Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling

Cycling project talkpages
If you are not sure where to leave your comments, just leave them on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling.
Discussion about issues in articles Category discussion General discussion about the project Strategy discussion

Category:Road cycles

I'd like to move Category:Road cycles to Category:Cycles for road use, as this doesn't make me think of Road Bicycles, and is clear what the content is/should be. I'm putting a note here because I don't think many people watch the talk page. Please leave a note there if you want to discuss the move. Thanks! --Keithonearth (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Retroactive "Stage xx to Stage xx" pages?

Shall we? What I mean is, do we want to create 2008 Giro d'Italia, Stage 1 to Stage 11, and such? The information is out there, even if we're not writing these pages as the events go on. I could go either way. If we think this is encyclopedic (and we seemingly do, since these pages were routinely created for the Tour de France, and since my involvement in the Project, all three Grand Tours), it might be worth it, but it'd be easier to improve past articles (which, by the way, I plan to do).

I'd love to get some opinions on this. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the information belongs on the race page itself. If you want to add stage descriptions for the 2008 Giro d'Italia, add them to the 2008 Giro d'Italia article. In my opinion, the only reason for them to be on a separate page is that the 2008 Giro d'Italia page will become too large, but that is because of WP:SIZE. But I think it is encyclopedic, if the descriptions are not too long. (I think I erred in the 1934 Tour de France article, but will come back to that later.)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The very reason we even have these pages at all is WP:SIZE! To write prose describing 21 individual stages bloats the article well past 30-50k. Including just tables like are present on 2008 Giro d'Italia is pointless, but if we want this "top ten on stage, intermediate GC," the information is available for at least the past few years. If we want it, it goes into an article like 2008 Giro d'Italia, Stage 1 to Stage 11, not 2008 Giro d'Italia. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then I misunderstood your question. I thought that your goal was to have those "Stage xx to Stage xx" pages, but now I see that the real goal is to have the information about the stages.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bicycle Ride Across Georgia Article Tags

I have begun completing the article. I will add more content to the article in the future, but I believe as of right now, this article should no longer be a stub-class article. And I linked all related articles to BRAG, so I believe it shouldn't be an orphaned article anymore either. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and let me know what I should do to fix it. Thank you.--Bdavisongsu (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2009

It's definitely a C-class article, but with only two articles linking to it in prose in the mainspace, I think the orphan tag may still be suitable. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 05:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What other links to BRAG should I post to be able to remove the orphan tag? Thanks.--Bdavisongsu (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2009

Di Luca/UCI World Ranking

Uh...I'm terribly confused here. Hopefully someone can help. Mikel Astarloza and other dopers have essentially been "whited out" of the World Ranking individual classification (Astarloza is the one who had 178 points), but Di Luca, who had 188, isn't there at all. Petacchi is the only LPR rider in the individual classification, despite the fact that Di Luca scored points (like, 2, but still) before the Giro d'Italia. I don't understand, and can't find any source that explains this, except one that very casually mentions Di Luca having been removed from the Giro podium (but not the points jersey - yeesh). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite what UCI is up to I'm not sure. There was a stage when those 188 pts were attributed to blank anonymous rider, but still credited those points to LPR and to Italy. Astarloza's points are still part of Spain's and Euskatel's totals. As regards the Giro result, I guess it is simply that the UCI have decided for its part not to give DiLuca any credit for what he did in that event, or indeed the whole season, but as we discussed yesterday in regard to the 2008 TdF, that is a different matter from the race organisers' decision. Kevin McE (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 27#Category:Cycling executives

Your input is welcomed at this discussion regarding cycling category naming. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Geraint Thomas

An anonymous/IP has removed a lot of information from this article in multiple edits so it cannot be undone. Is there an administrator out there who can roll back the article? thanks Thaf (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just reverted it to the last good version Racklever (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help as you are able

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Giro d'Italia/archive1 Thanks. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 08:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Colnago CSF Inox

We need to figure out what this team is. They've referred to themselves as a "brand new Italian team", but they have the same title sponsor as

Alerting users

• {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
• {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
• {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
• {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

• {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
• {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.

Talk page notices

• {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
• {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
• If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.

Miscellaneous

• {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia., most of this season's ridership, and I'm pretty sure the license is held by the same people, as they're already one of 19 teams that will have Pro Continental status next year, which wouldn't seem to be an easy thing for a brand-new under 25 team. So is this the CSF team in 2010, or is it a "brand new Italian team?" Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Riccardo Riccò's stage wins at the 2008 Tour de France

While researching for the 2008 Giro, I happened across an article that states that Riccò's stage wins have been stripped - http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2009-11-12-3858155819_x.htm Is this enough for us to update 2008 Tour de France, and if so, do we update it to reflect Valverde and Efimkin inheriting those wins (and therefore update those riders' articles)? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough. I looked for other sources on this, but could not find any. Probably the reporter just assumed that his wins were stripped. The ASO is just incredibly slow in this aspect. And as much as I would like to see some action here, we still have to wait for the ASO. I would also be happy with secondary reliable sources as cyclingnews.com or memoire du cyclisme, but they have not reported anything. The USA Today/AP article is certainly reliable, but only mentions it briefly.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Alessandro Petacchi's results from the 2007 Giro d'Italia

If you haven't figured it out, I'm going backwards chronologically improving the Giro articles

Okay. Petacchi was stripped of his results from the 2007 Giro. It doesn't seem the stage wins were officially awarded to other riders - this article, published earlier this year, reflects an uncertainty as to whom the winners of those stages are. But what about the points jersey? We reflect it being won by Di Luca, as do the other wikipedias, but I can find no source that specifically states this. Gazzetta dello Sport actually still lists Petacchi as the winner, but obviously that's not right. So who won the 2007 Giro points jersey? No one? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the organisations who should change these things simply don't care. I don't know what we should do with this.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So I guess we should edit to reflect the uncertainty, then? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

De Rosa – Stac Plastic

Is this the 2010 formation of the LPR team, or a new team with a new history? They've also been referred to as a new team, but they retain the sporting director and most of the ridership from team LPR, and much like Colnago CSF Inox, they got a Pro Continental license awfully quickly. Not sure about who holds it. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Liquigas–Doimo

I'm still not quite sure why it was onscreen during the Giro this year (per above that no one replied to), but as of July 9 this year this is the team's official name. That was five days into the Tour de France, so should 2009 Tour de France bear this name? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 05:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens vs endashes in team names

We seem to have been unquestioningly obedient to one editor's contribution to one discussion in terms of the sponsors' names where two companies are title sponsors of one team. Just because a policy (WP:ENDASH) is referred to in a discussion, it does not mean that it is applicable. So I would ask why does wp:endash have anything to do with these article names? Endashes are proposed for three purposes: disjunction, lists, and stylistic alternative to emdash. Surely these compound team names are conjunctions, not disjunctions, and so hyphens are more appropriate. Liquigas and Doimo are in partnership, not opposition. We could talk about the Columbia – Garmin rivalry (endash to separate unrelated names), but the Garmin-Slimstream and Columbia-HTC teams (hyphens to link entities in partnership forming one new entity).

And anyway, why would wp:endash override wp:commonname? I would argue that the punctuation commonly used in English language reliable sources is the hyphen. No disrespect to those editors following the comment made at the 2009 Giro riders' list review, but a comment on a review is not an authoritative declaration. (note to this effect posted by me on Garmin talk on 30 November, expanded and moved here for wider consideration/response) Kevin McE (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should take this to wp:hyphen, and see if they agree that a hyphen is more logical because it is a conjunction and it is not a disjunction. If they agree, the issue is solved.

If they do not agree, then I still think commonname is not the perfect argument for this, because most sources don't care about the hyphenation. The common name for "Bose–Einstein condensate" (with an endash) is "Bose-Einstein condensate" (with a hyphen), because most people don't care which character is used, and a hyphen is easier to type. But still Wikipedia rightly puts the article name with an endash.

This is not meant as an argument against the hyphen, I only want to make clear that I don't know if you are right or not. And I don't really care too much about it, but I don't want to be changing hyphenation every time a reviewer has a different opinion, so I hope the answer to this question will be found once and for all.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Have posted a query at WT:MOS (wp:hyphen is only a subsection of MoS), where several endash discussions are already underway. Assuming for the moment that we stick with endashes, there is a related spacing issue regarding the team name of Mark Cavendish's train: did Team Columbia link with HTC (Team Columbia – HTC), or did Columbia and HTC combine to sponsor a team (Team Columbia–HTC)? Kevin McE (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

According to their website, the sponsors are "Columbia Sportswear" and "HTC coorporation". That information does not help. So, assuming an endash has to be used, I don't know the answer.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)all

I can't tell where the discussion is going, and I'm a little disappointed with myself for even reading that much haranguing over such a teeny, tiny little issue. Whatever you/we decide to do, just make sure the names on {{ct}} have the correct orthography. Whatever correct is. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion (here) is clearly towards the use of a hyphen, and I will try to change that on the ct description. No time today for all the team templates...--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved most of the endashed articles: still waiting for the address-sitting redirects at Sparebanken Vest-Ridley, Toyota-United, Health Net-Maxxis, Colavita-Sutter Home, Amica Chips-Knauf and Topsport Vlaanderen-Mercator to be removed so that those articles can be moved back to those previous (hyphenated) locations (all now sorted: 15 Dec). I don't know my way around the ct templates: anyone more confident than I am at adjusting them? They are working as far as I can tell, but via redirects. Kevin McE (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know how to use them in articles, right? Like for the Russian ProTour team next season, you'd enter {{ct|KAT|2010}} The specific templates for each team are located at Template:Cycling data that three-letter code (so Katusha's is at Template:Cycling data KAT). You won't see much of anything on the page itself, but go to the edit screen and it's all there. Should be self-explanatory at that point. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been using them regularly for as long as they have been there (there aren't that many of us working in tis project: I'm surprised you hadn't noticed). What I lack experience in is to edit the template so that it points at a new desination (eg Garmin-Slimstream rather than Garmin–Slipstream), but I'll try later . I'm bemused at peoples' declarations of contempt for this: editors acted widely and rapidly in response to that comment at list of Giro teams, I simply queried the validity of that comment, and investigated opinion on such. It's not my fault if the query at MoS got overtaken by railwayophiles! Kevin McE (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well then I'm surprised you don't know how to update that. It's the team name and team link parameters at the top of the block of code. Team name is what is displayed when there's no year entered, team link is what the template links to. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I noticed how the "railwayophiles", as you called them, overtook the discussion. But they actually gave us the solution to the other endash question, regarding race names: Races such as Paris–Nice, and Gent–Wevelgem should have endashes, as they define a (from)–(to) route. We have moved most of the well known race articles, but there are still some left. There are also some race edition articles that needs to be moved (to be consistent with their main articles)... BTW: I felt a little sorry for you, having to go change all the templates alone, so I gave you a helping hand at the end. I think you already noticed! AWB really saves you a lot of time, think about it next time ;o) lil2mas (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I must concentrate on my exams, so I don't have time for that extensive job right now. I agree with Alex, and have wasted enough time reading the discussion on WT:MOS. Anywaaaay, the job could maybe be done by AutoWikiBrowser? Could be a real timesaver ;o) Just a tip, good night! =) lil2mas (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How were teams classified before 2005?

I'm sort of pre-emptively doing research for past editions of the Giro while currently writing the article for the 2007 race. I've uncovered that teams were, before the institution of the ProTour system, called simply "Division I" or "Division II" or "Division III" (terms, to an extent, still in use, for their current analogues). But how was this decided? Like today (that is, in a non-transparent way)? I'd like to be able to say who were the Division I teams in past Giros, and who the Division II teams, but even better would be somewhere to link to that explains that. And what, if anything, preceded this system of classification? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 06:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The division for 2004 is on this page, without explanation how it was decided.

From that page, it looks like this system was in use since 1999. In 1998, they had only two divisions, and I can find nothing on the years before. That's all I know.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, divisions were introduced sometime in the 1990s. I think they were decided by the number of UCI points the riders in your squad got in the previous year. There were also "top teams" for a number of years - the top 10 division one teams which gave them automatic invites to races. Severo^TC 12:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found a database of team rosters that sorts which teams were in which division, but it only goes back to 2002. I've also found descriptions of a "top club" group comprising the top ten Division I teams (included names like Rabobank, Saeco, Fassa Bortolo, Lotto, US Postal), but I'm not sure what that necessarily meant for those teams. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 20:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And this may not have been clear - I actually meant somewhere to wikilink to to explain this. It's probably something that doesn't yet exist (it would probably go on Union Cycliste Internationale, no?), though. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A page on Wikipedia that discusses this certainly does not exist yet. It would be good to have such a page, to reduce recentism, but it may be difficult to find external sources for this. (Based on the fact that I couldn't find them in three minutes and then gave up, so it may still be possible.)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since a couple of Wikipedia-Books are cycling-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Cycling people can oversee books like 2009 Giro d'Italia much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts.

There's an article in last week's Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. If you have any questions just ask. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was something new... The Giro articles actually looked nice as a book! =) Don't think there will be any objections to adopt the book-class. Are anybody who knows how to do this? lil2mas (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of the current book looks like: 2009 Giro d'Italia Took a while to render it, so I thought I'd put a link to a fully-rendered edition here... =) lil2mas (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I can make the changes if you want. If you want to create new books, just click on the "create a book" link on the left (in the print/export toolbox), and follow instructions. If you got questions, see Help:Books, or just ask me. BTW, the printed book looks even better (I have one)! Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright it's done. You can browse Category:Wikipedia Books and see if there are other cycling-related books (simply tag them with {{WP Cycling|class=book}}, or even better, create some yourself. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Team Columbia ct template

Something's make it skip lines in infoboxes (and maybe elsewhere, but infoboxes is all I've been able to see). Look at Bradley Wiggins, Alexander Vinokourov, Cadel Evans, and Andreas Klöden, among surely many others. I'd try to figure it out myself, but I can't stay online right now. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 13:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the last edit to the template and is has gone back to normal. Not sure why. Racklever (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it back, but that was before I saw this problem. (I'm sorry Racklever, but you did not explain your revert so I did not know why you did it.) I will try to solve it.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I isolated the problem to one hyphen, and I changed that one, so hopefully the problem is solved now. But the situation is not perfect. This problem is something I don't understand. Maybe Theilert (who made the templates) knows how to solve this?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this was never fully resolved here

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#A question about WP:CRYSTAL I don't believe that CRYSTAL calls upon us to expunge any mention of a rider's changing teams between seasons, but we'll see what they say at WT:NOT. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I to take it that this is a dig at me? If so, I am disappointed that you did not initiate discussion with me on my talk page first, or at least raise it here. I can see no reference to this issue on (an admittedly brief) review of the last two years of WT:CYC, so I am not sure what you mean by the title of this thread: if I have missed a previous, unresolved, discussion, perhaps you would post a link to it.

I am applying here the principles very firmly applied at WP:FOOTY, one of the biggest sports projects in Wikipedia, that a move is not posted until it has taken place: you yourself have made an edit to precisely that effect on the Astana page today. I have never said that there should be no mention of future moves: it is wholly appropriate for Bradley Wiggin's article, for example, to state in the prose that he is scheduled to join Team Sky from 2010: it is not true to say that he is currently a Team Sky Rider (someone has replaced that falsehood since I deleted it on Thursday), and it is dealing with the uncertain future, and therefore presumptuous, to enter a line "2010 Team Sky" in his infobox. We should not state as a fact something that is not a fact, and noone can declare the future as fact. Kevin McE (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 7#Ct template for 2010 I'm...sorry, for trying to get outside opinions? We're not a walled garden, you know. And can we not disagree with one another without it being a "dig?" I'm very disappointed in you for that accusation. As far as the revert on the Astana page, the IP did not add next year's roster, they only removed the Shack-bound riders from this year's roster. Any way you cut it, that's an error. And it is true, and it is verifiable that Wiggins will be a Team Sky rider in 2010 (stop it - to assert that he might get hit by a bus today is CRYSTAL, not the assertion that he won't). And what do you think of the baseball players I mentioned on WT:NOT? Should they still be considered members of their old teams, or free agents (in the infoboxes), since they have not yet played a game with their new teams? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What you seem to be objecting to is describing riders as currently being a part of their 2010 team. Nobody's arguing for that. Marzio Bruseghin is currently under contract to Lampre, not Caisse d'Epargne, but from 1/1/10 on, he will be under contract to and riding for Caisse. Every part of that sentence is accurate and verifiable. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, in your last comment, what is accurate and verifiable is that Bruseghin is under contract to join Caisse d'Epargne on 1 Jan: the future is not verifiable, and (God forbid) a dead person cannot be subject to a contract. It is inclusion, not exclusion, that must be verifiable. I have never sought to include in an article an assertion that anyone will be hit by a bus: that would be patently ridiculous. I have never argued against saying that a rider is scheduled to join/has signed to be a part of/has agreed a contract with/ a future team. I do not believe that we should say he will do something: contracts have been broken in the past, and it will happen again; will indicates 100% probability, and that is not the real world. The example you give as something that nobody is arguing for is precisely the mis-information that I removed from the articles of Wiggins, Arvesen, Froome, Kennaugh and Lovkvist.

Some people are trying to edit to reflect that they ride for Team Sky in 2009? Odd, since Team Sky doesn't exist until 2010 (that's actually why I brought up Bruseghin as an example, to work around this oddity). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing of the contractual details of baseball, a sport I have no interest in: I certainly don't consider the current style of infobox entry for the two examples you give (2010–present) to be a high quality presentation of information in 2009! I know that what we seek to have in place for footballers between the end of the season (typically mid-May) and the start of their contracts (1 July in the UK) is "currently at Melchester Rovers, but due to join Harchester Town after the expiry of his contract on 30 June 2010" or words to that effect, with no mention of Harchester in the infobox until 1 July. I would strongly recommend that we do the same here. Kevin McE (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the harm. On the overwhelmingly unlikely chance that a rider gets popped for EPO or hit by a bus or something, obviously that's going to be newsworthy to the point that it gets someone to edit his article. But on the flip side, take a look at an article like Luis Felipe Laverde, which states him riding for "Ceramica Panaria-Navigare," a name which has not been in use for at least two years. I only bring that up to say that there are a hell of a lot of cyclist biographies out there, and if something doesn't get updated when someone signs with a team, as you would prefer, there's a chance it never will. And I think that's worse. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's first focus on what you (and I) agree on, to make things clear: If a rider has signed a contract that will start on a date in the future, it is

• a good idea to write in the prose (with a source) that he signed a contract to start with that team on the date in the future.
• not a good idea to say that he is already a member of the team.

In addition to this, Alex argues that it will not harm to say that the rider "will ride" for the team. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is just a small difference, so let's stay calm. I agree with Kevin (and some of the commenters in WT:NOT) that saying that the rider "will ride" for the team is not the best way to describe it, and it is not 100% verifiable. What is verifiable is that he signed a contract to ride for the team. Alex, you are right that there is but a small chance that it will not happen, and that there might not be much harm, but what is the harm in writing that he signed a contract instead? Then we are accurate, and every reader will understand that the cyclist is planning to ride for the team. As I read it, Kevin does not suggest to do nothing if a cyclist signs a contract for a new team, but he suggests to word it differently.

One thing was not clear to me: is there also a problem with including the new team in the infobox? Just in case, here is my opinion: We should not it there in the same way as we put previous teams there. I think that we should not include them at all, but in the future I may be convinced by good arguments to include them as "signed contract for" or something similar.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well. All right then. I guess I just won't update any rider articles until...when exactly? Jan 1, or the Tour Down Under (or whenever a particular rider's first event with their new team is)? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking this to its logical extreme, it seems we ought to eliminate "riding for" from cyclist articles altogether. How is Wiggins currently "riding for" Garmin any more than he will be "riding for" Sky on January 1? Not knowing Wiggins' 2010 program offhand, I haven't the slightest idea when he'll first be "riding for" Sky.

Also, I'm going to take the liberty of creating 2010 season articles for about 20 to 25 teams. I trust this is okay. It is going to be so much easier to write them as the season goes along than pick it up in the middle of the season. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Football example: Everybody says that Messi is playing for FC Barcelona, even though at the moment he is not playing a game. What is meant by that is that he is under a contract for FC Barcelona, such that íf he would be playing a game at this moment, it would normally be for that team.

Similarly with cycling. If a newspaper says that Indurain rode for Banesto in 1993, it does not mean that he was on the bicycle the entire year with a Banesto jersey, but it means that during that year, if there was a cycling race, he would ride with a Banesto-sponsored jersey. If a Wikipedia article says that Wiggins is riding for Garmin at this moment, it does not mean that he is on his bicycle, but it means that íf he would ride a race, it would be for that team. For that reason it is incorrect to say that Wiggins is riding for Sky, because his contract there has not started yet. (edit: This is reaction to your "logical extreme", so I tried to answer in a logically detailed way, with the easiest examples I could quickly think of. Please do not read this as a suggestion that you don't know that Indurain did not sit on his bicycle for a whole year.)

The most logical thing to be in the article is that Wiggins is under a contract with Garmin, and has signed a contract with Sky starting January 1st. (If I am correct about the date.) Nobody wants you to stop updating articles. The only detail is that the words "will be riding for" would be better chosen as "signed a contract for". Both ways will be outdated when 2010 starts, so why not take the best one of these two? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Baloney. If "2010–

Alerting users

• {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
• {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
• {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
• {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

• {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
• {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.

Talk page notices

• {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
• {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
• If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.

Miscellaneous

• {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia." (or "2010–

Alerting users

• {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
• {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
• {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
• {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

• {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
• {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.

Talk page notices

• {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
• {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
• If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.

Miscellaneous

• {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia.) is such an error, that apparently obviously means he's riding for the team right now, then "riding for Team Bobsyouruncle" in prose must literally mean riding for. As I said, I don't know when Wiggins will begin riding for Team Sky. So a revision on Jan 1 to "currently riding for Team Sky" is thus factually incorrect. If it's confusing or wrong or whatever to mention a rider's 2010 team before it's actually 00:00 on 1/1/10, then we can't expect more of our readers (or ourselves) after then, either. Perhaps it's correct to say that Contador is "currently riding for Astana" since he last did and will again very soon (or maybe it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that, too) but until Wiggins (or Bruseghin or whoever) is actually riding for their new team, it's not correct. And it would be yet another step we have to take in keeping cyclist bios up to date. Just dispense with it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are arguing for. Do you think that during the next Tour de France we should change all articles of cyclist in that race to "currently riding for" when the stage starts, and to "under contract for" when the stage ends? I guess not, but that follows directly from your reasoning. The verb "to ride for" obviously has the second meaning "to be under contract to ride for", and that's the one that is used in all the cylist articles. So unless you propose that we should update all cyclist articles whenever they mount or dismount a bicycle, it is factually correct to say that a rider is riding for Team Sky at 00:00 1/1/10 if he has signed a contract for that team that starts then.

But this is not what this discussion is about. It started with you wanting to use "will be riding", and Kevin wanting to use "signed a contract for". You made clear that you think that "will be riding" is appropriate, and Kevin made clear that he thinks it is not. But what is your opinion on "signed a contract for"? Is it a good compromise, or do you have problems with that?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I never argued for a particular wording. I just wanted to update that a cyclist will be a member of a certain team next season. But that's apparently crystalballery, so I'll just not update them. But if Wiggins shatters his leg on January 2, was he "riding for" Team Sky on January 1? No, he wasn't. That makes a revision to "riding for" on January 1 every bit crystalballery that mentioning Team Sky on his bio right now is. That's why it's wrong, per you guys' reasoning. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See what Tom Zirbel's article said for nearly 4 months as an example that what seems cut and dried does not necessarily come to pass. Kevin McE (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we've established that you're right and I'm wrong. Moving on. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

VeloNews link rot

Dammit. All VeloNews articles now redirect to [1] There is a workaround, but it's not as simple as the autobus workaround to cyclingnews a few months ago. Consider an article like "CAS Suspends Petacchi" which used to be at [2]. It is now at [3] You have to know the month and year the article is from, plus the multi-digit identifier, plus the exact title of the article. Is there any way to automate this like was done with autobus.cyclingnews ? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but one fix is to use the Wayback Machine to archive an article "permanently" (as long as the archive server stays up) when someone references it for the first time. See the documentation for {{Cite web}} and Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. This insulates Wikipedia from every other site's link rotting. See WP:EIW#LinkRot for other tools. --Teratornis (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Team Sky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of caretaker wearers from stage races articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doping at the 2007 Tour de France

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

Team victories on season articles

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

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

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

WP 1.0 bot announcement

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

1903 Tour de France: Good article?

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

Equipe Nürnberger Versicherung

This team is no longer known by this name. It is licensed to compete in 2010, but it does not yet have a name sponsor. Odd, I know. [4] So it would seem this article should be moved...but to what? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Bicycle-related article that needs help or deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source option in palmares template

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

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

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

Would anyone object to...

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

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

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

Professional races

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

How can I help?

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

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

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

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

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

Pages for every year of Classics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template talk:Infobox Cycling race report#Infobox width

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

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

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

Career results table

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

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

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

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

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

Cycling notability

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

2009 Giro d'Italia is now featured - it almost killed me!

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

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

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

Colnago-CSF Inox and De Rosa-Stac Plastic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 2.15.051:

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

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

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

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

the UCI ProTeam or of a component of this name.

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

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

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

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

Electric bicycle split from Motorized bicycle article

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

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

Unreferenced living people articles bot

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

Brian Cookson, Infobox

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

AfD for Ben Jacques-Maynes

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

He is notable for three separate reasons:

1) He has won some Elite level professional races

2) He is a elite category professional cyclist

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

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

Lampre

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

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

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

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

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

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

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

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

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

Your input may be helpful

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

Icons in infoboxes

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

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

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

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

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

Palmares and what to include

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

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

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

Sports Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1904 Tour de France: Good Article?

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

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

Seeking feedback on prospective articles and additions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons update

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

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

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

Proposal: Reorg of the various drivetrain articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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