Talk:2016 UCI World Tour

Table[edit]

I have reverted this edit by 114.76.39.184 (talk · contribs). The table I introduced for this year is adequately sourced (unlike former tables) and properly formatted (following WP:DTT). My intention is to make this a featured list, so sourcing and formatting are important. The licence-holders are unverifiable, so I strongly believe they should be omitted. It is suggested that the inclusion of the additional information (e.g. the bikes) is unnecessary. I think it's relevant and useful, but I could be persuaded otherwise if someone feels very strongly. I'm also willing to include a link to the teams' 2016 seasons if that's considered necessary, though I'm not sure myself. Finally, if you're going to include a template, please include it rather than substing it. Relentlessly (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good to me. Maybe the IP would like to discuss this here? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licence holders I agree are of questionable utility, but why no link to the team's current season? Also putting in only the bike and groupset sponsor seems sufficient, is it really crucial to list all the different road and TT bikes, is this information useful to a general article about the season, and if so why not have extra column listing their component and saddle options or nutrition sponsor? These make the table unwieldy and ugly. Such specifics should be on the team pages for those interested in delving deeper, not the World Tour page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.39.184 (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green highlighting of Grand Tours: any good reason for doing this?[edit]

Consensus generated, posted at WP:CYC-CD. If consensus changes as per WP:CCC please start a new discussion. Bald Boris 23:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are many different subcategories of race that could be identified: why should GTs uniquely be colour coded? They don't even make a homogenous group in terms of WT point allocations. This appears to be one editor having tried to highlight his preferred type of race, and others assuming that this is some sort of unchallengeable convention. If there is not a good reason for it, let's scrap this ugly and unnecessary intrusion. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Tour races are main events and always marked in green. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHY are they? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pure POV, entirely unencyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing consensus is to mark Grand Tour in green. Most points are awarded in it. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus and why green? You don't really have anything to backup your point. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the discussion in which this consensus was reached. Consensus is established by reasoning, not by following the misguided actions of a previous editor. Why group together races that do not have the same points awarded if points awarded is your grounds? Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is to help readers to see the most prestigious races in a very big table. We can see the many reliable sources which say about next Grand Tours, but not other secondary events. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you betray your opinion about the perceived prestige of Grand Tours. I believe that most cycling fans and professionals would consider Paris-Roubaix (for example)to be far more prestigious than the Vuelta. You are perfectly entitled to disagree: you are not entitled to expect Wikipedia to reflect your own preference. Plenty of reliable sources refer to other races, and indeed to many below WT level. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paris-Roubaix winner received 100 points, Vuelta winner received 170 pts. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vuelta winner gets more points because it's a three-week race, unlike the one-day RB. I say remove all green rows. Are there some people that can't read the number one and need help identifying it? Why green anyway? Ghastly. Can I have a link to the "long-standing consensus" please. Bald Boris 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, most cycling fans and professionals would not agree that the UCI points are a reflection of prestige. And if you believe that points are what is relevant, why would you code the Tour de France in the same colour as the Giro and the Vuelta, and why would you code Paris-Roubaix and Fleche Wallonne identically. Inconsistent and illogical principles should not feature in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These colours were introduced without discussion or explanation by an editor who has not edited here for more than 2 years. The oldest of these articles had been in existence for more than 7 years before these colours were added, so it could be argued that an implicit consensus that colour is not necessary endured for nearly 4 times as long as the consensus that is being claimed to exist at present. Kevin McE (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the colours, we are agreeing now that this code is not necessary at all. We have not found any consensus reached before, then this one is a consensus in favor of not having any colours. --Osplace 14:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. ALL the green highlighting must go. It is completely unnecessary and serves no purpose whatsoever. Zarvonov (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I include this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Consensus decisions? Bald Boris 18:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally it should not be necessary to record that we do not want unnecessary, purposeless, PoV-pushing intrusions, but if you think it will be helpful to have it on record, I have no objection. Kevin McE (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support it being included in the consensus list, just incase someone comes and adds them back in good faith. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot be certain, but am fairly sure that the IP who has opposed this removal is in fact Nickst who introduced these green bars. So he introduced them with no discussion or respect for the previous standing of the page, and then resorts to consensus and continuity as the grounds for keeping them. So rather than what I speculated in my OP ("'This appears to be one editor having tried to highlight his preferred type of race, and others assuming that this is some sort of unchallengeable convention'") this is in effect one editor claiming that his own "innovation" is an unchallengeable norm. He has shown in his responses in this thread that he does not have sufficient knowledge of cycling to command much respect for his reasoning. For the sake of clarity, it was he who posted the RFC as well, although it has not generated the support for his PoV that he had evidently believed would flood this way. Kevin McE (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is necessary to introduce this removal to the WP consensus list, but just to start removing the green highlighting, we just reached consensus to do so. --Osplace 15:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Summoned by bot, there appears to be local agreement that the colours are unnec/inapt. That being the case, I suggest someone close this RfC. Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.