biographies of triathletes or coaches that also have had or has an professional cycle racing career
• an triathlon event, that has its major focus on cycling

--Kslotte (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the last type of events don't even exists. --Kslotte (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For the reference, the discussion about mountainbike orienteering is found here. --Kslotte (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently it exist only five triathlon articles that is also tagged with WikiPorject Cycling: Talk:Ruby Miller,Talk:Paula Moseley, Talk:John Howard (cyclist), Talk:Iona Wynter and Talk:Athlinks. --Kslotte (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, I "cleaned up" the articles of triathletes who had not had a career as cyclists and triathlon races from WP Cycling yesterday, hence the low number. Regarding the second criteria, articles about cyclists are already within the scope of this project so it's redundant. What articles do you think from criteria 1 and 3 should be included in WP Cycling? Severo^TC 08:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, there are nine articles tagged by both WP Cycling and WP Triathlon at the moment: Talk:Anneliese Heard, Talk:Athlinks, Talk:Iona Wynter, Talk:John Howard (cyclist), Talk:Karin Thürig, Talk:Paula Moseley, Talk:Ruby Miller, Talk:Triathlon and Talk:Tyler Butterfield: seven biographies of people who have competed at triathlon and cycling at elite levels, A

Athlinks is standard overlap and ten Triathlon itself. I wouldn't have a problem with any of these articles being within the scope of WP Cycling. Severo^TC 09:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The basic idea is easy, and we all agree on it: Make triathlon articles part of the cycling project, and cycling articles part of the cycling project. But of course, even though each triathlon includes cycling, not all triathlon related articles should also be part of the cycling project. The question is: Which articles should be part of both projects? In my view only the articles on subjects notable for triathlon AND notable for cycling. So for example athletes who participated in triathlon's and in cycling events, and whose triathlon career alone would make them notable for Wikipedia and their (non-triathlon) cycling career alone would make them notable for Wikipedia. If I understand your views correctly, I think this corresponds to Severo's view. This also agrees with KSlotte's second item, but I'm not sure about the first and third. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Cycling articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The two pages have had a merge proposal sitting over them for a while, but looks like no one's bothered: they're both on my watch list and no activity. I don't mind having a go at this – I think it could be a net improvement – but only if there is not a negative consensus, if you see what I mean. I have also suggested renaming the result to "Cycling as transport" (with appropriate redirects). Keeping "cycling" as the first word means that when using the search box with prompts, it appears along with other things beginning with "Cycling", for the sake of the extra "as". Best, Trev M  ~  21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about Cycling as transport. The argument you make above could be applied to the three main forms of cycling that Wikipedia identifies:

Old name	New style name
Utility cycling	Cycling as transport
Recreational cycling	Cycling as recreation
Bicycle racing	Cycling as racing

As regards search box prompts, I think that these work off of redirects as well: I have created such redirects (the traffic counter tools may be able to count hits for this as a term, which might show which is more popular for people searching).The big problem with merging Bicycle commuting and Utility cycling is that Utility cycling is already very large and is at the top end of expansion. This doesn't mean that Bicycle commuting should not be integrated, but other things would probably have to be broken off into new articles. Severo^TC 09:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a new articles section to the main project page. The list is generated by a bot, AlexNewArtBot. It works via a list of rules based on the occurrences of certain words within new articles: I wasn't in a lexical mood so I didn't fill in the list with good cycling words. What I did do is add all the categories within the scope of the project as highly scoring terms so if any new articles is created with one of the included categories, it shows up. However, it will miss any articles that are not categorised. Anyone can add to the list so be bold :) Severo^TC 09:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I keep thinking about the 2009 Giro d'Italia and Danilo Di Luca's results, whether they stand or not. IP's are constantly editing Carlos Sastre and Franco Pellizotti's articles to reflect them moving onto the podium and one step further up it, respectively. Di Luca is frequently said to have been stripped of his overall placing (the last article even states that Tadej Valjavec was 8th in the '09 Giro, even though on May 31, 2009 he was 9th), but I can find nothing from the Court of Arbitration for Sport that says this explicitly. Moreover, none of these casual references in related stories say anything about his two stage wins in the race. The other Wikipedias don't all agree. The Catalan Wikipedia still lists the original results (as do many others that don't have particularly active editing of cycling articles). The German Wikipedia has Menchov-Di Luca-Pellizotti-Sastre listed at the top of the overall results, with the order being 1-blank-2-3. The Dutch Wikipedia has Di Luca stripped of his results, but no one promoted in his stead. The French and Italian Wikipedias, who probably have the most active cycling projects in other languages, each have Di Luca stripped of his overall standing and Pellizotti and Sastre moved up, and even give Menchov the points jersey, but still show Di Luca with his two stage wins. The most recent citation we have in our article is from March of this year stating that Di Luca planned to appeal the two-year ban he got from CONI to the CAS. So I don't know what we should be doing here, with the pertinent articles. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

CAS should have a judgement soon [4] - scheduled for October 15. I hope that we will actually find out on that date as well... Severo^TC 13:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Or if it does, that they'll have two names. Certainly there is a precedent for two teams under different licenses having the exact same name, and {{ct}} does part of the job, but I think our handling of Astana has been less than exemplary anyway (on how many riders' articles, who rode for either {{UCI team code|ONC|2006d}} or {{UCI team code|AST}}, is the distinction spelled out? I can think of one). There will be a great quantity of riders' articles that should have some explanatory phrasing added to them if this happens, not to mention all the inbound links to Caisse d'Epargne or Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) which need to be sure they point to the right article. Gah, what a mess. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a mess. A good first move might be to convert any bare Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team)/Caisse d'Epargne links to {{ct}}: we will probably have to make Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) into a disambig page... probably some other notes elsewhere as you suggest. Not easy. Severo^TC 14:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If this will happen I agree with Severo to make Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) a disambiguation page. Then I would propose we move all existing links for that article space to Caisse d'Epargne (2005–10 cycling team), and then move Bbox Bouygues Telecom to Caisse d'Epargne (2011– cycling team). The Caisse d'Epargne article space should probably contain an article about the bank anyway?! It may be that it's currently located at Groupe Caisse d'Epargne? lil2mas (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The article about Unzue's team was written before the article about the bank. There were a ton of links a while ago to Caisse d'Epargne which were meant for Unzue's team but pointed to the bank after another editor moved Caisse d'Epargne to Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) and redirected Caisse d'Epargne to Groupe Caisse d'Epargne, which had the unintentionally hilarious side effect of making Banesto (cycling team) and Reynolds (cycling team) redirect to Groupe Caisse d'Epargne as well. I made Caisse d'Epargne point to Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) because of all the cycling-related links that still pointed to Caisse d'Epargne. I guess we're going to need to work through those. The problem with a title like Caisse d'Epargne (2005–10 cycling team) is that the article on Unzue's team is not solely about the years it was called Caisse d'Epargne. I guess we could change that, but why (and isn't it going to be moved to Team Movistar anyway?)? There isn't much there on the Reynolds, Banesto, and Illes Balears teams, but it does (obviously) predate 2005. And accordingly, the article on Bernaudeau's team would not only be about 2011 onward. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was purely thinking about the {{ct}}-template! The team article will be named Team Movistar as you say. But when I think of it, we only use the UCI-code in it, so naming the article Caisse d'Epargne (2005–10 cycling team) is actually unnecessary. (It's only going to be a redirect; i.e. unnecessary) The new team will be named CdE only from 2011 onward. (Use the same logic for why we will move the current article to Team Movistar; it has had other names.) I cannot see any major problems right now! (unless the changes occur before this season has concluded) If Caisse d'Epargne should be an article about the bank, can be discussed later. (After all redirects have been solved!) lil2mas (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is phrases like "Valverde rode for Caisse d'Epargne from....." and "Voeckler currently rides for Caisse d'Epargne...." will have completely different meanings that are far from obvious to someone with even just a moderate knowledge of the sport. Agreed that Caisse d'Epargne should be a dab page (if you want to move the bank article there, fine, but I'm not interested in that - if so, the dab should be at Caisse d'Epargne (disambiguation), not Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team)). And heaven help us if someone rides for both Unzue's team and Bernaudeau's. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Charteau comes to mind. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's spell out some possibilites:

• Bernaudeau's team will be known in 2011 solely as "Caisse d'Epargne" - In this case, Bbox Bouygues Telecom should be moved to Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) (but only after all remaining cycling-related links to Caisse d'Epargne or Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) have been {{ct}}'d or otherwise dealt with). The Caisse d'Epargne redirect should either stay as it is (pointing to Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team), which will now be Bernaudeau's team) or Groupe Caisse d'Epargne should be moved to Caisse d'Epargne (again, only after all cycling links are pointed to the right article). In any case, Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) should contain links either directly to Unzue's team and the bank, or to Caisse d'Epargne (disambiguation).

• Bernaudeau's team will be known in 2011 as "Caisse d'Epargne-Bobsyouruncle" - Obviously, move Bbox Bouygues Telecom to the correct team name. Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) should redirect to Caisse d'Epargne (disambiguation) (which would also include a link to the bank). This would still require getting all links to Caisse d'Epargne and Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) pointed to the right article, so we should get on that soon, no matter what.

Can you see why, all sympathy to Voeckler and Bernaudeau and all, I kind of don't want this to happen? :p Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As I'm thinking Groupe Caisse d'Epargne should be moved to Caisse d'Epargne. And as you see in the former article; it is placed a {{for}}-template in the start, to redirect readers who are looking for a cycling team to Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team). This page should be a disambiguation page, that looks (for your second case) something like:

Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) refers to:

• Team Movistar, a cycling team sponsored by Caisse d'Epargne between 2005–10
• Caisse d'Epargne-Bobsyouruncle, a cycling team sponsored by Caisse d'Epargne from 2011 (formerly known as "Bouygues Telecom")

If your first case happens, I would move the Bbox Bouygues Telecom article to Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team), and insert a {{for}}-template with a link to Team Movistar.

That's all the thought I'm giving this issue before it get realized. The most important thing now, is to sort out all the redirects. lil2mas (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The UCI don't protect team codes: we could conceivable even have GCE as the code for the current BBox team next year: I hope that they give a team code a few years break as they have in the past. I think Caisse d'Epargne should become a disambig page for both cycling articles and the bank. Then, Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) can redirect to that disambig page. I think we will need to think carefully about the wording on a disambig page so people can quickly and correctly see the difference between the two teams. I'm still hoping that the team name isn't Caisse d'Epargne. Severo^TC 06:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking this'd have been resolved by now, but if Bernaudeau's team is known only as Caisse d'Epargne for 2011, shouldn't Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) be about that team? If it redirects to a Caisse d'Epargne (disambiguation) page, what would the title for the article on Bernaudeau's team be? Caisse d'Epargne (2011– cycling team) doesn't seem like a great option to me. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's only known as Caisse d'Epargne, then we could have Caisse d'Epargne as a disambig page (also covering bank), Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) for Bernaudeau's team and obviously the current Caisse d'Epargne will be known as Team Movistar or similar. A hatnote at the top of Caisse d'Epargne (cycling team) to send people looking for the old Caise to Team Movistar. Severo^TC 05:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Catastrophic headache averted - Europcar is the new sponsor [5]. I'm surprised Bernaudeau pulled it off at all, honestly. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I reckon most of this section comes under WP:NOTGUIDE. Would someone care to improve it? Otherwise I think it really should be removed. Thanks. —Half Price 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also an Australian cyclist named Ben King (they're both in the U23 world championships road race, where one is being called "Burger King" and the other "Vegemite King" ;P ). I'm not sure if the Aussie meets WP:Notability, so at what point should the American's article be moved to Ben King (American cyclist)? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say it should only be moved if the Australian cyclist has an article. Before that, disambiguation is not needed for the page name, and a hatnote could be used to indicate confusion with another cyclist is possible. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I recently created Stringbike. The owner of the product advises that the article should be called "symmetric alternating drive for bicycles". I am not sure about having an article with that name. I would like to find the most appropriate name and then make Stringbike a section within that article. Suggestions?

WP:COMMONNAME. If WP:RS's call it "stringbike" more than anything else, "stringbike" it is. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

He also would like the name Stringbike to have a TM or such beside the word. Do you think it is alright to just note that the name is a trademark? I have never seen the TM next to a product on Wiki.

Hahaha, no. Titles are always used as they would be in common English irrespective of what a copyright holder would prefer (Quick Step, not Quick·Step, ESPNews, not ESPNEWS, Time (magazine), not TIME, and so on). You can (and probably should) certainly mention in prose that it's a copyright held by so-and-so, though. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally, if anyone has a camera and access to one of these bikes, a snapshot of the mechanism would be great. I am currently awaiting clearance on a couple of images of Stringbike, but the focus of the article will be the mechanism specifically. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Green-eyed girl! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The story about which teams have applied for ProTour (WorldTour?) licenses for 2011 shows a few unexpected team names. HTC-High Road rather than HTC-Columbia (Columbia Sportswear not continuing sponsorship?) Geox-TMC (I've heard nothing about a cosponsor for this team...what is TMC anyway?), Vacansoleil-DCM (same), Andalucia Caja Granada, Colnago CSF (the "Inox" is omitted), De Rosa-Ceramica Flaminina (is it a continuation of one or the other of those teams, or a whole new lineage?). Anyone have insight into this? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• No answeres, but more info on the TMC cosponsor deal. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that looks pretty straightforward. But the others? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vacansoleil-DCM
• I read about HTC-High Road somewhere, but I can't find the link now: Columbia have not renewed sponsorship. High Road will act as a placeholder name until a second name sponsor can be found (and if they can't find one, then the sport is seriously in trouble). Severo^TC 07:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The article for Kogswell Cycles has been nominated for deletion here. Please weigh in if you like. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How to record the presence in a race of someone who was very much there, but retrospectively is considered not to have been? Until today, races such as 2010 Tour of the Basque Country have had his stage results reported but struck through, and his end of stage standings and jersey possession left as they were, because those entries are statements of temporary standing, and therefore the contemporary record is the only one relevant. At least that's how I read the logic of it: I can't remember who set up the ad hoc convention, and it might even have been me.

Today, Lckyby has struck out all occurences of Valverde's name on the results and category leader lists on the Basque tour (compare yesterday's version with today's): overkill or thoroughness? Whichever it is, we should probably treat all the races he featured in the season prior to the suspension consistently. I have a mild preference for the previous, for reasons above, and because I think the disqualification is clear without overstatement, but am more concerned with consistency than which we use. Kevin McE (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A notability tag was recently placed on the Bicycle Quarterly article. I did some work on it and identified two reasonable references, but more work would be helpful. As many know, BQ is an important source for technical and test information as well as articles about other aspects of cycling. The BQ article on tire rolling resistance testing generated a great deal of surprise and interest from the cycling community a few years ago. See Lennard Zinn's take on that article here. Your help would be much appreciated. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no Outline of cycling.

To create one, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|cycling|Cycling}}

Then press save and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40#What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?

Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.

The Transhumanist 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sports-related outlines currently under development include:

• Outline of basketball
• Outline of tennis
• Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling
• Outline of running
• Outline of cricket

Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Here are some examples of developed outlines:

• Outline of cell biology
• Outline of meteorology (weather)
• Outline of Iceland
• Outline of Japan
• Outline of anarchism
• Outline of chocolate

The Transhumanist 23:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted something here years ago about what to include in medal boxes (although there wasn't much comment at the times). I have been keeping roughly to what I put there, mostly because it is similar to what every other sport does. However, I noticed today an IP (194.66.216.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) was putting in junior medals for some (British) riders. I reverted but waas reverted back, so time to discuss: what medals should be included in those medal boxes, and what shouldn't? I think that the only results which deserve such prominence should be: Olympic medals, World Championships medals (in events contested at elite world championships, including under-23 if contested at the same championships), multi-sport competitions at elite level and I am coming round to continental medals at elite level. Any thoughts? Severo^TC 12:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Due to the change in status of continental champs, e.g. Euro champs are no longer U23 and Juniors only, and thus we can't distinquish between the change the only sense would be to include those results under Euro Champs and write (juniors/U23). Continental champs should be INCLUDED due to their new found importance. Youth Olympic Games and Commonwealth Youth Games should be there as most people only compete once (as the limit is 18 years old and thus compete once unless they are bloody exceptional and appear when they are 14)(Plus with the youth commonwealths Cycling is not always in the games due to their selection rotation policy) in these and are arguabley major youth events. National champs should NOT be included as even in Britian with the deph look how much certain riders dominate, plus I don't perceive them to be major in anycase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning why sub-elite continental championships should be included: I don't find it likely that a reader will be confused because an elite continental medal is noted but a sub-elite isn't noted. To include sub-elite medals gives undue prominence to junior achievements: while these should usually be mentioned in the article, they are not notable achievements in themselves (i.e. we don't generally consider an athlete notable for having competed at sub-elite championships, even the Olympics and World Championships let alone continental championships). I also don't accept the reason for inclusion of Youth Olympic/Commonwealth Games that they only include each athlete once: so what? I think that, all in all, the inclusion of sub-elite medals gives undue prominence to junior results. In the article, they should of course be mentioned (the development of an athlete to notable level is, of course, important) but let's not make them into something which they are not. Severo^TC 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Junior acheivements are noted in other sports such as tennis, winning a Grand Slam tournament or winnning a medal at a multi sport event such as the Youth Olympics or Commonwealth Youth games are all noted in prominance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.216.40 (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

About junior grand slams in tennis: Stefan Edberg won all four junior grand slams in 1983. This is correctly stated in the prose, but no mention in the infobox.

Youth Olympics: other sports seem to include these medals in medalboxes.

Commonwealth Youth games: wikipedia does not even give a list of winners, so I guess this is not considered important.

So I agree with the viewpoint that Severo gave earlier, with the possible addition of the Youth Olympic medals, but not the junior world championships not included in the main event or the junior continental medals. I don't have an opinion on the senior commonwealth games, as I can not figure out how important this event is, and it does not really interest me. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

to points classification in the Tour de France and mountains classification in the Tour de France (points class article looks outdated even from 2010, let alone 2011), to reflect the rule changes governing how the classifications are awarded going forward. I wrote up a brief overview for the 2011 Tour de France article, but I'm not sure if I had all the information. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)