Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Road race: Cyclist palmares notability

In some cyclists' biographies, the palmares section seems to include every top20 finish. For example, Sylvain Chavanel was 17th in the 2007 edition of Paris-Nice. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Standard cyclist biography says:

Don't put every result in the list. It is not interesting to read that someone finished 67th place in the Midi Libre. A victory in a minor race can be important for a cyclist, but if the cyclists has won more than 300 races, not every race should be included.

I think we need a better guideline for this. In Wikipedia:NOT#STATS, we read that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"; so (my interpretation...) only notable results should be included. Chavanel is not notable because of his 17th place in the Midi Libre in 2007. I don't even think that he himself remembers on which place he finished in that race. I think it should not be included. There are websites that give that information; they should definitely be included as external links. But the info itself should not be in the article.

Chavanel probably remembers his victories. They should be included in the article.

I assume that everbody agrees that the 17th place is not notable, and the victories are notable. (If I am wrong, let me know.) There's a grey area between the 17th place and a victory, for which it is not sure if it should be included. I propose to define some sort of guideline for this.

My proposal: the following things are notable enough to be included in (road race cyclist) palmares:

• Grand tours:
  • General classification: top 10 (final results)
  • General classification: leader (during race)
  • Additional classification: winner
  • Stages: winner
• Other stage races:
  • General classification: top 3 (final results)
  • Additional classification: winner
  • Stages: winner
• World championships: top 3
• Olympic games: top 3
• National championships: winner
• Classic cycle races: top 3
• Other races: winner

This is roughly what I see at "older" cyclists palmares. This list is centered around male cyclists in the UCI protour; I think it should also work for UCI continental cyclists, but not for female cyclists. It's only a proposal, so if you think differently, just propose a different version.

I would like to start a discussion about this. I will repeat the major issues and give my arguments:

Do we need a guideline for notability of cyclists' palmares?

Yes, many are too long now, and give non-notable results. A guideline should help to balance the palmares lengths.

Which guideline should we use?

A guideline that includes all victories, and important other results. What other results are important, is probably very subjective, but my view can be seen in the proposal above.

Should the guideline be a strict rule?

No. Some results might still be notable, even if it's not in the guideline. But in that case, the reason why it's notable should be mentioned in the text. Also, for some cyclists with more than 100 victories, not every victory is significant.

What are your thoughts about this? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, standardization is the key. These guidelines look good. I think there needs to be a small amount of gray area, of course - for example, Danny Pate's third place in Stage 15 of the 2008 Tour de France is arguably his most notable ever result, but there's no reason we need to exhaustively list that Carlos Sastre finished 8th, 7th, and 6th in certain stages during that same Tour. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ALSO, I think palmarès for team articles should just list team results. Or at least, a far stricter listing of individual results than the proposed guidelines above for individual articles. I look at Astana Team and I really think all that should be there is the team classification results, and maybe Contador's Grand Tour GC wins. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go about implementing these individual guidelines (will certainly wait for discussion about team palmarès). They seem reasonable, and no one has objected. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 22:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some results are too minute to list. However, I prefer a very extensive list of palmares. Long lists of palmares really show a rider's biography. They help track what s/he has done and what s/he might do. I love to know about a person's 15th placing in the Paris-Roubaix. As someone who is extremely active editing the rider palmares, here's how I do it:

Grand Tours--willing to list most any GC result. Won't list anything but a stage win, despite its importance (see Danny Pate note above).

Monuments of cycling, Olympics, World Championship--willing to list almost any result--particularly a top 20 finish.

Small tours, semi-classics, 1.HC, 2HC, 1.1, 1.2 ... Stage wins only, and top ten finishes in a GC.

1.3 or less--generally won't list results

In other words, I like to list a lot. What I don't like to list are the 3rd place on the 5th stage of the Vuelta or something. By eliminating anything less than a top result on a stage, the lists become quite manageable. Not that I oppose such placings (again, the Danny Pate comment is instructive), but by ignoring anything less than a stage victory, a rider's palmares look quite complete without being petty. --Smilo Don (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Another, related point. As we all know, UCI race ratings change. Races go from 1.2 to 1.1 or from 1.1 to 1.HC and so forth. I.e. it's different for a rider like Mauricio Ardila to win the Tour of Britain in 04 when it was a 2.3 vrs. Geoffroy Lequatre to win it as a 2.1 in 2008. I would like to propose that we list the UCI rating of the event after it. E.g. Ardila's palmares would say 2004 Tour of Britain, (2.3), while Lequatre's palmares would say 2008 Tour of Britain, (2.1). Trap-friis uses this type of palmares system. --Smilo Don (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to keep coming up. E.g. over Benoit Vaugrenard. That's a page I worked on recently. ... Hate to see a lot of those palmares get deleted. I think it's helps explain that this guy didn't 'come out of nowhere' in 2009. It's accurate, well-sourced, and the results are all significant. Also restored such things as Chris Horner's 15th in the 2007 TDF. Anyway, I'm really hoping we can all agree to leave a fairly detailed palmares list, wihtout noting every 5th place finish on 4th stage of the Tour of Poland.--Smilo Don (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Vaugrenard's page, and in this case I would prefer to remove the non-top ten classifications. For 2008, he has 11 classifications listed. That's more than enough for a quick overview of his results. His 22nd place in the Grand Prix Ouest France is not notable, nor does it explain anything about his 2009 results. Isn't a 22nd place just finishing in the peloton with the rest of the bunch? For a professional cyclist, that's not notable. If you want to explain what happened to him before 2009, I think it should be done in the text, not with 20+ classifications in races in the palmares. I agree that Horner's 15th place in the TdF should be in the list (although its relevance should also be explained in the text). --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For road cyclists you would need a different guideline (in terms of UCI classifications) for up to 2004 and from 2005 as the classifications system changed. Largely from memory...

Until 2004 2005–2007 CDM ProTour 1.HC ProTour 1.HC 1.1 1.HC 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.6

Until 2004 2005–2007 GT ProTour 2.HC 2.1 2.HC 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.6

So the victories of Mauricio Ardila and Geoffroy Lequatre in the Tour of Britain are very equivalent. Severo^TC 16:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing, though - if you want to discuss a rider finishing 22nd or whatever in a monument classic as being an important part of his career, it's perfectly reasonable to do that in article prose. We've got about a million billion too many cyclist articles whose only prose is "Joe Smith is a Dutch professional bicycle racer for Team CSC," and Benoit Vaugrenard is an article that is like this. You want to discuss numerous races as part of his overall career and progression, and not just podiums and victories? That's fine. Very reasonable. But that doesn't make a 20th place in La Flèche Wallonne an accomplishment. It is simply a result. To try to pass off a list of results as a substitute for a biography in prose is actually a bit troubling. Lists should supplement text or provide quick reference, not replace text. Palmarès literally means a list of awards - is a 20th place an award? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Wiktionary - Noun palmarès m (usually uncountable)

1) : prize list, list of winners

2) : record of achievements

A 20th place could be an achievement depending on the field and circumstances but perhaps with *footnotes under a subheading "footnotes" citing why those finishes should be noteworthy? --Yourdailywiki (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If a result is noteworthy because of that, then it can be mentioned in the prose. I think results of a certain quality/standard should be included in the palmares section, then extra ones if they merit a mention in the prose. Severo^TC 23:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the same with finishing 28th or 79th or 103rd or something in the Tour de France. From a certain perspective, just finishing the race is an accomplishment, but that's an accomplishment in the context of the rider's career. Worth a mention in the article, yes, but not the supplementary list. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

assessed N/A

Many templates and categories are rated [Category:NA-Class cycling articles|N/A]. There are now [Category:Template-Class cycling articles|template] and [Category:Category-Class cycling articles|category] classes available. There are almost 700 articles in the N/A-category, too much to recat them by hand. Does anybody have a script that can do that faster? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannot think of a script, but I managed to categorise about 1100 articles for WP:FV. I might have a go. DeMoN2009 17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I just removed all the template-class articles. Now there are 576 articles remaining, almost all of the category-class.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yellow jersey statistics

Note 4 under the massive table that gives this article its name reads:

Although Landis' 2006 Tour de France victory has been officially removed, his days in yellow are still counted. If they were removed, Cyril Dessel's total would increase with 2 extra days, and Óscar Pereiro's total with 3 days. If only his yellow jerseys after the 17th stage (the one after which Landis tested positive) were removed, only Óscar Pereiro's total would increase with 2 days.

Well kids, this has happened. Landis has been stripped of all his results from the 2006 Tour. We need to update this table to reflect that, but tables are perhaps my biggest weakness as a Wikipedian. I get nauseated working on far smaller tables and rely on cut and paste to get the job done when I need to work with one. I am quite unconfident in my ability to correctly update the table - any takers? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 02:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider it (almost) done! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Finished. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 02:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Giro d'Italia official website

Um...is there one? I can't imagine that there won't be when the event is ongoing, but there isn't one in the external links for the article and I can't find one in a web search. I'd like to create articles for stage recaps, but that's a little tough to do when there's no information but start and end towns and stage lengths (per my Vuelta 2008 stage recaps and the Tour stage recaps every year, a little descriptive prose on each stage REALLY helps things). Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 02:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I had the same problem, the first time I was watching the Giro (in 2007). My first thought was that the official site would have its name as the domain, like ilgiroditalia.it. But that page is slow, and kind of "bloggy", if you know what I mean? That page is also only possible to read in Italian, so I searched some more and thought of the main sponsor: La Gazzetta dello Sport. They have an extensive page with quick official results, available in English as well as Italian. (The Italian one is updated faster, I've experienced.) So I've added gazzetta.it as the official website, like the year before. If you look at last year, they had written something about each city, don't know when this is going to be updated for 2009. Hope this helps... lil2mas (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's looking like circumstances not entirely within my control are going to force me offline for the bulk of the next few months :( I'll try to keep the articles I've started updated, but honestly, I'm not too sure if I'll be able to. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 05:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and whipped out the skeleton articles for stage recaps (probably a tad early to do so, but what's the harm?). I'd still like them to be better sourced though, yeesh. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 05:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:01, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Bicycle touring

The article Great Parks Bicycle Route has been proposed for deletion supposedly because it deals with a topic of limited interest – bicycle touring. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Great_Parks_Bicycle_Route. --Buaidh (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New look of project page

Today I restyled the project page. I used Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics for the layout. Some things I like about this style: - The cycling logo is included - It looks more professional than the old layout - With two columns you have to scroll less - The featured articles and good articles are included

Some problems I still have: - The hierarchy took up too much space, so I made it scrollable, just like the members section. I don't know what the goal of the hierarchy is; is this used for anything? If it is not used, why is it included in the project page? - The featured article list is too small (only one article). We need more! - The featured list list is too small (zero articles!). We need more!

Probably this layout is not optimal, but I hope it is an improvement over the old version. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks great - nice one. And I agree about the hierarchy - do we need it? Severo^TC 10:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

World Ranking

I have created articles for the UCI World Ranking and its current edition : please take a look and tweak as necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add Future-Class to our project's assessment scale

The category would, naturally, exist at Category:Future-Class Cycling articles. Other wikiprojects have this, and I think it's useful, for articles such as 2009 Tour de France which might technically be stubs right now, but it seems odd to brand them as such because they won't be when/after the event happens. There is, of course, a counter-argument to this, that creating something so obviously dated runs counter to the goals of creating an encyclopedia - there are guidelines that specifically discourage dated expressions in article prose, and it's possible to connect that to a proposal such as this. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead with this. I see no reason not to, and there's been no objection. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of cycling jersey images seem to have been deleted

I say "seem to" because it's probably more likely that there's something wrong with {{Infobox Cycling team}} than dozens of images having been deleted at the same time. Look at the article for pretty much any prominent cycling team and look where the jersey image in the infobox is supposed to be (the bottom). They're missing - what's up with this? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kved has deleted a number of them in the early hours of 23/02, citing Copyright violation: use of copyrighted logos, which I'd have to say seems fairly valid. He might have been prompted to do so by this request on his talk page. If it is copyvio, I'd not sure that we have much choice but to accept it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Boo-urns. If this isn't fair use, then I don't know what is. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 09:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So what to do about it? Are you intending taking it up with Kved? Do we have an admin friendly to the project? Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should, yeah. It's really no different than an article about a movie using a poster that advertised that movie. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's almost certainly copy-vio. For the same reason you don't see the shirts of football clubs, for example, in articles. We do have a mechanism in {{Infobox Cycling team}} to what you see in {{Infobox Football club}} to do little pictures of the jerseys but they are fairly time-consuming to do. Severo^TC 13:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles on different color cycling jerseys

I think these can be centralized, and I certainly think they should be under English titles. I've already proposed moving maillot blanc to white jersey, particularly because the other French jersey names are redirects to the English names. Green jersey is essentially what I think all the jersey articles could look like. I further think the Giro jerseys, maglia rosa and maglia ciclamino, should be moved to pink jersey and mauve jersey (I don't speak Italian, so perhaps there's a better translation for "ciclamino?"). Maglia verde and maglia bianca can easily be merged into green jersey and, once moved, white jersey. There is more content that could be put into white jersey, particularly its use in the Vuelta a España.

What does everyone think of this? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Green jersey is what all articles should or could look like. I was surprised to see both the Tour de France Green jersey and the Giro d'Italia Green jersey in the same article. Why not create two separate articles? Elmarhogenboom 10:00, 18 July 2009

Just to continue my domination of this talkpage...

Seriously, this isn't intentional, I just have a lot of matters I think should be brought to a high-traffic area......

Now then. I've written the starters for stage recap articles for the 2009 Tour de France. It is well in advance of the race, yes, but I think interest in it is high enough for that not to matter. It gives other editors a chance to spruce them up, too (and by all means, do).

That's actually not what I'm bringing up here. After having written them, I naturally went to the talkpages to give them appropriate banners. Being the lazy son of a gun that I am, I went to the talkpages from last year's Tour to just copy and paste. And I found that there was no WP:FRANCE banner. I found this most curious. There don't seem to be any WP:FRANCE banners on pages associated with the Tour. Is this intentional? It seems silly to me. The Vuelta pages have WP:SPAIN banners, the Giro pages have WP:ITALY, but the Tour has no WP:FRANCE. Remarkably, the 2007 Tour article has a WP:KENT banner but no WP:FRANCE banner. What's up with this? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 09:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just because no one has jet thought of including it. I don't think they are exluded intentionally. Just include them, it might cause some other editors to help on the articles. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRANCE probably just don't have anyone regularly tagging pages or a culture to tag their talkpages. They may have made the decision not to include such pages in their project (highly unlikely). I would just add them :) Severo^TC 13:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one, from our project or theirs, seems to have noticed this before. I'll set to tagging. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 20:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No page for Tour of the Gila

Armstrong, Horner, and Leipheimer are going to the Tour of the Gila and we don't have a page.  :( So sad. No time to make one, but if anyone else is up for it there's a nice preview at www.cyclingnews.com, with past winners listed (men and women). I reckon their homepage would be helpful too. --Smilo Don (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of it. I don't really think it's a notable race. Armstrong, Horner, and Leipheimer aren't racing as Astana, but they are rather registered under a team called "Mellow Johnny's" which sounds like it's probably something Armstrong himself owns. I see only a tiny number of UCI Continental teams on the roster page, Colavita/Sutter Home, Fly V Australia, OUCH, Type 1, Bissell, and the most notable team seems to be BMC Racing Team. This might be worth a mention in Armstrong's article as his first race back from collarbone surgery, but it doesn't compare to a race like the Tour of California or even the Tour of Missouri or the Tour of Georgia, all of which draw ProTour teams. If you want to write something, I'm not gonna nominate it for deletion or anything, but it doesn't seem notable enough for an article to me. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps comparable to the Tour of Utah though. I would never have written a page on that. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah--not exactly a big-time race, but still a pretty impressive list of winners, but US racing standards. The men's winners are a partial who's-who of the last 15 years of US racing. [1] --Smilo Don (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll work on this. I think it is notable enough. Malo0178 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No page for Redlands Bicycle Classic

Again, quite surprising, given its importance to US cycling: no page for Redlands. You'd think the race promoters, at least, or the fans, would get it listed! Crazy. --Smilo Don (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You could start a page yourself, so there is at least a stub and a few references? ProfDEH (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a quick start to it. I'm not that familiar with the race, so anyone feel free to add more. Malo0178 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I don't mean to dump off work, but I'm spending too much time on the bike pages! :) Thanks Malo178 for getting us rolling!! I'll be sure to add when I have time. --Smilo Don (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a contrib. I'll work on it and add more later, its a noteworthy event for sure.--Yourdailywiki (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

National titles in team pages

Is it valid and relevant to claim national title wins among the palmarés of a team. For example, while Garmin were no doubt proud of Daniel Martin's win in the Irish national championship, and probably gave him technical support on the day, he was the only Garmin rider qualified to take part in that race: he had no domestiques or supporting riders from the team, so it seems to me spurious to claim that victory on the Garmin page. Equally, Olympic medals have, I would argue, no place on the team palmarés of the riders involved. Comments? Kevin McE (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Olympic medals, I agree, have no place on a team palmarés. Because they then ride for their country, despite any team affiliation. When it comes to national titles, I'm more uncertain. Do they use their team jersey, when riding in a national race? If so, I think it should be included, since they then ride with their team bikes, wears the jersey, gets updates/support from the team! Riding without any supporting riders just makes the win even more impressive (even though it might not be that tough a competition, but that's another story). lil2mas (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think only accomplishments won by the team should be listed on a palmarès for a team's article. At its minimum, that'd be only team classification wins, though the case can be made that podium places in stage races or even long one-day races are team accomplishments as well. A palmarès like is seen on Astana Team for example seems wildly excessive.

However, and this may potentially be something we agree to as WP:CYC 'policy' (or it may not), are palmarès on team articles specifically meant to be palmarès of their individual riders? If so, then the Astana palmarès aren't excessive, and nor would be listing national championships (I'd still say we need some guidelines, but I digress). I guess that'd make my (long-winded) answer a qualified no to national titles. It's all a matter of teamwork, I guess. Clearly, members of the same professional team don't work together in international competition (so the Olympic medals should be a flat no), but do they in national competition? I'm not being sly, I'd seriously like to know. I've never watched a national championship road race - would David Zabriskie or Christian Vandevelde (countrymen and professional teammates, one of countless examples, surely) help the other, or would they be rivals? Would their help come from other members of their professional team? Does anyone help anyone? Goodness, now I think I've confused myself. Well, hopefully something I've said has made sense. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My earlier reply did not take into account the issue on having individual achievements on the team's page, just that IF they were to be included, then I'm negative to Olympic triumphs, but more positive to National titles.

I found a Norwegian article from last year, translated here, which brings up the question whether Gabriel Rasch were to help Thor Hushovd win the Norwegian Championship or not. In short, he states that; "if he should have any chance of getting on the Crédit Agricole team for the Tour de France, he had to make Hushovd win, if not win it himself". All in all, team affiliated riders are working together. (Although the pros from small countries, are sadly often alone during these championships) lil2mas (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In Finland, there are non-commercial cycling teams working and in last year's national championship, Kjell Carlström dropped back from leading group to help Jussi Veikkanen to join them. Veikkanen went on to win the race. They are both part of same Finnish team, although they represent different teams in international level.BleuDXXXIV (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree with you that the "Major achievements"-section on the Astana page is to extensive! I think we should include all jersey's won by the team or its riders (when riding for the team). That means; all the 1st places in bicycle races (but not stage wins nor 2nd or 3rd overall placements), all points/mountain/team/youth jerseys won (but not temporary jersey wearers), and all National champions. What do you think? lil2mas (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Individual accomplishments "no" but accomplishments as a team "yes". Alternately, if a individual competes solo, BUT he/she is representing the "Team" then I say "yes". But hey that's an opinion and you know what they say about opinions!--Yourdailywiki (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Team Strawberry article

I'd be greatful for any contribs/cleanup or feedback on my article Team Strawberry. I'm new to wikipedia so I'm still feeling my way around and welcome any advice. I'd love to get that notability alert removed. Any idea why its there???--Yourdailywiki (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I will give some feedback on the talk page. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

EXCELENT! Got the feedback on the talk page. Thank you so much! I'll work on those bullet points individually and post back to the talk page on the progress.--Yourdailywiki (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominated Paris-Roubaix for GA

This probably should have been done a while ago; it's a fine article. Do we have any others in such good shape? Other projects are relentless in nominating their articles for GA and FA, and we almost never do. I'm not saying we should bottleneck GAN and FAN with cycling articles, but if we've got something, we should nominate it. I think Alberto Contador could probably be nominated for GA, too, might put that one up later. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 11:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to create a WP:CYC Manual of Style

We'd do well to have codified guidelines of what our pages should look like. Pages that have the same basic subject should have the same layout. We can set out a style template for (among other things, surely): a Grand Tour, a shorter stage race, a one-day race, a cyclist with many palmarès, a cyclist with relatively few palmarès, a seasonal competition, a cycling team (a ProTour team, a smaller team...), and probably many other repeated events. I'd be willing to at least start something like this, but I'd like to know first, is something others would think is useful? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely: I think consistency is essential to keep the project professional looking, and avoid a few pages resembling fan pages. In effect, this happens, in as much as to start new articles on riders (I have been setting about article creation for redlinked riders on the ProTour teams) I essentially have been editing a reasonable looking article for an existing young rider. Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. That's the main reason I had the 1906 Tour de France article peer reviewed, to see what the reaction to my structure would be. I think that, with the comments of the feedback changed, the structure would be good for an article about an old stage race. An article about a recent stage race can follow the same structure, but with more information added. I would recommend going through a peer review at least once for every style template. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, that's another distinction, a historic race. I think the template I've most set on in my own writing is for the short stage race. Check out 2009 Volta a Catalunya. I don't claim it as wholly exemplary, but I think it's pretty much what an article for a short stage race should look like (layout), though we can hammer out details on the order of the items, then write out an actual "example" page. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 11:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nosleep/Style guide/Short stage race. Much of the text will be retained in a guideline for the Grand Tours, but here's a pretty substantive whack at it. I hereby give permission to take out anything you find especially objectionable or add anything conspicuously missing (some people are skittish of editing anothers' userspace, don't be in this case), but discuss it either here or there, and weigh in (again, here or there), on the questions raised. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant to mention that if we can come to consensus on these, they should be up in the Wikipedia namespace as subpages of our project page, and linked from it. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have greatly revised the first style guide page. Please review it and answer the new questions that have been posed, and pose some of your own if you see fit. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could use a little help here

User:Kov 93 has indicated on my talk page that he intends to go against consensus on the Giro stage recap pages by listing the top 15 per stage and the top 15 in the GC, and adorning the top place in the GC with the pink jersey logo rather than shading. I have invited him to come here to discuss this, but first I'd like to have it spelled out that going only to 10 and shading is consensus (maybe I'm wrong - it's been known to happen :P ) and that we are not in favor of going to 15 and that odd little logo. I know these stage recap pages are kind of my baby - prior to my involvement in this project, they didn't even happen for the Giro and the Vuelta, and I'm trying not to WP:OWN them, but my understanding of this consensus is based on the Tour recap pages that were first done by others. And I hate to even suggest it, but what should be done if this is confirmed as consensus and Kov 93 refuses to stop violating it? Is this considered vandalism then? I wouldn't think so, but the tedious cycle of reverts is...well, just that, tedious. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And I don't want to violate 3RR. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the better 15 or 10 racer in stages and general? Kov 93: I think 125 racer is better, because such as men Lance Amstrong ,Bradly Wiggins and evrey 15 racer plobable winner ,the next day stage winning. Sorry I think my english not better, I have learnt english language. hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kov 93 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I get the gist of this. Simply, it's not up to us to expand a table beyond consensus to show particular riders. The fact that Armstrong, Wiggins, whoever, aren't in the top ten means they don't need to be listed on the page. Look at articles for any other stage race, and you'll see they go only as far as 10 (some only go to 3 or 5, but those are smaller articles on smaller races). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to change it from 10. It's pretty much consensus. The colours definitely are, I remember we discussed them a while ago. Severo^TC 16:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Top 10 is not just Wikipedia consensus. I googled for tour de france 2008 stage 7 results, and the first six that showed results, all showed the top 10. My choice would sooner be top 5 than top 15, but top 10 seems to be agreed upon by more media. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's come around on that. There's still the jersey icons (why do we even have these? I swear, all I ever do is remove them) and the irregular shading. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As a whole, I don't think we do. We do have Category:Redirect-Class cycling articles (which is probably how you found us), but it contains only 15 redirects when it could easily contain hundreds. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Write teams/cyclists lists for non-Grand Tours?

I had a forehead-slapping "duh!" moment last night, when I realized that the teams/cyclists lists contain a field that takes almost no space to list the rider's final position in the race or when they left the race, making the full GC and withdrawals in race articles completely redundant and unnecessary. I will remove the full GC/withdrawal lists from any articles that have them, but the question remains, this information is available for any race, so is it a good idea to write teams/cyclists lists for events other than the Grand Tours? I would like to, but I'll wait to hear from others first. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Style could be changed perhaps. I tried another style at List of teams and cyclists in the 2008 Giro d'Italia, but I don't think it's perfect by a long shot. Severo^TC 21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Mountain Biking

An editor has recently created WikiProject Mountain Biking. I've suggested this be changed into a task force of this project. This would completely remove the need to create extra bureaucracy when we've already covered all the articles within its scope within the scope of this project, as suggested by the WikiProject Council guide. Severo^TC 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Noah Holcomb

As I would rather not 3RR, would someone please look at the edits on Noah Holcomb-- ClemMcGann (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Be very careful with might be construed as forum shopping when going around 3RR. It can still get you blocked. I see that Severo has gotten to the article. Maybe when my internet connection is a little less spotty I'll wade through the diffs to see what the fighting's all about. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairly major proposed move

Even though the target is a redlink, I decided to put this through the proper channels instead of just going ahead and doing it, because this is a page that I think an awful lot of people probably look at. Talk:Astana Team#Proposed move. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This actually links to something I thought about a while back and would relate to a lot of articles. Many cycling team names are of sponsors and they have no known identifier away from them. Compare, say, to a football team which is often called City F.C.. I think it would be reasonable to rename all cycling team articles, which do not have an indentifier such as "Cycling Team" in their name, to Name cycling team. A similar thing is done in the French wiki. Severo^TC 22:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that on the French 'pedia, but I'm not a fan of the idea. For a few teams, maybe quite a few it sounds all right; certainly there'd be nothing glaringly wrong with "Caisse d'Epargne cycling team" or "Française des Jeux cycling team" or even "Euskaltel-Euskadi cycling team," but would you really want to go for "Cervélo TestTeam cycling team" or "Team Columbia-High Road cycling team" or even something a little less obvious like "Bbox Bouygues Telecom cycling team" seems clunky as hell. It sorta works for our French friends because no team has the words Équipe cycliste in its name, but plenty have the word "Team" in them. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And every once in a while there's going to be a team like Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team or Vacansoleil Pro Cycling Team, both of which were/are registered with UCI under those exact names. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Aah, I see that you mentioned "teams that do not have an identifier." Sorry. I still am not a big fan of this idea. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand the Wikipedia rules for article titles, if the Astana team is officially named "Astana" (which the uci seems to do), the article should be named "Astana". And because this name is already taken, it needs an identifier, which would be "Astana (cycling team)".

In contrast, the Quick Step team is named "Quick Step" (at least the UCI names it this way, please ignore the issue of the dot in the team name here). Therefore, the wikipedia article of the team should also be titled "Quick Step". Even though the sponsor of the team is Quick Step the company, there is no wikipedia article on that sponsor (yet), so there is no name collision for "Quick Step" and the article on the cycling team should thus be named this way. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's rules that I'm much too sleepy to try to find that say the dot in Quick Step would be unsuitable. I Heart Huckabees is not at i ♥ huckabees, for example. It has little to do with this discussion, but symbols are specifically discouraged. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We should use the most common name, which in the vast majority of publications is without a dot in Quick Step (no matter what the sponsors might prefer), but is also without the appendage cycling team. I would suggest that where it is necessary to disambiguate, include cycling team in brackets, where there is no need to, don't. Brackets seem necessary to me because it is a description of that entity, not that entity's name: the football team I support do not employ anyone called Adam Miller footballer, so there is no article of that name: there is a need to distinguish between several Adam Millers with articles, and the Gills' midfielder can, at least on his better days, be described as a footballer, so his article is at Adam Miller (footballer). Kevin McE (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Liquigas-Doimo??

Been seeing this onscreen during the Giro, and it's in a fair number of web results [2]. However, no indication per the UCI or the team's official website of a name change. What's the deal here? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No rush

but I'd like an objective class evaluation-slash-lightweight peer review for Cervélo TestTeam.And yes, I used {{ct}} there, I'm so lazy... I did a pretty major revision of it this evening, and while there still remains the task of converting the bare references with cite templates, I'm guessing I'll have that done tomorrow before anyone even sees this message :P Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First glance is that it certainly looks thorough and as such is something of a challenge to the articles of higher rated and longer established teams. I have not yet wielded my red pen of a pedantic teacher (for such I am), and I think there's an amount of copyediting to be done, to do partly with word choice (particularly overuse of podium), and partly with a slight tone of fanpage (no disappointing results at all). I wonder about that depth of coverage too: would it be your intention that every team has every positive result in every season covered to that depth? Have we got enough WP:Cycling people interested enough to make that tenable? Commendable work, and lots of good ideas for a potential example of what a team page should look like, but maybe a bit too much. Kevin McE (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really sure the team has had any disappointing results. Hushovd has always been a strong classics rider and Haussler's having a career year. They've entered races where they haven't finished higher than seventh or eighth, but they were races where Ted King or Jeremy Hunt or somebody like that was the team leader on the day, meaning expectations were low. Same with Carlos Sastre in the Tour of California - that was always a race for him to get racing kilometers in and not a race to be a a contender. Hushovd's been pipped in mass sprints a couple of times, should those be mentioned? As far as depth, we can absolutely be this detailed for any team; maybe not in the team article, but other sports do articles like 2008 New York Yankees season, and I see no reason why there'd be anything horribly wrong with something like 2009 Team Columbia-High Road season (except for the question of what we'd title the 2008 season for the team currently known as Saxo Bank, and other like examples). It should be pretty easy to write articles like that for any team at ProTour level in the past, and for any team at all currently (I wouldn't be itching to write such an article for ISD or Acqua & Sapone or something, but it could be done, I'm sure). I'd be willing to start on that (always looking for things to keep me busy). And I actually don't think it really is all that in-depth - most of the races are described by a single sentence. Since this is Cervélo's only season, it can go in the team article for the time being. Copyedit away - I've always considered my strength to be composition and not really fine-tooth comb revising. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine for a season article, but not every result in the team's main article. I would contend that if you want to write this year's section as though it were a season article, that section should be hived off to make a season article, and a brief summary remain in the main article. Kevin McE (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. This'll fill my to-do list for a while (always a good thing!) Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation of HC (and maybe of a few other phrases)

Literal translation sometimes just doesn't work. If we describe Mt Ventoux on stage 5 of the Dauphiné as being "outside categorization" then the reader will conclude that it counts nothing towards the climbers' prize. But if we call it the highest category, we need some way of explaining that there is another step between second and highest. We could ignore the French labels altogether, and (accurately) describe the 4eme as the 5th category of climb, but that would cause too much apparent contradiction with the sources. We could invent our own superlative (Super category or something similar), but we could be accused of OR. We could describe HC as highest or top category (uncapitalised), and where 1C is mentioned nearby, put in an explanatory note. We could use footnotes or a wikilink, but that seems to be more covering our backs than providing the most useful, accessible information to a reader, especially if only done on the first occurrence. Suggestions?

The non-anglophone roots of the sport provide a challenge we should always be aware of here, especially if we are to address a wider readership than the editors active on these pages. We already treat several French terms as though they were fully assimilated into English (palmarés, peloton, domestique), which they are not except in the limited circle of cycling aficionados (now there is a word that has been assimilated). Maglia and maillot should be only be used after they have been explained, and then only sparingly. Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The first time an unusual term is used it should be linked e.g. Hors Categorie. Anyone who is not sure of the meaning can click on the link. Racklever (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Kevin, which is why I didn't use "Hors Categorie" at all on the Dauphiné page (and why I moved various articles on cycling jerseys to English titles). I'm not sure that the natural reaction to the phrase "outside categorization" is to think that it means nothing, especially since Mont Ventoux is pretty obviously a mountain of some sort. Do you suppose wikilinking to outside categorization might be a good way to do this? The article Hors Categorie itself (which probably should stay where it is, as there's no universally accepted English translation - I've heard "outside categorization," "beyond categorization," "above categorization" ...) needs a little work, by the way. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Piped links will add to the confusion - can you imagine clicking on a link to outside categorization and finding yourself at hors categorie? At most it should be a redirect so that you would see "Hors categorie (Redirected from Outside categorization)". Severo^TC 22:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Racklever. Anyone sufficiently interested in a topic that could appropriately use Hors Categorie would almost certainly benefit from learning what it means. Avoiding its use does not help the typical reader of such an article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Need help saving the California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections article

I discovered the stub article California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections about a week ago and decided to make it into a real article. This is the stub condition it was in when I started.

It has come a long way since then. I was going to announce it here after I got more done, but events have caused me to do this earlier. Because the topic of this article is bicycling relevant sections of the California Vehicle Code, my approach (which was started by someone else with CVC 21202 in the stub) has been to quote the law being discussed, and then discuss it (with will sourced citations, of course). Well, I've put a lot of work into it. Please take a look at it. I still have it marked "under constructions" because I have a lot to do (see the todo list on its talk page), but I think it's pretty good for what is in it so far.

Here is where I need help, however. Someone decided it has too many quotes and should therefore be moved to Wikisource, and has nominated it for deletion! That makes no sense to me since Wikisource has no articles, only sources. Your comments with respect to that nomination for deletion are welcome here. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

New style guide first draft

User:Nosleep/Style guide/Grand Tour. There are a few questions there, most notably about the "stage summary" table. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Teams' nationality

In one of the recent style guide discussions, I riased the issue of whether teams should have nationalities assigned to them. You can read there why I think it's a bad idea.

This brings up the issue of how we should edit all the articles currently with flags next to team names. This occurs in some of our templates (such as {{cycling past winner rider}} and {{Infobox Cycling race report}}), and many other tables. So it seems like a good time to standardise. In road bicycle racing, I don't think we should include the nationality of a trade team. How about national teams though?

Severo^TC 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If they don't mean anything, then they don't mean anything. Articles on races are probably the most suitable place (outside of articles on the teams themselves) to have teams' nationalities and if we're not including them there (and it's pretty blatantly clear that that's not happening), then they shouldn't be anywhere. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To flesh this a little for people not keeping up on discussions elsewhere. At User talk:Nosleep/Style guide/Short stage race#Two more MOS considerations, I argued that the "nationality" of a trade team is irrelevant and that we shouldn't be referring to their "nationalities" beyond the article about the team. Kevin McE and Malo0178 agreed with me; Nosleep disagreed.

I'm now looking to take this further: do we have concensus that road trade teams do not have a nationality? If so, we can remove the field from the templates (namely {{Cycling past winner rider}} and {{Infobox Cycling race report}}). Severo^TC 00:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay seeing as no one has disagreed and people are doing this anyway, I'll make the template changes. Severo^TC 22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. I think that road trade teams have a nationality (the uci lists them), but I agree that this nationality is mostly irrelevant in all articles except of the team itself. So the templates you mentioned do not need the nationality.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the team nationality is important too, I don't understand why it has been removed from the templates. I think the flag-icon makes the race palmares more complete. My proposal is to change the templates (to the original form). LegendK (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Full case

As we don't yet have consensus I will write up why I think there is no such thing as team "nationality".

Nationalities do matter when the entity is representing somewhere. In racing cycling, although riders are riding for themselves and their teams, they are representing their country. A nations ranking is tabulated according to the nationalities of a rider (as per his UCI licence). Riders also qualify to represent national teams, specifically here in the world championships and Olympic Games. National standings even earn places for the national team at the world championships and Olympic Games. For riders, nationality matters. But, during a normal race, it isn't as important as the rider himself or the team. For the rider, the use of {{flagathlete}} makes a nice compromise: referring to nationality but not over-doing it.

In some sports, the nationality of the team/club does matter in some contexts. For example, Chelsea are an English team, playing domestic football in England and often being one of the English league's qualifiers for European competition - in doing so they are representing the English league. It matters that they are English. There is no equivalent in cycle racing. Teams do not compete in a domestic competition, are not constrained to compete in their country of registration or even obliged to compete there at all. France aside, there are no national leagues or competitions. Teams do not win points for their federation or represent them on any level.

Finally we have the gap between country of registration and the identity of the team. It would be difficult to argue that LPR Brakes–Farnese Vini do not have an Italian identity. Of their riders, 17 of 18 are Italian. They ride on Italian De Rosa bikes. The team management is Italian and the team performs strongest in Italian races. However, they are registered in Ireland, and have previously been registered in Switzerland. Cervélo TestTeam are registered in Switzerland but have just one Swiss rider and have riders from, I think, 13 different nationalities. Astana, in three years, have been registered in Switzerland, Luxembourg and now Kazakhstan. The point of this is that team "nationalities" could only be derived from their country of registration, as noted on the UCI website. However, this would never tell the full story as teams choose to be registered in different countries for many reasons (often, presumably, for lower taxation).

You can find on the UCI website the country that each team is registered in. It is a technical designation. Higher-level teams are not obliged to register in a particular country due to their make-up of riders - they can pick and choose where to base themselves and have their office. Once registered in a country, a team is not obliged to have anything with it. In return, at no point is the team representing the national federation they are registered with. The country of registration is mentioned in the article for each team, but the country of registration does not translate to a "nationality" and doesn't travel further than the article itself. Severo^TC 23:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A flag can certainly be associated with an individual rider, but the only teams that should have flags attached to them are national teams (e.g. Olympic, football, ice hockey, basketball). Cycling teams most certainly don't represent specific countries, and therefore should not be labelled with flag icons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we not have consensus? Everyone but me has been in vehement agreement with this notion (unless there's a whole lot of discussion I haven't seen), and I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it or anything. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC) OK, so User:LegendK also disagrees. I still think consensus can be (and I thought it had been) declared. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the LPR-Brakes example is just an exception. The Cer I think the team nationality makes clear if a rider is riding for a team that represents his nation (for example the Tom Boonen competes in a Belgian team) or a foreign country (for example Frederik Willems competes in an Italian team). LegendK (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But that's the rub - teams do not represent a nation or national federation in any way. Severo^TC 20:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

While some teams probably do retain a focus on their country of origin (most riders of that nationality, prioritisation of races there, sponsors' interests concentrated there, assistance from public money), this is by no means the case for all teams. The ProTour team that most fits these "representation" criteria is, ironically, one that represents a sub-national body (Euskaltel–Euskadi), but other examples can be found (it is widely acknowledged that Muravyev is in the TdF at the moment because the Astana sponsors would baulk at a selection with no Kazakhstani riders). The Irish sporting press are very loyal on the odd occasion that they have a top level performer or team to boast of, but Ceramica and LPR are virtually unremarked upon: any gnashing of teeth by the British cycling community or media over the absence of Barloworld from the tour is more to do with the absence of Chris Froome and Geraint Thomas than national pride in the team (they do not even have a UK contact address on their web site). All teams must be treated the same: we cannot decide on a team by team basis a level of national identity that justifies inclusion of a flag. So the question is whether the close national ties of some teams is sufficient, and sufficiently common, to justify the assumption that nationality is relevant, although in some cases it clearly is not. I would have to say that to my mind it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's been interesting to note that Team Columbia-HTC is basically the same organization that was Team Telekom for 17 years. Was it German then and American now? Or is it just a distortion to give it a nationality? I think the latter is true. -- AyaK (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have another idea. We can assign a flag to the team based on the colours of the shirt. For example, Liquigas is green/blue/white, so we can use a flag with this three colour. Obviously it doesn't represent the nationality, it's just a way to connect the name to the colours of the team. This technique is used in some other wikipedias (for example in the Italian one).LegendK (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds confusing and misleading. I checked the Italian wiki, and I think it is confusing there. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd with Edge on this one: not keen on those at all: they bear no information, and are potentially very misleading. Kevin McE (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would we say it's okay to refer to teams that do have very clear nationality, by that nationality? For example, in 2009 Astana season, I included the passage Other unspecified Spanish Astana riders were also said to be close to jumping to the American team to follow Contador. regarding Contador's rumored potential move to Garmin-Slipstream. Half of Garmin's roster is American, its nation of UCI registry is the USA, and they're just thought of as an American team just like LPR is thought of as an Italian team. I think similarly of Quick Step, all four French ProTeams, Euskaltel (duh), and Lampre and Liquigas. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No. As Andrwsc writes above: "The only teams that should have flags attached to them are national teams (e.g. Olympic, football, ice hockey, basketball). Cycling teams most certainly don't represent specific countries, and therefore should not be labelled with flag icons." Severo^TC 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I asked about referring to Garmin in article prose as "the American team" by basis of their perceived identity matching their country of UCI registry. I'm not trying to put a flag icon next to anyone's name. Surely, we can call Euskaltel "the Basque team" so is it really so different to say similar things about the teams I mentioned earlier? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, read it too quick. I have less problems with writing it in the prose as it would (or should) never imply a national representative team. However, you'd need to be careful with wording for all of the above reasons and to ensure you're not stressing a point (i.e. "nationality") too much. I will be steering clear of this kind of language but I wouldn't revert people doing it... Severo^TC 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Race overview for Grand Tour articles

No one's commented on this on the latest style guide (which I'll get back to as soon as I can, I'm sorry it's taking me so long, I've been having problems with my ISP), so I'll ask here - should we include a two or three paragraph summary of the goings-on in the race for Grand Tour articles? It's not as necessary in short stage race articles, because all the stage profiles will be in the same article. As it is right now, we've got a one-sentence mention of who won the 2009 Giro d'Italia in that article, while the stage recaps are quite well hidden in a template at the bottom of the page. I think we could do well to write something with its own TOC heading detailing the race, maybe a paragraph per week (which would especially be natural for the Giro - a paragraph about Columbia-High Road's dominance in the first and second weeks, a paragraph about Di Luca and a paragraph about Menchov holding the jersey, maybe something about the other classifications). The main problem is I'm not sure where to put it. The article right now still kind of reflects its state from before the race, as a preview. It's good information, but I don't know how to orient it all. Suggestions? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do something similar to the 2008 Tour de France article. Some information about the stages right below the stage overview, and of the other classifications close to their final results. In theory, this should improve the article, but in practice the layout is really weird now. If somebody has suggestions how this would work best, I also would be happy to hear them. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording is a little choppy, and it needs sources (it should be ridiculously easy to find some, I'd do it myself if my internet time weren't limited). I'm stymied as to location as well. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I only now actually noticed the text by the results tables. Reading comprehension is my friend! I don't think that text is such a good idea. It's not exactly pleasing to the eye, and it begins to defeat the purpose of putting the stage profiles into new articles. I think a paragraph about the classifications put with the overall brief overview of the race is for the best. For the bigger story, that's what the stage profiles are for. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did something rather hurriedly for the 2009 Tour de France, essentially summarising the stage summaries, mainly because folk at ITN were asking for more prose. I'm afraid the sections above the results boxes on the 2008 TdF result in a rather disorganised jumble: can they not be removed from there and simply pasted back as text above the results boxes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs)

I'd have been all over prose for the 2009 Tour if I'd actually been able to see it. Personally, I think the section that's there right now looks great. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The sections above the results boxes in the 2008 TdF article are not on the right position. If you have a better position for them, please copy-paste them. (Or even remove them, be bold! ;))--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved and lightly edited. Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of icons in Palmarès sections

I have noticed that many cyclist articles contain a smattering of icons in the achievements/Palmarès sections (e.g. Gunn-Rita Dahle Flesjå), including icons of national flags, medals, and shirts. I think this might be questionable style, against the consensus of WP:Manual of Style (icons) for mixing icons in the middle of prose text (i.e. in the middle of a string of text, such as seen on Chris Hoy) and for using icons without explanation (e.g nowhere do I see a legend for what means). I think these articles suffer from an inappropriate use of icons and I would like to hear comments from this project. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that icons without an explanation might be difficult to understand. But they are however useful in spotting the different major achievements. Therefore I made a legend on top of the palmarès, like this:

Legend:

= Norwegian champion

= World champion

= Gold medal winner

This should cover the potential misunderstandings. lil2mas (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect to your efforts, I don't think that's a big improvement. The scattering of icons throughout a set of textual bullet points looks unprofessional and sloppy. Items become misaligned, and replacing a word or two of text with a little picture is a detriment to WP:Accessibility. Finally, I thought the preferred way of highlighting the major achievements was with the majorwins field of {{Infobox Cyclist}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the use of icons, as long if they are not overused, and consistent in the project. Unfortunately I think Andrwsc is right here, and Accessibility should stop us from using the icons.

Nevertheless, some time ago I thought about improving the use of icons in palmares. Putting an icon in front of every achievement, with different icons for grand tours, grand tour stages, secondary jerseys, stage races, one-day races, olympics and national races. This would mean a lot of work, so I never started it. But I share the idea here, because it might generate a better idea. The way we represent palmares is not perfect; I am always jealous of the way the WP:TENNIS project can show the results. Look at Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timeline for a great example (at least I love it). I know the tennis tournaments results are easier to describe than cycling results, and are more consistent over the years, but still... By the way, this is something that should be solved in User:Nosleep/Style guide/Cyclist biography. Once that page has been created by Nosleep (at her choice of time of course, I'm not pushing her) you should give your thoughts on it! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really very well versed on the notability of various palmarès in track cycling. Look at Greg Henderson, for example - he has about as many (or maybe more) listed palmarès as Lance Armstrong!

Mostly what I've done for the style guide first drafts has been to find an article I consider well-written that, as I understand it, reflects consensus. I think some other WP:CYC members have thought that the first drafts were 100% my preferences - they aren't. Naturally, I'm gonna think an article I had a hand in writing is probably one of the better ones, so that's what I've used as my standard for the first two, but I've never written an article on a one-day race or a team and I've never written anything special on an individual cyclist, so those will be more wide open. I've only got about an hour online right now, so I'm again not going to be able to get back to that, sorry.

And this isn't a big big deal, but it is kind of bugging me...if you're going to use a personal pronoun to refer to me, I'd like you to use "her." I wish I could just say "I'm a girl," but since I didn't, I think that gives you some idea as to how complicated that is! Many thanks. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the use of sortable tables might be beneficial. That would allow sorting chronologically (by the "Year" column) or by championship type (e.g. UCI, Olympic, etc. in another column), and would help in alignment issues with these lists. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrwsc, the idea of sortable tables sounds interesting, but I'm finding it a little hard to visualise. Do you have any thoughts on how it could be done? Severo^TC 09:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while to respond! How about the latest edit for Gunn-Rita Dahle Flesjå, for example? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea is good, but I don't like the example, I don't think it improves the old format. In the example, the disciplin could be given an extra column (cross country/marathon), but overall, I have no idea how to do it any better. The cycling world is fascinating for all its different kinds of results (stage wins, stage race wins, sprint wins, KOM wins, national championships, etc.) but that makes it very difficult to present results in a structured way.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was just a quick edit on my part, so additional improvements are quite likely! I agree that more columns to sort by would provide additional browsing benefits. In my opinion, though, icons (of any type) are most effective when aligned in a vertical list (or table column), and ought to have value to the reader beyond mere decorative reasons. Therefore, I still assert that the previous format (using definition list markup) is not conducive to icon usage, as they are scattered throughout the list without any alignment. That was what I called "unprofessional and sloppy". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturmey-Archer

I've just been looking at the page for Sturmey Archer and it's painfully out of date. I'm trying to improve it but I'm not very experienced. If anyone else is willing to pay it some attention also then I would be greatful! Thanks ReformatMe (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Team Saxo Bank

I am doing the GA Reassessment of the Team Saxo Bank article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. I have put the article on hold for a week in the hopes that an editor will address my concerns, which can be found here. I am notifying all interested projects about this. If there are any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I never thought the article was a GA anyway. I've got quite a bit on my plate, but I'll give it a look if I have a moment. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Cycling race report}}

What do you think to the idea of adding the jersey icons to the race report infobox? Now we're using them throughout articles, would it make sense to include them here as well? It wouldn't be too much to add template wise. Severo^TC 00:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea, it would automatically serve as a legend for the jerseys. But how? As Winner First O'Winner   (Team Tops) in the box, if the race uses a yellow jersey for the winner?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, take a look: 2009 Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré. Severo^TC 22:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks excellent. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyclingnews.com

Have a look at the site. Nice, sleek new look, no? Well, with the new look has come the movement of everything they've previously posted. Click any of our sources (I used the site quite extensively for the Giro and a lot of other races this season) and everything either redirects to the home page or a 404-Page Not Found. Time for some majorly tedious busywork, because I'm pretty sure everything is still there, it's just at new URL's. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All is not lost! Change http://www.cyclingnews... to http://autobus.cyclingnews... and it magically reappears! Just what AWB was designed for :) I'll get onto it tomorrow. (That said, if there is a corresponding new-style page we can update the links, but it will be much more time consuming) Severo^TC 01:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good, but I can't imagine that'll be there permanently. How did you find that anyway? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the links in the top right is to "Full archive". They've always kept previous versions of the site for archive going back to it's earliest days. Still, probably not a bad idea to use WebCite for the cyclingnews archives, the UCI archives etc. Severo^TC 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, annoyingly as I'd "fixed" all the links, they've fixed all their backlinks, so the old links work as normal... Severo^TC 13:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that myself. The old links now automatically redirect to the autobus links. Well, if it ain't broke... Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

Admittedly, this was probably not the best use of my time here today, but it's something I've really been wanting to do, so it's done. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Cycling If you support a particular cycling team and would like to wear it on your sleeve (or, your userpage!), I've created userboxes for that. I created UBX's for all 18 ProTour teams, two prominent ProContinental teams, and one former team. They're pretty easy to make, so I (or anyone, really) can create more for other teams if they're desired. I started off just making one for myself, but I really thought this was a neat idea (and there's UBX's for all sorts of other sports), so go and get yourself a UBX if you're of the mind. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Paris-Roubaix

We all really should work on this, as much as possible. I nominated it for GA a couple months ago, impressed by the size and sourcing of the article. It's probably pretty close, but "pretty close" for a 106K article is different than "pretty close" for a 34K article like Alberto Contador which I was able to improve to GA by myself. I also just don't know as much about Paris-Roubaix as about Contador, web sources are less available, and the article as it stands relies on print sources that I have no access to. In short, I need help. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not have the time nor the interest nor the knowledge to help you there.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The reviewer rather generously granted GA even with several items on his critique still unaddressed. So, no pressing concern here, but I'm still probably going to work on the article a bit more. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article split

Talk:Mark Cavendish#Split proposal. Weigh in when you have a moment. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Gonna need some help with this one (style guide)

User:Nosleep/Style guide/One day race It's pretty bare bones. My knowledge base is definitely with stage races, so I didn't have a whole lot to offer on this one. We need to discuss specifically what level of detail is suitable for description of the actual race (hopefully we can easily agree that it should be more detail than stage profiles from stage race articles). Give it a look when you have time, it's not going anywhere. I also tried to cull opinions given at User:Nosleep/Style guide/Grand Tour, so go there and see if we've got consensus (mainly about the stage summary table). Also, please go there if you haven't yet given your opinions. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

still awaiting response on the above... But I've also come up with ideas for new article types to have a style guide written for them - parent articles on stage races and one day races. That is, articles like Vuelta a España or Liège-Bastogne-Liège or Paris-Nice, as opposed to articles on individual editions of those races. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd better do something about having a 2009 Clásica de San Sebastián page ready for Saturday, so maybe people can use that as a starter for discussion of what should/should not be presented according to a style guide. Kevin McE (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Folding bicycle

I've made an effort to lift this article above start class: thorough grammar and sense edit so it's now reasonably informative, trimmed the illustrations to keep just what is relevant etc. Changed to tag from cleanup to refimprove which I think is right: the article still needs more references. I know the article could be a lot better but don't have time. Could someone reassess please. ProfDEH (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Career Results Boxes

Hi, Been looking at and commented on the Mark Cavendish split debate, and it occurred to me that the Palmares in cycling pages looks quite ugly in comparison to the tables and boxes of formula one. golf or tennis players. Would people be keen on developing and using tables, perhaps similar to those in tennis, whereby a grand tours/classics/world championships summary table, with overall career stats could be used, below a list of race wins or other notable finishes/classifications? Obviously it would need work to consider the different competing achievments, but potentially it could tidy up a lot of pages and help standardize Palmares? --Pretty Green (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We are looking at this, see the debate above at "Use of icons in Palmarès sections". The problem is that compared to formula one, golf and tennis, the cycling races are not so structured. That does not mean that we can not improve on the current layout, and you are welcome to share your ideas on that! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

List of doping cases in cycling

I'm not referring to that article itself but instead, there's a link to the page in many Tour de France year x articles starting from 1990s, like this one But should it need to be mentioned in every page? I can understand some of them which were heavily influenced with doping like 1996 (Telekom confessions), 1998 (Festina), 2006 (Puerto & Landis) but I don't see that every article should have it. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, pretty much every Tour has an instance of someone being caught with a needle in his arm. But I suppose it could be restricted to particularly notable instances. I'd say 2008 would count along with those you mentioned, and arguably 2007, but it's plainly unnecessary in, say, the 2005 article - the only time the words "2005 Tour de France" and "doping" were used in the same sentence was some ultimately baseless claims against Armstrong. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cycling team seasons

I'm fully aware that I'll probably be the only one working on these articles, but I'd still like community consensus behind them. Have a look at something in a sandbox of mine, User:Nosleep/2009 Astana season. I still need to put the statistics in the infobox, but otherwise the 'article' is, to date, complete. Is everyone all right with the basic substance of this article, and how it looks? The chief question is organization - I've split the races up by type of race, but just as reasonable would be a strictly chronological organization (Tour Down Under, then Omloop, etc... with months as section headers). I'll mainspace it when there's sufficient support, and create a template akin to Template:New York Yankees seasons for navigation with other season articles (heaped on the ol' to-do list). One big question also presents itself - what should the title be for articles on teams whose name changes during the season?

Give it a look when you have a moment, it's not going anywhere. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And feel free to edit the page if you care to. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating page. As one of the other people who has been "picking at" the Astana article from time to time, I don't disagree with the amount of detail -- but then again, Astana has had a novel season so far. I've never seen anything like the possible Vino-Bruyneel fight, if it actually materializes. I'll probably have some edits to this page later, but I won't get to them today. - AyaK (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should (re-)mention that I plan to write pages like this for seasons of each team at ProTour level or close to it (the obvious example of a non-ProTour team that could support a page like this is Cervélo, but probably Barloworld and maybe Agritubel or Xacobeo-Galicia could too). Astana 2009 was just the first one, to have an example (mostly because of how much media attention they've gotten this year). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I only had a small look, but: Nice work! And many sources. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm designing an infobox for such articles at User:Severo/sandbox/templates/Template:Infobox Cycling team season, taking a good look at all the other sports who already do seasonal articles. Severo^TC 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks all right. Indeed, it might be best to omit the colors, as they can change drastically over the years (Kim Kirchen, for example, has worn several different colors since 2006, but has been on the same team the whole time). The one thing I was considering adding was one-day podiums. It's about as significant as stage race stage wins, I'd say. Obviously, none for Astana, but there's plenty for teams like Quick Step, Silence-Lotto, Cervélo... Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the "victories" table, but that's really just a personal preference - I totally understand why it helps the article (why read 30k of text when all you want is quick reference?). No team classifications, though? That's been what Astana has won most often this season (not that that should make a difference as to whether they're generally included, just that I expected they'd be there). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the info for victories from the Cyclingwebsite.net page for Astana which didn't include the team classifications, but victories for every team members, and so did include the recent national event races where members raced under different team names, and listed the team time trial win nine times... Still, it's more idea than something I think has to be included.

We also have a victory list for one team, namely List of Team Saxo Bank wins. This kind of thing would link in to both. The data could be put into a template which could then be used in both articles.

Work on the infobox is ongoing. I'm considering the following options: base (country), UCI code, level (i.e. ProTeam, Continental, Division I etc), ranking (probably ProTour rank), directuer sportifs, bike manufacturers and national champions. Severo^TC 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, keep working on that, but are you okay with the victories table position and header and everything? If so, I think we can go ahead and mainspace this. Seems to be community acceptance for having such an article, and everything aside from that infobox seems pretty stable. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, looks good to me. Severo^TC 16:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started 2008 Astana season. I've decided to go team-by-team rather than year-by-year (probably Columbia will be last, since there's so many seasons for them). Any help is welcome and appreciated. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We still need to figure out, though, what to title the article when a team changes names mid-season. Case-by-case, or can we develop a rule? 2008 Team CSC season will probably be a reasonable title when we get around to that one, because the team was known exactly as "Team CSC" and "Team CSC" was also in the team's later name. But I'm not sure if 2009 Team Columbia season would work, since even though "Team Columbia" was part of both of their names this season, the team was never known exactly as "Team Columbia" in 2009. And certainly, the 2007 season for that team (and there are many examples like that) is even less clear-cut. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Astana seasons}}. Any chance of adding color to it? I put the Astana colors in, but they didn't show up on the template. I'll start the 2007 article tomorrow. The 2008 article is complete, and 2009 is complete, to date. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone's interested (and no worries if you're not), the next team I'm gonna do after Astana is Cofidis. I'm gonna avoid doing any teams that have had recent midseason name changes (another reason Columbia will be one of the last) or teams whose official websites are in German or Dutch (I speak great Spanish, ok French, passable Italian, awful German, and no Dutch at all). So after Cofidis will probably be Euskaltel (I think they have a castellano version of their website) or Caisse d'Epargne. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What to do with the victories table for a team like Columbia this year? I've changed my mind somewhat and started doing infoboxes, leads, and roster tables for each team this year before proceeding further. Columbia-High Road/HTC have forty-nine stage victories this season, and it's not even close to done. Scroll city if their article is to have a table like the Astana articles do. They won as many stages this year in the Giro d'Italia, the Tour de France, and the Tour de Suisse as Astana did all last season put together. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove this text from the Project page please?

As of January, 2007 it appears there is no coordination of efforts between WikiProject Cycling and WikiProject Olympics. The cycling-related pages of WikiProject Olympics appear to have few or no direct links to cycling-related categories or pages edited by members of WikiProject Cycling.

Not only is it (obviously) two and a half years dated, it's also not even true. I worked with members of WP:OLY and passers by on all the Olympics cycling articles, and just about all of us had hands in the road race articles. I tried to remove it myself, but the text doesn't actually appear on the Project page - it must be in some linked in subpage, which I'm not nearly Wiki-savvy enough to find in that in that schlock of code. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Severo^TC 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Commuting cyclists

I just now created the category, "Commuting cyclists" and addded a few biographical articles to it. I invite all to do the same. —Danorton (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

women's road race is featured now, what's next?

The Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race is featured now. Well done. Is there any interest to try and improve a different article to GA/FA-status? Looking at the style guides, we have:

• Short stage race: B-class (example:Tour of Ireland)
• Grand Tour: B-class (example:2008 Tour de France)
• One day race: FA status (example:Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race)
• Cyclist biography: GA status (example:Alberto Contador)
• Cycling team: GA status (example:Team Saxo Bank)
• Cycling team season: C-class (example:2009 Astana season)
• Historical stage race: B-class (example:1903 Tour de France)

I appreciate the work on the cycling team season, but I think this category is still too new. That leaves us with some options:

• Upgrade a GA cyclist biography to FA-status.
• Upgrade a GA cycling team to FA-status.
• Upgrade a short stage race to GA-status.
• Upgrade a grand tour to GA-status.
• Upgrade a historical stage race to GA-status.

Is somebody interested to work together on one of these? It does not have to reach the next status in one week. With the Tour de France, and the summer on this side of the earth, I know I won't be spending much time on it soon, but it is nice to have a project goal. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent to have another FA. I didn't think anyone was really interested in the style guides at this point (and hey, myself included, I kinda half-assed the last first draft). It might indeed be better to just dive in, and establish a standard that way (I still think it's a good idea to have something written out-of-article at some point, but there's no necessary time frame to it). Honestly, I'm really excited about doing season articles right now (especially since I can't watch the damn Tour), so let me know when a particular article is decided to improve. I don't really have an opinion as to picking one or even a class of article to focus on right now. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cycling past winners usability

Normally I'd be quite bold and update these templates without discussion but I'm proposing some big changes. The {{cycling past winner start}} system is used in over 90% of race articles to display the winners of races in a standardised format. To improve the display for readers even further, I think we're now in a position where we can make them sortable beyond date, to nationality, rider name and team. The edits required in the templates are:

• Template:Cycling past winner start
• Template:Cycling past winner rider
• Template:Cycling past winner rider2
• Template:Cycling past winner no race
• Template:Cycling past winner mid (deleted)
• Template:Cycling past winner end

The names of winners would not sort correctly at first as they would sort on first name rather than last; {{sortname}} would have to be put into every transclusion to make this work (this may be possible using a bot or semi-automated editor, it may not).

• Example of it all put together (based on Paris-Roubaix)

We would have to ditch the two column format and list all the winners in one run. In the races that have been going on longer, we would have quite lengthy lists. The only solution I have for this would be to decrease the font size to, say, 80%.

Team names would sort, but would even better if they sorted according to team, not just team name; for example, Discovery Channel sorting alongside U.S. Postal Service. We could achieve this through {{ct}}. The edit required is:

• Template:Cycling team link

I think these edits could make the past winners tables more useful to readers, but before making all these changes on so many articles I'd just like some input on it! Cheers, Severo^TC 22:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a really good facility, great work. A couple of minor points: indicating second and subsequent wins with a simple number in brackets (not necessarily intuitive at the best of times) will seem odd if the net result of a couple of sorts is that Jacques Velopedeur (2) precedes Jacques Velopedeur. I'd prefer to drop the numbers, and let the reader count. Sorting by team and then having a far from alphabetical sorting of the teams will seem odd to many readers, but I think the utility of this might outweigh that. I wouldn't be inclined to reduce text size: it is recommended against in the MoS, and we all have scroll bars. Kevin McE (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Kevin that if this were to be implemented, we should drop the numbers. The sorting makes it easier to count, and a table showing multiple winners can in several articles be found below.
• Before making the ct-template, I thought Crédit Agricole always were named the same. But I found out that it had been named both GAN and Z. When sorting by team, it would look confusing for others, seeing eg. Ag2r, C.A, GAN, Z, Discovery Channel, US Postal, Lampre, Quick Step, and so on... It doesn't look sorted, and how would people know that C.A, GAN and Z belong togheter, and not Ag2r & C.A?
• The use of {{sortname}} should be used in the template instead of multiple times in the article, divide the name-code into first, last, link and sortkey.
• I don't like that it requires more scrolling, so I actually prefer the two-column format instead of sorting. I agree must say like NoSleep below; Is it necessary? Do the pros outweigh the cons? lil2mas (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• The numbers after winners I've never been particularly keen on as at no point is it mentioned what these numbers actually mean.
• This is easy to leave for now, I don't think either is ideal - either it doesn't appear sorted, or wins from the same team but different team names are broken up. With my first suggestion, the link and alt-text on the links would match up but I don't know if this is enough. Either way I'm happy to drop this one at the moment, we can always revisit later.
• It will be much more difficult to make template changes on this one as it involves breaking one field up into several. I've made a request at Bot requests for help with putting {{sortname}} into all 252 articles this involves but haven't heard anything back from it yet.

Severo^TC 11:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Commendable work getting it all put together, but I've got to ask, why is this considered an improvement? I'm not saying it's a detriment, I just don't quite see why it's necessary. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it gives the reader the choice of how to view the information. If we were to consider these lists as standalone, we could take a look at the Featured list criteria, where point 4 mentions sortable lists. Picking a few sports lists at random, you'll see they all use sortable columns. There aren't strong arguments about not making these changes as sortability improves the reading experience. Severo^TC 11:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I just seemed to remember sortability being implemented elsewhere and it was thought to be undesirable. Maybe I'm dreaming that. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Marc Biver

The man is either a slimeball or he's Mr. Magoo for what went on under his nose in 2007, but does anyone think he's notable enough for an article? Former organizer of a relatively high-profile race (the Tour de Suisse) and manager of a UCI ProTeam, such as it was for that year. I've found an interview with Biver and a smattering of other sources in the course of researching 2007 Astana season. I suppose it might fall to me to write it, that's fine if so, just curious if we all agree he's notable. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable as per Wikipedia guidelines/policy? Yes. Severo^TC 11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The latest high-profile doper

It's the killer. [3]

I believe I provided reasonable edits to Danilo Di Luca, 2009 Giro d'Italia, 2009 Giro d'Italia, Stage 1 to Stage 11, and 2009 Giro d'Italia, Stage 12 to Stage 21, but it may be good to keep an eye on them, especially Di Luca's bio and 2009 Giro d'Italia for any pre-emptive removal of jerseys and/or stage wins. And, certainly, to revise if my edits are insufficient or if new information breaks. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that in such circumstances, we should do nothing to the results. As an encyclopaedia, we report realities, not speculate as to what actions the authorities might take in the light of them. Of course the positive result should be noted in the text (although as he didn't win, I would not be in favour of keeping it in the lead para), but I would say that the results should be unannotated until and unless RCS Sports make an announcement. After all, how long are we going to leave those tags all over the 2008 TdF results? If the concern is editors pre-empting events, then a <!-- remmed out comment --> might do the job. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to remove the refs next to Di Luca's name in 2009 Giro d'Italia, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over that (no pun intended). Since he did win the points class, there's every possibility he could be stripped of that (like Petacchi in 2007). His stage wins both came before either of his positives, but RCS could do to him what ASO did to Landis in the 2006 Tour, remove every result. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cyclist infobox

See also: User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2009/July § US Postal/Discovery

Hippo43 and I have been reverting each other over Lance Armstrong's 2005 team in his infobox. I edited to show "1998-2005 U.S. Postal Service" while Hippo edited to show "1998-2004 U.S. Postal Service" and "2005 Discovery Channel" on the next line. We decided upon the former a few months ago, right? That's why {{Infobox Cyclist}} contains the notation "Team names given are those prevailing at time of rider beginning association with that team." and why articles like Robbie McEwen, Kim Kirchen, and others who have ridden for several years for teams that changed names numerous times are more simplified. Consider the state of the McEwen infobox in this old revision - I'm pretty sure it was specifically listed as being one that benefited from being simplified in this way. Wasn't this the very genesis of {{ct}}? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the reasons behind the infobox convention, but my take on this is pretty simple. Armstrong rode for Discovery in 05, so saying 'US Postal: 1998-2005' is wrong and not verifiable - it shouldn't be in the article. --hippo43 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nosleep on this. If you split the time periods, it appears as if Armstrong changed to a different team. That is misleading, because Armstrong did not change, but only the sponsor did. Saying "US Postal: 1998-2005", with the note included, is not wrong and verifiable (the team in 2005 is the follow-up of 2004, you can verify that). It's the best of the poor solutions that we have to the cycling team problem. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The infobox should state different teams, not different sponsors. Armstrong rode for the same team between 1998 and 2005, as McEwen rode for the same team between 2002 and 2008 despite the variations of the team name (in his case, several just to promote a different product the sponsor made). Each line should only represent one team, not matter how many sponsors. I'm sure that it's not perfect but it's the best method we've found so far and {{ct}} make it work well. Severo^TC 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current convention is the best solution to this problem at all - it produces information which is incorrect, and clearly breaches WP:V. The current convention creates some strange inconsistencies - 2005 Tour de France, for example shows that Armstrong rode for Discovery, yet the infobox in Lance Armstrong says different. Moreover, why is the convention to link to the original name of the team, when convention in cycling team articles seems to be to use the most recent name as the article name? How is this not more confusing to readers when they click through to the team's article? Readers may assume from an infobox that a rider has changed teams, or they may assume a team has changed its name, or they may click on the team links and find out. I don't think we should be assuming that readers will make one assumption or another.

The list should show the correct name of the team he competed for each year, if necessary with some kind of annotation to show that only a team's name changed. --hippo43 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How does this breach WP:V? We can verify the team Armstrong rode for in each year, and we can verify what any particular team was named each year. How is it not verifiable that Armstrong rode between 1998 and 2005 for the team that was known in 1998 as US Postal? Severo^TC 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Except "Armstrong rode between 1998 and 2005 for the team that was known in 1998 as US Postal" is not of much interest to readers, and as there is a small note way down at the bottom of the infobox, it's not immediately clear that that is what the infobox is saying. --hippo43 (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the team was Tailwind/Capital Sports when sponsored by U.S.P.S. and still Tailwind/Capital Sports when sponsored by Discovery Channel. If we showed every switch in sponsor, we'd have three different names for the Slipstream team in less than two years (Slipstream-Chipotle during the 2008 Giro, Garmin-Chipotle during the 2008 Tour and Garmin-Slipstream in 2009), even though Doug Ellis has remained constant. How does it help to list every title sponsor? -- AyaK (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is going to be a lesser of two evils choice, unless we go for a much less streamlined infobox. Either we admit potential misunderstandings ("How come it says that Armstrong was with US Postal until the end of 2005, when I know he was wearing a Discovery jersey in the 2005 Tour?") or we give false impressions about riders' contractual history ("That Mark Cavendish is a fickle bloke: he's changed teams 4 times in 2½ years!"). I think that the explanatory note in the infobox neatly avoids accusations of inaccuracy (but there again I would, I put it there), but we should be careful to explain in the text the continuity of teams through changes of sponsors. Kevin McE (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is 'potential misunderstandings' vs 'false impressions'. Instead of 'potential misunderstandings', it's patently untrue information. 'False impressions' is crystal ball gazing - we don't know what readers will think when they see Cavendish's infobox. I do agree that we need to differentiate between moving teams and changing team names. Perhaps something like:

• 1998-2004: US Postal
• 2005: Discovery Channel (team name changed)
• 2009: Astana

I'm not sure it is a 'lesser of two evils' choice. There are any number of choices, and no reason in policy to have every cyclist's infobox treated the same way. --hippo43 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason to treat all infoboxes the same way, and that is to prevent discussions on every cyclist's article. But we have a centralized discussion here, so that is good. I am interested in a new way, because the current method can be confusing. For example, with Erik Dekker, according to the current standards the infobox should say that he rode for the Buckler-team from 1992 to 2006. Which team? If you don't know that this team changed sponsors until it became Rabobank in 1996, it is confusing. Dekker did not do anything notable for Buckler, but he did for Rabobank. If we differentiate between moving teams and changing sponsors, it would indeed become a lot clearer. But how? Your solution is not perfect, I think. (And it is a problem to find out what the situation is with teams from the 70s and 80s, did the one team stop and was a new team started, or did the sponsor simply change? But we also have this problem with the current method.)

By the way, I hope you stop referencing WP:V here. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

kg to lb conversions all rounding to tens of lbs. Easy fix for single page. Any way to change all pages at once?

The default rounding keeps 2 sig figs, so since all the weights are in tens of kg, this rounds to the nearest ten pounds when converted (the default rounding does this is the conversion factor is between 2 and 20, which it is in this case).

It's easy to fix for a single page (add "|sigfig=3" to the relevant Convert code; I did this for Michele Bartoli).

Can anybody fix the problem for all the cyclists' pages at once? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.146.147 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The weights are not in tens of kg... The Michele Bartoli article says his weight is 65 kg. And I can't see what you changed to that article.

I don't know exactly what you mean here.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think (s)he means all kg weights are in tens and units (i.e. two figures) so when converted, weights are also only in two figures. The template the interpets that it should automatically do all units to two significant figures. So, we get:

• {{convert|65|kg|lb st|abbr=on}} >> 65 kg (143 lb; 10.2 st)
• {{convert|70|kg|lb st|abbr=on}} >> 70 kg (150 lb; 11 st)

If we set these to 0 decimal places (rather than 3 significant figures), we get

• {{convert|65|kg|lb st|0|abbr=on}} >> 65 kg (143 lb; 10 st)
• {{convert|70|kg|lb st|0|abbr=on}} >> 70 kg (154 lb; 11 st)

So there are probably quite a few unnecessary inaccuracies. If we play around with how we can imperial weights to be displayed, however, we also get different results:

• {{convert|65|kg|lb stlb|abbr=on}} >> 65 kg (143 lb; 10 st 3 lb)
• {{convert|70|kg|lb stlb|abbr=on}} >> 70 kg (150 lb; 11 st 0 lb)

I personally favour this last option - I've never thought of imperial weights as 10.2 stone; 10 stone 3 pounds sounds better. To solve this we have two different options - go through every template and set it to how we prefer... or a templated option like we have in {{Infobox Cycling race report}}, so that we would have one extra field to input whether height and weight are metric or imperial. The second option does introduce consistency across all articles which is good, but is a fair amount of work for the size of this gain. Severo^TC 12:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpunction: a vote!

Look at the navigation boxes of Tour de France classification winners, especially at the interpunction:

{{Tour de France Yellow Jersey}}	2008 winner  • 2009 winner
{{Tour de France Green Jersey}}	2008 winner · 2009 winner
{{Polka dot jersey}}	2008 winner  · 2009 winner
{{Prix de combativité}}	2008 winner | 2009 winner

We use four different methods! I will standardize this. But you can help! Which one should it be? Vote for your favourite. If you want, you can give reasons, but I don't really care if you don't give them. And if you really want your option to win, you can always ignore this voting and just change the templates yourself! ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess consistency is desirable, and I have a preference for the third (polka dot) option that is so marginal that I don't think I can come up with a reason for it. I really just replied to congratulate you on a brilliant neologism, and one that I must try to work into conversation on a regular basis ;@) Kevin McE (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic: I did not mean to invent a new word... Which word do you consider a brilliant neologism?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Option one - and in all team navboxes and any other navboxes we have as well. This one because of maintains consistency with Olympic footers and the like. Severo^TC 12:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Consistency is the cornerstone of every working environment... (always wanted to use "cornerstone" in a sentence!) So I would have gone with a dot, preferably option 1 (or option 3). But hey, that's me... (what goes around, comes around, you'll see...) lil2mas (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I finally changed everything, into option one. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of cycling?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate templates

{{Prix de combativité}} and {{Tour de France Combativity award}}. The one with the French title was created first. Which one are we keeping? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The one with the English title has a more standard title, so I think we should use that title. I still haven't found the time to fix the punctuation in the templates... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be the original: it an English language title is preferred, it should be moved there. Severo^TC 18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Actually it meets speedy deletion criteria T3 as it's a substantial duplication of the original. I've tagged it so should disappear after seven days - then we can move the original to any preferred name. Severo^TC 18:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking we'd decide on one and redirect the other to it. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center FAC

I believe that outside of competitive cycling McDonald's Cycle Center may be one of your project's most important articles. It is now at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think of that as a place in Chicago I'll never see. I don't think of this as the WikiProject for articles related to personal conveyance on a non-motorized two-wheeled vehicle, even if that's what's it's supposed to be. I think of it as the Project for the sport of cycling. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

David Zabriskie

Something interesting occurred to me when making some minor edits to this article a few minutes ago - how to consider statements regarding Floyd Landis like this one:

In 2005, he became the third American to wear the leader's jersey at the Tour de France, after three-time Tour winner Greg Lemond, and seven-time winner Lance Armstrong. George Hincapie and Floyd Landis became the fourth and fifth Americans in 2006.[3]

I edited this to (capitalize the M in LeMond, but that's unimportant) say that Hincapie became the fourth in 2006. Officially, he is the most recent American to lead the Tour de France; the ASO counts the yellow jerseys originally awarded to Landis after Stages 11 and 12 to "truly" belong to Cyril Dessel and those awarded to Landis after Stages 15, 19, and 20 to "truly" belong to Óscar Pereiro.

However, he did wear the stinking jersey. All you need to do is find a photo or two from the 2006 Tour. So what would be the correct phrase in David Zabriskie? Landis wore it, but he didn't wear it.... Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the definite answer, but some things to consider:

• Does the ASO really consider those jerseys to "truly" belong to Dessel and Pereiro? I checked the historic guide (page 121), en there Landis is reported as wearing the yellow jersey, while in the same document he is no longer regarded as Tour winner (pages 105 and 117). The official database does not list the results of 2006, while 2005 and 2007 are listed.
  • Thought sure Landis had been formally stripped of *everything* from the 2006 Tour. Will do a little digging. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• The source [3] does not mention Hincapie nor Landis. (Because it was written before they wore the jerseys.) The location of the reference should change. (I'll do that in a minute.)
• Is it important for the Zabriskie article to say that he was the third American to wear the yellow jersey, and who were the next two? For an article like American cyclists in the Tour de France, this would be important, but not for Zabriskie, I would say.
  • Excellent point. Take it away! Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• In articles where this information should really belong, wouldn't a footnote solve the problem? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles can always be written to reflect what the jerseys mean, rather than the material of the prize for the acheivement: they held the lead in the Tour de France. Kevin McE (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

I propose adding two items to {{Infobox Cycling race report}}: the location of the prologue and the location of the final stage, for stage races. To give an example, for the 2007 Tour de France this would mean:
Prologue London
Final stage Champs-Élysées, Paris
The best place to put them would be below the Dates, Stages and Distance. Any thoughts? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it adds valuable information to the infobox, so I would prefer not to do it.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Matschiner

Is anyone interested in writing an article for Stefan Matschiner? I've been curious to learn more about him after his arrest regard Bernhard Kohl's doping, but don't know enough to write a good article. I may give it a try, but it would be nice if others contributed, as I think he is fairly notable especially considering how much information Kohl is willing to provide. Malo0178 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I may be interested in reading a good article about Matschiner. I don't know much about him, so I don't know if he is notable enough for his own article. I think the doping case is more notable than Matschiner, maybe we should have an article about the doping case. But then again, we already have that in the Kohl article... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, kind of reeks of WP:BLP1E unless there's some other reason he's notable. Is there really even a "doping case" anyway? Pretty much all of it relates back to Kohl, and his article is still pretty tiny. So I'd advise putting it there. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you are right. Matschiner is at the moment not notable enough for an article. The Kohl doping case is, but there is plenty of room on Kohl's page for that. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tour de Timor

I just started the stub based on an article I read in the Sydney Morning Herald. I doubt I will get to expand it further - but there is some good info in the source I provided on the page. --Merbabu (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this race really notable? Are there any professional cyclists in the race? I checked the website, and it was possible to register online for the race. This is great for the cycling in East-Timor, but with $15000 for the winner, is this not just a semi-professional race that does not need to be on wikipedia? I expanded the article a little bit nonetheless.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish National Cycling Championships query

Hi all,

We got an email to OTRS a little while back regarding the winner of the 1955 Irish NCC. I emailed about various websites and had a look in some publications regarding the content of the below email, but couldn't get any response which confirmed or denied it.

I refer to your record of the 1955 Irish road race champion 1955 Wikimedia claim that this was Shay Elliot. This is not the case, The winner of this race was Bart Sharkey. The race was a joint CRE and NICF race that took place in Drogheda.First place Bart Sharkey, second place Tommy Tolbot and thirded place Mr Allingham sorry not sure of his first name. (modified to remove personally-identifiable material)

If anyone with a greater knowledge of such topics could research and/or comment on this, it'd be much appreciated.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I sea that a user with the name F Sharkey, probably related to Bart Sharkey, already changed the article. I asked Battapieman, who added the information on that article, to come here, maybe he/she has a source for the information, or maybe he/she just made a small mistake. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it must have been a mixup with 1954. I trailed the web a few months ago looking for these records but didnt keep track of references. I'll double-check to make sure that Shay Elliot only won it once. btw I tried emailing Cycling Ireland to see if they had old records of national titles but got no answer. thanks,
Battapieman

I emailed them as well, they got back to me and said they had no records. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

List improvement

Folks, I think we're on the cusp of the project's first Good topic. I nominated 2009 Giro d'Italia for GA yesterday, and pending a little tidying that I'm more than happy to do myself, I don't think it should have any trouble passing. Same for the stage recaps, though I'll wait to nominate those (and I do wonder how the leads for stage recap articles ought to be expanded beyond a single sentence in order to satisfy GA).

The weak link is List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia. Can we get this up to Featured List quality? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I might give it a go... Always wanted to make a Featured List for WP:CYCLING =) Already been part of one FL for WP:HOCKEY, not to hard actually, insert some prose and images should do the trick ;) The only problem is where to put the images, since there are tables covering almost the whole article =( But let's take it the reviewer and let him/her decide. lil2mas (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is one catch about the Giro, and that is an official webpage, did we agree on this one? ...or is cyclingnews a trusted source now? lil2mas (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) BTW: I might need some help on the prose, since I'm not a native speaker. But I'll try my best. =)

Cyclingnews is a reliable source, but it's not the official Giro website. I would say the same for Gazzetta dello Sport. The Giro doesn't really have an official website, but does that matter? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, actually... But I think we have to source all the information, so that we aren't approaching WP:OR. Cyclingnews still looks kind of bloggish, but it delivers results best and fastest. La Gazzetta seems more like an Official site, but it's up do the reviewers to decide. Do we need to mention all the riders 3(!) times? I suggest we remove all the riders from the Country breakdown-section, and maybe move the map down besides the table. What do you think? lil2mas (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) That table is actually OR, as well. But let's give it ago.

The "country breakdown" table is patently unnecessary. It's served by the sorting options in the first mass table. I guess that mass table is really all that's needed (unless it's really important that the team managers be listed), but having tables for each individual team is pretty standard usage. Doesn't mean it's for the best, though. I'm not really sure why you have any reservations about cyclingnews, certainly it publishes speculative and opinion pieces, but any news outlet will. Mostly it is just used for results and stage recaps, information that is probably available elsewhere if we need to diversify sources. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, the section was added by your favorite user and mine, Kov 93 here. I'm gonna take it out. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not having any reservations about Cyclingnews, I think it is a great site, I just think it's odd that it doesn't enhance its layout. That's all... lil2mas (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, folks... I have now nominated List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia as a Featured list candidate. All comments will appear at this page: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia/archive1. The ones who want to contribute into making our project's first FL, are encouraged to start watching this page and adress the comments as they appear. I have been writing some more prose today, so if someone could correct any grammar mistakes I might have made, it would be nice. I'm excited on the project's behalf. =) lil2mas (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks awesome! I'll fine-tooth-comb the text when I'm done with my tidying of 2009 Giro d'Italia. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Move cycling jersey articles to competition articles

Currently, there are articles for cycling jerseys. White jersey, yellow jersey, pink jersey, etc. But the articles are not really about the jerseys, but about the competitions.

I am going to move the information to Young rider classification in the Tour de France, Young rider classification in the Tour de France, General classification in the Tour de France, General classification in the Giro d'Italia, etc. I think most information that is now on the jersey articles will fit there better. The only information that will be "lost" is the list of other races that also uses a white, yellow or pink jersey for classifications, which I think is not a great loss. The lists were not sourced and not complete, anyway.

I could give more reasons for the moves, but I am not going to spend time giving them now. If somebody does not like the moves, let me know, then I can give more reasons. If these reasons are not enough, I'll just move everything back. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, god, please do it. There's no reason at all not to, and it solves a lot of problems. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ct template for 2010

I'm going to go ahead and add 2010 to {{ct}} for the teams who have announced 2010 signings. This is a pretty clear indication that the teams will be around in 2010, and if they happen to change names, that's the beauty of the template - only one edit will be needed, rather than dozens. Many teams have announced signings and many prominent riders are switching, so I think the riders' articles should reflect that. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 06:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, and I've changed my sig

Text in rider articles could indeed be updated to say that "Velopedista signed a contract to join Caisse d'Epargne from 2010", as that is something that has happened, but can we please be careful not to breach WP:Crystal by listing them as members of the teams they have signed advance contracts with, adding these teams to their infoboxes, or adding 2010 squad lists to team articles. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's greater crystalballery to say the rider might have a career-ending injury and not join their new team next season. Does that ever happen, really, especially at the end of the season? Of course, there should not be 2010 rosters on the team pages, but that's because the rosters aren't complete. It would be pointless to list two or three riders on the page. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks like deliberate misunderstanding of what I said: I am not trying to report in articles that they will have suffered accidents; adding a team to the infobox is saying that they will ride on that team. We don't know the future, so we can't report the future as fact. An encyclopaedia reports facts, we cannot claim that it is a fact that these riders were in Team Bikefast in 2010, and so the infobox should not (yet) say that they are. Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said you wanted to write in articles that riders are going to suffer accidents, I just think it's very silly to reserve inevitable updates for something that realistically has no chance of happening. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You have every right to think that it is silly, but you cannot deny that it is policy, and as contributors to a project, we are bound by policies, not our own perceptions of common sense. Kevin McE (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, we're not "bound" by policy, but you'll notice I haven't reverted your edits. This is a very twisted, insecure interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL anyway. CRYSTAL exists so we don't, say, edit Alberto Contador to reflect him joining Caisse d'Epargne, something that is possible and has been discussed, but is of no impending likelihood (and of quite compelling unlikelihood). That Joaquim Rodriguez will ride for Team Katusha in 2010 is, to say the least, of great impending likelihood. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 08:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing what I can (and.....we saw how that ended up once), and will continue to do so. I'm the only one who has been nominating CYC articles for GA, so I'm probably the only one with an obligation to respond to this, but I encourage others to do so, too - it doesn't take very much time. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

road cycles

The Category:Road cycles seems to me to be poorly named, as it makes me think Road bicycles but it has in fact used for all types of bicycles used on the road. I'd like to rename it "bicycles for road use", or something similar. I've left a note on it's talk page. --Keithonearth (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

History of cycling

The History of cycling is an embarrassing stub with only a liitle info on the history on cycle racing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this again

While I'm a little upset that the GA reviewer for the 2009 Giro d'Italia-related articles didn't really give me a chance to improve them, he did raise this comment in relation to them:

On all team results, please list team nationalities. I realize these teams have multiple riders from different nations, but the teams has a home base. In Formula 1 motorsports as an example, people know Ferrari is from Italy even though the drivers that have worked for them have in some cases not been from Italy (Michael Schumacher from Germany and Kimi Räikkönen are recent examples of this.).

Since he's already failed the articles (seven days passed because my computer was stolen a little over a week ago and I'm only now back), I don't think he has any intentions of having a dialogue with me on the matter, though I did present our current consensus. There's also nothing saying the next reviewer will want this. So, does the Project still feel the same way about this?

Slightly related point, the reviewer also suggested that every rider's nationality be given in prose the first time it's used. While this was done in the Project's two FA's, nationality is far more inexorably tied to the Olympic Games than UCI events, even though through the UCI riders are registered to a particular nation. So what do we think of that? I'm hesitant to implement it, because it's going to get very tedious and bog down the quality of the prose in my mind. The reviewer also wanted nationalities present in the "classification leadership" table. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 03:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Further: WT:GAN#Enforcement of seven day grace periods of articles on hold. As I mentioned there, the suggestions of the GA reviewer go against some established consensuses here, so I'd like to get others in the discussion (maybe not at WT:GAN, but certainly in revising the Giro articles). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationality is a little irrelevant in UCI context, unless there is something notable about the nationality (ie. Japanese in the TdF, or 1st Fooian rider to ever blah blah) then there's no need to list or mention it. The riders represent the team foremost and is not really comparable to other sports. There is so much detail involved in articles like this, I think the less often more principles applies. Thaf (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic) AFD

Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic) is at AfD. I'm not sure how to get it entered into this project's "Article alerts" section, or whom to notify usefully, so I'm just noting it here. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For quick reference in updating rider, team, and team season articles

I sort of figured out that team season articles are really hard to write in the middle of a season :P It'll be much easier next season, and until it starts I'll be going backwards. But, the point of this is to show I've created User:Nosleep/2009-2010 rider transfers. Give 'er a look if you need an update, and please do update it if I'm missing anything or if I have anything wrong (I think I might also be missing a couple of {{ct}}'s, too). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

VeloNation

This is a new cycling website that has just gone public. Its proprietor, Steve Jones, approached me some weeks ago about joining the site. And I have, occasionally posting to its message boards, which I'm not sure are public just yet. Recently, he's asked me to start inserting links to VN's News articles in our articles here, as sources, for reasons relating to Google (I'm not a webmaster, I don't know how it works). Full disclosure - he's asked me to write for the site as well, and I've told him I might be interested in being a columnist. I told him I wasn't comfortable simply inserting VN articles as sources myself, partly because of my potential conflict of interest and partly because I wasn't sure how it would be seen by the Project, so that's why I'm doing this instead. Steve says that half of his writing staff formerly wrote for Cycling News, a site we use regularly as a reliable source, and indeed, I recognized a few names from message board conversations that I have put in citations here. I'm not really sure if that matters. Steve has specifically told me that VN's news articles are going to be specifically used with sources other than Cycling News uses, and they've indeed posted content in past weeks that Cycling News has not.

The site also has other content, and if you're interested in that, great, but the most important thing is whether the Project believes it passes RS, and if so if we're willing to use it as a source in articles. I leave it up to discussion. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can tell him that for the Google rankings it makes no difference if you include links to his articles in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia uses the "nofollow"-tag. He or his webmaster will understand. I believe that if cyclingnews passes RS, then velonation also passes RS. But I haven't really read the criteria for something to be a reliable source on Wikipedia, and to be honest I am not really interested in that. If you can find the info, then use it.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Project size; the number of stubs

At the moment, there are 137 persons in the member list, but only 92 of them have been active on Wikipedia in the last year. [4] There are 122 persons in the Cycling members categorie.

Article size:

• April 2007: 2799 (20 stubs, 2766 unassessed, 13 start or better)
• July 2007: 3149 (1226 stubs, 1808 unassessed, 115 start or better)
• October 2007: 4124 (2736 stubs, 859 unassessed, 529 start or better)
• January 2008: 4738 (3143 stubs, 1052 unassessed, 543 start or better)
• April 2008: 5079 (3560 stubs, 746 unassessed, 773 start or better)
• July 2008: 5410 (3856 stubs, 735 unassessed, 819 start or better)
• October 2008: 5810 (4092 stubs, 705 unassessed, 1013 start or better)
• January 2009: 5843 (4093 stubs, 720 unassessed, 1030 start or better)
• April 2009: 5961 (4506 stubs, 1 unassessed, 1454 start or better)
• July 2009: 6194 (4622 stubs, 0 unassessed, 1572 start or better)
• Now: 6475 (4776 stubs, 0 unassessed, 1699 start or better)

The ratio of assessed articles that are stubs is decreasing, from 91.4% in july 2007 to 73.8% now. Of course this is still too high.

I randomly selected four stub articles from the Wikipedia project. 1: Colby Pearce. One line of text. A copy-pasted career highlights section. And the source from which the highlights section was copied. Useful article? I doubt it. But the guy competed at the highest professional level, so the athletes guideline says he can have an article. He even became national champion a few times. Will this article ever grow to more than a stub? I don't think so.

2: Freecoasters. The article name is wrong. (Should be "freecoaster".) Orphan notice. Short definition of what a freecoaster is. One external link to a very amateurish site. Will this ever grow to more than a stub? I don't think so.

3: 1993 Vuelta a España Created in January 2008, and practically unchanged since. Still I think this can become more than a stub. There might even be enough information for it to become a featured article, if somebody takes up the challenge.

4: Clásica del Oeste-Doble Bragado Introduction: one sentence, that does not even say if it is a professional race or not. A list of winners. One external link, that at least confirms the list of winners. The worst thing: there are even links to the 2007, 2008 and 2009 editions, although the 2008 and 2009 are redlinks.

I don't think that stubs are useful to the project. What should we do with these articles? My suggestions: 1. With Colby Pearce-like articles: nothing. It is impossible to improve all these biographical stubs to more than stubs, but every attempt to delete them will fail because of the athlete criteria that says that every athlete who competed on the highest professional level can have his/her article. 2. With Freecoasters-like articles: AfD them. 3. With 1993 Vuelta a España-like articles: keep them, improve them, and get them to a better status. 4. Clásica del Oeste-Doble Bragado-like articles: I don't know. I could tag them with a notability-notice, but will that help?

What do you think?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be able to delete articles like Colby Pearce. I'm going to try to get WP:ATHLETE deprecated (I think the only real opposition will come from, if not us, the baseball or soccer WikiProjects, as they seem to love superstubs). Obviously we need to keep an article like 1993 Vuelta a España. It's tough for me, because I'm all about creating new high-quality content, not going back to improve old articles, and goodness knows there's hardly time for both. One relatively simple thing we can do is make sure the Tour, Giro, and Vuelta pages are all in the same basic style (I've done this for the Tour going back to about 1991, but I can of course go back further). To raise them to the quality of articles relating to the 2009 Giro d'Italia, which I believe to be exemplary, is a little harder. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than delete articles such as Colby Pearce why not simply improve them!? A lot of work, fair enough, but that alone is not justification for simply deleting them. A quick search on the web soon reveals there are plenty of online references that can be used to expand and improve the article.Thaf (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Romain Sicard

This Frenchman has, interestingly enough, signed for Euskaltel–Euskadi for next season. Now, naturally, he's from the French Basque country, but has this team ever signed anyone not from Spain before? I can't think of anyone, and the little palmarès list on Euskaltel–Euskadi doesn't seem to show any. It would merit mentioning in any related articles, but how do you source a negative (that they haven't had a non-Spaniard on their roster)? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

By searching to check whether it is a negative. Popping "Euskatel cycling" and French into Google reveals "Sicard will be just the second rider on the squad from the French Basque country, following in the footsteps of Thierry Elissalde who rode with the team from 1994-5." (http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=15727) If it had been unique, it would indeed have been harder to prove. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonder how I missed that. Thanks. Still something interesting to mention in their 2010 season article (and by the way, I'm working on more of those right now, should be in the mainspace soon). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 06:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we have an importance assessment?

Just curious. It seems most Projects do. Even now, the number of articles tagged as falling under our purview isn't so many that a few weeks/months of effort couldn't assess them all. If I knew how to implement this myself, I would, because I think it's useful, but I don't. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 05:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the use of an importance assessment? I don't expect that articles with high importance will receive more attention. I think it's just a few weeks/months of useless effort. But maybe I am wrong. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it helps with WP:1.0, for one thing. And while "Top" importance articles may not get more attention simply for getting that ranking, if we implement an importance assessment and find that virtually all of what would be our "Top" importance articles are stubs, I think that's important to know (we don't yet have enough GA's and FA's to worry about having piffling insignificant articles at that level). And, I think it just gives us that much clearer a picture as to the state of our Project. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:1.0 is not one of my goals, but I can understand it. I tried to change Template:WikiProject Cycling, but it can only be changed by administrators. I think the only change needed is to change it the quality scale parameter from

|QUALITY_SCALE         = extended
|class=

to

|QUALITY_SCALE         = extended 
|class= 
|importance=

but I am not 100% sure of this. Just have it added if you want to. I don't think I will use the option much (except of course with new pages I add) but the option won't bother me.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if you're not a member of WP:1.0 (I'm not either), it should be at least the indirect goal of every Wikipedian to help it. And this would. I'll see about that edit to the protected page, thanks. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)