Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 14

Wikidata discussion 2.0
Having seen the efforts has gone to adding wiki-data based rosters to a number of team articles, I wondered if it was worth a new discussion regarding it's inclusion in EN-wiki. From a personal viewpoint the only thing that bugs me with the wikidata rosters is the previous team bit, I can understand what idea is trying to be conveyed, but I think it looks clumsy. Further, have any developments been made to the wiki-data itself that would alleviate concerns which arose from the original discussion. XyZAn (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Further to the above I am tagging those editors who previously contributed to the discussion(s):, , , , Cheers, XyZAn (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging per his involvement in the January discussion.  Craig  (talk)  21:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still wrong on so many levels. I'm going to approach my points individually, and I will apologise in advance if I sound like a grumpy old man, but so be it:
 * Like, the previous team element of the box is clumsy. Who cares what team they joined from? That's like sticking Manchester United on Real Madrid's page for Cristiano Ronaldo. It's laughable.
 * The team rosters; an example here being  . You'll note that five riders (41.67% of the box) have today's date on it as a date of birth... 41.67%. Updated, therefore no longer applicable. How can we introduce something that is almost half wrong?! Here's a hint for you so you can actually get it right: Schinnagel (29.05.1996), Walzel (03.03.1995), Weber (30.07.1994), Zeller (20.09.1994), Zimmermann (11.10.1997). All from their website.
 * The colour scheme. Absolutely garish. Imagine how that appears to someone who is colourblind.
 * It also appears that nothing has changed from my previous comments, especially the unfortunate events of a rider passing away: page (note: Antoine Demoitié, died due to a competition)... Nonsensical.  page (note: Étienne Fabre, death). Conveys the correct idea, but is far too blunt. The  page relating to Daan Myngheer's death is probably the best way for it. Even then, they should not been considered part of a current roster, which was something on the lines that  mentioned in the archived thread above.
 * Lastly, the race pages. compared to:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! scope="col" | Stage ! scope="col" | Date ! scope="col" | Route ! scope="col" | Distance !colspan="2" scope="col" | Type ! scope="row"| 1 ! scope="row"| 2 ! scope="row"| 3 ! scope="row"| 4 ! scope="row"| 5 ! scope="row"| 6
 * +Stage schedule
 * 17 January
 * Unley to Lyndoch
 * style="text-align:center;"| 145 km
 * [[Image:Hillystage.svg|22px|alt=|link=]] || Hilly stage
 * 18 January
 * Stirling to Paracombe
 * style="text-align:center;"| 148.5 km
 * [[Image:Mediummountainstage.svg|22px|alt=|link=]] || Medium-mountain stage
 * 19 January
 * Glenelg to Victor Harbor
 * style="text-align:center;"| 144 km
 * [[Image:Hillystage.svg|22px|alt=|link=]] || Hilly stage
 * 20 January
 * Norwood to Campbelltown
 * style="text-align:center;"| 149.5 km
 * [[Image:Mediummountainstage.svg|22px|alt=|link=]] || Medium-mountain stage
 * 21 January
 * McLaren Vale to Willunga Hill
 * style="text-align:center;"| 151.5 km
 * [[Image:Mediummountainstage.svg|22px|alt=|link=]] || Medium-mountain stage
 * 22 January
 * Adelaide
 * style="text-align:center;"| 90 km
 * [[Image:Plainstage.svg|22px|alt=|link=]] || Flat stage
 * }
 * I know which one I'd rather take to a GAN or FAN. Therefore, in conclusion, Wikidata is not sophisticated enough to be rolled out across all the WP:CYCLING articles at present, and as such, should not be implemented until consensus was ever gained... I'll retire to my quarters with a cup of coffee! Craig  (talk)  21:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please prevent this to go further. --Osplace 02:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * With regards to the stage layout, the WD table looks terrible. I know that a personal preference on presentation isn't in itself justification for not using something. However, the other issue is that it's pulled directly from WD, making it harder for the "average editor" to find where the source of the table is, which in itself must be a concern.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 11:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We should reach a consensus about this and prevent the WD one to be implemented. --Osplace 14:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thing that I had forgotten to consider, so many thanks . Wikidata is the hardly the most user-friendly place to input data onto, especially if, as Lugnuts suggests, the average editor comes to try and add the relevant parameters to the relevant items. I'm sure raised the issue previously going back several months that Wikidata should potentially not be used in this way, but I don't think clarification was ever gained at that point.  Craig  (talk)  19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi everybody and particularly XyZAn. I will respond point by point. First, the algorithm is used in a certain number of language, when I give a roster in this moment, I give it also to other Wikipedias. So you are not alone and not the biggest Wikipedia about cycling. We are the most numerous on FR Wikipedia to write articles about cycling, but as other Wikipedias, we have always a big lack of users to do all the work (I think at the new objective for the 2017 season : have an article for each race of the UCI Europe Tour). When it is big teams, big cyclists or big race, we have no problems, but for the rest yes.
 * For the previous team we use a different concept. On FR Wiki, we write articles about seasons and we have this possibility to explay cyclists that enter the team, that left the team, and say what cyclists are again in the team even if it we don't do for each case, because these datas don't come from Wikidata for the moment. In the future, more Wikipedias will be able to write articles about seasons thanks to a new infobox and a function to display victories (note that Wikidata is already used on FR Wiki to count the victories).
 * By that ideology, it is as if you're making the French wiki gain ownership over all the cycling articles in other Wikipedias, which I don't think would be a good idea. Craig  (talk)  19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not FR Wiki, Wikidata as we have Commons for files we have now Wikidata for datas. But all have started on FR Wiki and because it is my maternal language I do always my first tests here. We always detect the first bugs on FR Wiki this way. A second stage come after when I give the functions at other Wikipedias where we sometimes have specificities. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the dates of birth, and because you don't have followed the development of the function, a date of the day means "we don't have his date of birth on Wikidata, please enter it". Note that the number of case is rare now with the time. Don't forget that we have datas about cycling on Wikidata since a very few time. Each week we create items about new cyclists or just a cyclist that is member of a team. Fortunately, we now have statements for Cycling Archives, Cqranking and ProCyclingStats, so it is easy to verify the information.
 * But rather than completing the relevant information first of all, you're more than happy to put an incomplete roster on there with incorrect information? Okay then... Craig  (talk)  19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not an excuse, I am often tired when I work on Wikipedia and sometimes there are big problems I don't see. The bigger it is, the less I see it. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't work for disabled persons. I prefer spending my time to develop the algorithm for other languages so for more people.
 * Yeah, but you have to make it accessible to everyone. By saying that you don't work for disabled persons, then you're limiting any potential reach for Wikidata and is a bit of a disingenuous response towards that. Craig  (talk)  19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Accessibility is a recommendation and not a rule. I reach more people by working at improvements to be able to work with new languages. That is why future big developments will surely be for chinese and hindi. I have also idea of voice that read for example a classification, but it is not for now unfortunately. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In France, very few people are able to speak or write in English, and even it is bad, I have a good level in my country. So translations are very middle. But by going on d:Wikidata:WikiProject Cycling/Kit to translate and d:Wikidata:WikiProject Cycling/Kit to translate/Jerseys, you will can give better translations. Don't forget that users come from other countries already bring their translations and all work. This function is also used in Wikipedias where we have only one or two users that work on the cycling. A short phrase is better than nothing. In the best world, we will have one or two lines to explain the death. I add that on other Wikipedias, we don't work with a current roster but with a roster year by year as PCS. Everybody share the same algorithm with translations.
 * Which is why footnotes would be better to display the information compared to Wikidata. Craig  (talk)  19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact is this functionnality is new compared to the function teamroster and we have always little improvements to do. For "died during a competition", it is possible to give a better translation on d:Q23498248.
 * During competition is a better fit, so have updated in good faith. Craig  (talk)  20:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Our display is better on fr:Tour Down Under 2017. For the town, it is interesting because a bug has been detected with you. On FR Wikipedias and on other wikis, when a town have the same name, we write Marly (Nord), you, you use a comma so there is something to do. We also have this problem you again use miles and former unities in the USA, it is time to adopt the kilometer and the kilometer per hour. At the beginning of the year, choice was made to have just a little logo to qualify the stage and the name when the arrow pass. Idem for the futuristic design you find everywhere. The fact is we can uses these functions on around 20 Wikipedias, so it is impossible to satisfy everybody. I encounter some cyclists I take in photos during the cycling season, and I have had positive opinions about this design and the idea to share datas to save time. I also like to ask the opinion of people reading Wikipedias, because they generally have good ideas. We have too much conservative people on Wikipedia.
 * Again, as Lugnuts and have mentioned, it does not display better. You have images on the box that have no description until you hover of the logo. Whereas on the English wiki, and I'm not the only one to suggest this, the stage descriptor is better in the box itself. Just a general question to ; how many articles have been promoted to FA or GA on the French wiki since Wikidata was introduced over there?  Craig  (talk)  19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible, there are different views on the topic and I can understand some people that prefer the text and other the logo.
 * Very few, on EN Wiki you have the chance to have users that spend their time to really write articles, on FR Wiki it is not the same. Wikidata is just done to datas. More for a quantity of articles and not for a quality. It is also done to have less work because we have more users that enter datas, and it is easy to make a translation. At the beginning I launched the program because cyclists I take in photos on race says me they have no articles about races I take them in photos in their language. So the idea was to transfer little to little datas with this idea to permit at other users to make their own articles very fast. It start to works but it takes time, the first problem is my project photos+datas is widely underfunded. Datas are secondary in an article, the text make our difference compared to databases. You have also a procedure that is different for Good articles, I see on 2015 La Flèche Wallonne where on fr:Flèche wallonne 2015 we have this page. I will see if I have all the means I need in 2017 if I am able to work on quality on FR Wiki and for others. If I am able to make a good translations and if I can do cartography. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To conclude, the future design will continue to be the same, and it will be in use for future functions because since one year, we have a global opinion positive about this. I don't speak of consensus because on Wikidata Cycling we use something that is more like a vote where catalans or macedonians have the same weight than english. It would be considered as racist to consider users should have different weights following the Wikipedia so the country they come. One of the problem is that in the previous months, nobody came to discuss to explain for example what is the perfect way to display a date, to explain the bugs we have in his language, to improve the translations... so in some language, we are more developped because users have worked to be adapted in their language. You surely guess I don't speak russian or Finnish. It rest again works for around one year to develop the last functions, and I widely would prefer to have user that test the new functions and give details about what is not perfect, it is better to continue the developments. And we have infoboxes for races and stages, table about palmarès, classifications, list of teams that work better than the previous templates we used on FR Wikipedia. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC) PS : I add if you are very good for the UCI World Tour, for the races of the UCI Europe Tour you clearly have not enough users, idem for maintaining articles about continental teams. So it is now time to think at new solutions to solve these problems. Don't forget we have the most readers on EN Wiki.
 * We're – or maybe to a better word – I'm not saying that Wikidata cannot be used, but there seems to be more issues than resolutions that the data can introduce. I just don't see how we can come to a consensus on something that is still raw and cannot be categorically accurate. Craig  (talk)  19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The first problem is Wikidata is too new compared to Wikipedia. It was during a long time impossible to make better in one year that has made 15 year to be built. I speak using the past because for our last infobox, fr:Modèle:Cycling race/stageinfobox, we have make very big progress and our new infobox is widely better than the four we previously use for general stages, stages of La Vuelta, le Tour and the Giro. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Great discussion, it's been an interesting read - i'd not paid too close attention the first discussion, but it does seem that the premise of the wikidata is good, just that the current version of it reduces user friendliness, reduces accessibility and reduces accuracy. Is it therefore fair to say that there is a consensus for the EN-wiki cycling project, just that the consensus is that we will continue to use wiki-markup tables as the primary means of conferring the above information. XyZAn (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say that we are approaching a consensus towards what you suggest, ; both from the details above, the archive that you had linked to and the discussion from early January. However, I still think we should wait a few days to get other opinions.
 * I can see Wikidata being introduced. Just not right now. It's still far too raw for it to be used over the race articles and team pages. French wiki of this year's Tour of Britain shows, in the infobox, Xandro Meurisse at . He, of course, was a stagiaire with . If Wikidata wasn't used, we would have this accurate – how easily stagiaire spells can be implemented for races is another matter. Craig  (talk)  21:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the trainees, the case is easy, on Wikidata I add a qualifier that say Xandro run for this team. Because a trainee is not always in its new team, I have the example of fr:Nils Politt that only runs the Eurométropole Tour for Katusha. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another bit of intricate coding that IPs may not be able to work with in good faith, which elaborates on more succinctly below.  Craig  (talk)  20:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For me this is very simple, there is no need for the use of Wikidata in cycling articles on the English Wiki. There are many reasons, but one that stands out is the ridiculous 12x7 px edit icon discourages IPs editing. You could also say it stops them from becoming regular editors, signing up and going on to become long-term contributors to cycling articles. If there ever comes a time that there are no people editing our articles, then of course it would be welcome, but for now, no thanks. I'm not even going into the horrendous styling that isn't inline with MOS:DTT etc. I know you mean well Jérémy, but surely a second discussion in which everyone has again oppose it, you must see that you need to stop using it here. Now we just need to get rid. BaldBoris 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is partly true. I know the work you do on biggest races and on biggest teams. I will not say the contrary it is a quality work and I hope have this a day on other Wikipedias (not just FR Wiki). But you can turn it as you want, you have a very big lack of people to make articles or just updates for conti pro or continental teams or to create articles about .HC or .1 races, and I don't speak of .2 races. We also we have sometimes these problems but now it is easy to solve for us. So you can refuse to use Wikidatas for "biggests articles", but a time you will need to think, even you are the biggest Wiki with 5300000 articles, that a number of articles should be developped or updated and you are not again able to do it when on other Wikipedias we are able. And Wikipedia is done to be read by reader, not for you to have fun with how to play with a toy. Each day people go on your articles and say "it lacks informations". Not on the "biggest articles", but on other articles. Wikidata is like Commons, it is a different project with its community, datas must be compared as files and not as texts. The Wikidata logo is small but for other users, the previous logo was too big, proof that nobody is agree on the subject. So the true question is not the wish of an hand of users, but the reader's interest in finding complete information. Contrary to cycling projects, Wikidata cycling take this point in consideration. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would there be room to manoeuvre a potential compromise into the project, perhaps we could trial wiki data in a select and controlled number of 1) UCI Continental team articles and 2) Class 2 race articles. Perhaps something like all French team articles and all French class 2 (maybe class 1 eventually?) events (I'm purely using France as the example as I know there's a reasonable number of french team articles as well as french races). I know there are a significant number of concerns, validly raised by editors here - which still remain unresolved - but could something along these lines work? XyZAn (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I say, we will always have the yellow colour and the transparent background, we have a global consensus on around twenty Wikipedias to have this new design described as plus épuré (more refined). It is not possible for me to let two users (Cs-wolves and BaldBoris) decide for a change for everybody, it will run again a consensus already existing, just for users that will in more never use Wikidata or contribute on other Wikipedias. But it is not impossible to make improvements on the side of accessibility, for example add a scope="col" or a class if the appearance continue to be the same but if it is better for being machine readable (not sure my translation is good). For this part, it would be better if we have directly the help of specialists of the Fundation. Cycling is around 1 % of articles of each Wikipedia, an algoritm that is able to works on around twenty Wikipedias should be helped to be better. Note that it will surely be long, because for example it makes one month yesterday I ask help to have people hired few hours to translate in specific languages... But I think before making more trials, I will contact you on your talk page and we will discuss one after one about the different functions, and detect mistakes or programming errors or problems of translations, especially for cycling races witch is the core of my activity. After few time, we will correct the major part of concerns. I generally have one contact by Wikipedia to perfecting the new functions given, it was a lack here and it is the source of a part of the problems. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see that side, but at the same time – with so many concerns raised by several users – would it not be better to continue to be developed before rolling out for a trial, if at all? There are certain MOS elements that need to be met even before we should realistically be able to consider it... Craig (talk)  20:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As Craig says, the current MOS, which Jérémy said "will continue to be the same", cannot be used. It may fit in with the French cycling articles, but it doesn't here. There is no leeway on this issue, and if he sticks to that attitude, it'll always be no. BaldBoris 21:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not continue to try to force other editor to embrace my beliefs after such a long discussion. We should just not continue arguing with him. Any edits with such wikidata items should be reverted/corrected. When we agree on implementing the inclussion of those items, then we should include them. Thank you. --Osplace 14:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this, having looked for a place Module:Cycling race was being discussed. A lot of the problems stem from the way it is written. There are many cross-wiki templates and modules, some of which I have contributed to. And they all work the same way. They are written once, usually on en.wp though not necessarily. Then they are ported and localised. Strings are translated, links are updated, broken template invocations are fixed, and if necessary formatting is changed to match that of the new Wiki. This though includes all versions for all languages in one. Rather than modifying it on each WP, it is meant to be updated centrally, and has an instruction to that effect at the top.

This is contrary to how modules are normally written. I don’t think there is a guideline on it, probably as no-one has thought to write them like this before. It leads to many of the problems noted, as if formatting is changed it will no longer be easily to update. This is also made more difficult by its sheer size and complexity, containing multiple languages and code to support them, none of which is needed here. The size may also impact performance. It may seem easier to maintain one large module but it makes it far more complex. It also, with the suggestion it should not be changed by any editor here, and only changed on Wikidata, seems contrary to our policy on ownership.

The obvious fix is create a local version, free of all the baggage of supporting multiple languages and which can easily be modified so its output conforms with our style guidelines. This might make it harder to update, but it might also lead to other Wikipedias adopting a similar approach, doing a module based on the one here which they can more easily modify. So it might end up working like all the other modules and templates that have been ported and translated. But that is for other language Wikipedias to decide.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the need for a modular page to update everything. Especially when it is in excess of 225,000 bytes! Imagine trying to get an IP to go through that to update something. I just feel that Wikidata should not be used in this way. We don't have the football and rugby union projects using this method to populate infoboxes. However, I do agree with the fact that it shouldn't be a case with multiple different languages getting beaten around the bush to necessitate the usage. It does seem that the Wikidata elements are being pushed via WP:OWN. Craig  (talk)  20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The matter of whether or not to get data from Wikidata is I think separate, but is more easily discussed if the module can be modified here (and is much smaller than 225kB). The guidelines on Wikidata seem to allow it, suggesting it is to be determined by discussion between editors on a case by case basis:
 * It is, on the other hand, not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text on English Wikipedia at this time (option 1 of the second question). There is a valid point raised that while running text is clearly not suitable for Wikidata use, it might be worth discussing use in tables specifically – but not consensus regarding this has been reached in this discussion.
 * -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting reading; many thanks, . Craig  (talk)  21:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a link to this consensus you talk about? Besides, it's not just me and that oppose the use of Wikidata to populate in this way. It's an encyclopedia, not an algorithm session for wannabe programmers. Rather than contacting an individual user, WT:CYCLING is the best place to bring any improvements and as a consensus, see whether the functionality would be improved or whether we would back to square one again.  Craig  (talk)  20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that hits the nail on the head and for me I think that we can move closer to an EN-wiki project consensus; whilst wikidata has good intentions, it just isn't refined enough and it's inclusion has the real and plausible ability to make articles and the distribution of information worse than it currently is. XyZAn (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it makes for interesting reading; and at the same time, move closer to the consensus as mentioned. Craig  (talk)  21:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I read all the discussion and translate, and I see there is no consensus. Adding team rosters was a very bad idea. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not invisible and I do not agree the inclusion of all those very intrincate wikidata items just because Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick wants to do so. This is EN-Wiki, whatever you do in FR-Wiki is ok, there. There are a lot of differences among wikis. What comes next? We should remove the major results discussion result and remove it from WP:CYC-CD? --Osplace 01:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You should read very well, I recognize it was a bad idea. It is evident that the English-speaking Wikipedia has experienced a very great development of rules and recommendations which thus make it possible to counter any disruptive evolution. I should have foreseen it. Then, the mistake is to believe that I only work on the French version because I live in France. I work regularly on a dozen Wikipedia and even on the English version where my work has illustrated many riders and cycling races. WikiProject Cycling/Consensus decisions also says consensus can change. For example, in this page, I read a decision about races start lists and see you have no list on 2016 E3 Harelbeke where we have such a list on fr:Grand Prix E3 2016 (Wikidata is not used for it). Not for other countries where it is too long to fill it. We can imagine the consensus change a day by the arrival of new users and the possibility to have in common these informations. The fact there are a lot of difference among Wikis comes from the fact users of all Wikipedias where obliged from the beginning to tinker their own infoboxes and tables, copying they see at other places. That is why I see on little Wikipedias infoboxes that are adapted from yours, and that is why Wikipedias become more and more different between them with the time. I think that if Wikidata was born around 2003-2005 and the Fundation have given to all Wikipedias perfect templates to acquire datas, Wikipedias would have been more similar with the time, it would be the same if the Fundation would have given ten years before non Wikidata infoboxes but that have a perfect rendering. When a product is perfect, why change. I think you are invisible in this debate because you seem to speak in an unpleasant way (parler de manière désagréable if my translation is not good). English is not my mother tongue, but that's what I felt. So, I went to check your contributions and I feel that you are very concerned about the rules, the regulations, and that you seem to be very or too strict. Do not take it badly, but I think you should be more cool with your fellow contributors. Wikipedia has always built itself in a studious but flexible, jovial and positive atmosphere. In general, contributors who have spent time doing a job, and I am not talking about myself, do not like to hear that they have worked badly and that they should have worked differently and that they must now all redo. I want you to change your’s stance (changer son fusil d'épaule). Not for me because I'm used to it, but especially for new contributors or even for your colleagues in projects. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not saying that you have read the other people minds and you took their ideas into consideration and now you are starting to change EN Wiki in behalf of the Fundation and all those new contributors who will find more reliable your way even if it is your way that you use many other wikis and even if more intricated, is still better. Consensus should change, that is why we come here and talk about it. But it is before not after changing stuff, are you seeing this conversation going to a consensus reached in behalf of your proposal? There are articles that do not have or were created properly, this project is not flawless, but if something is missing WP:SOFIXIT.--Osplace 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have too much time to log in and edit these days so thank you for tagging me in this discussion. Reflecting on the above, I cannot see how this use of Wikidata is an improvement on what there currently is. I can certainly see scope for it, but the use needs to reflect local conventions (no cycling page on enwiki is about the main MOS) - and, with the caveat of not being fully up-to-date with the MOS, the absence of converted distances (km to mi) and of text with the icons of filly, flat etc. appear to contravene the enwiki MOS. If there were some local way to interpret what is on Wikidata then we would perhaps have more common ground (is this what JohnBlackburne is saying?). Severo (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. If like other modules and template the one here was different from that on other Wikipedias it would become easy to fix the formatting to conform with the MOS here. The other benefit is an en.wp specific template would not need to contain all of the other languages, and so would be far simpler and easier to work with, possibly far more efficient too.


 * In fact even if there was no need for a en.wp version, there is no reason for the module to be so unwieldy and inefficient. Module:Location map includes support for hundreds of different maps. They are not all in the module but in subpages. Other templates and modules work similarly. This makes them easier to maintain especially across multiple language Wikipedias. Rather than the module containing the code and data for all Wikipedias only the code is common, but data can be and usually is different. Other differences can be handled by the templates calling the module, localised on each Wikipedia.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In theory, it is possible. The fact is the algorithm is always in construction and evolve each month. The functions (nine at this day) have always evolved since their creations, it means parts are rewritten. An example, in 2017 listofwinners will be rewritten to add teams to cyclists (because now we start to have more and more these informations). Few days ago, fields were added to infobox and for classifications we now give more place between ranks. Having one and only one module is more easy because we must give it to around twenty Wikipedias. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bit late to the party, just noticed an alert on this conversation. Will have a good read on all the comments over the next day or so. I have two, well three issues with the use of Wikidata. I guess my first would be the presentation. In all the examples it looks really poor, it doesnt look like it is part of the article, it looks really uncomfortable. Related to this, and my biggest issue is consistency across wikipedia in general. Tables look on the whole consistent across the whole of wikipedia, be it results of a cycling race, details on types of knitting stitch, or lengths of rivers. If a new styling, that is a drastic departure is to be employed, it either needs to be replicated everywhere, or it needs to, as closely as possible mirror current styling, which surely is possible. I certainly dont want to see a mess where some pages have the wikidata tables, some have old style etc. But my biggest issue, and this is as someone who pretty familiar with wikipedia editing, and also has solid css, coding skills, very computer literate... I went over to wikidata to try and figure out how to do a team roster.. havnt got a clue, totally unintuitive, very little documentation, and basically a headache. Its great that there are people who do understand how to create a team roster, or a race details on wikidata, but the average editor will not, and the user that maybe just occasionally changes something they see is wrong on an article will certainly not be encouraged to contribute if it involves learning a whole process (and visiting essentially an external site) to do what they want to do. The beauty of wikipedia is the editing simplicity. you click edit, you can change things, that encourages new editors to participate. pushing elements of the articles to external sites, complicates things for the average user. I think that would possibly be less of an issue if the look was right, if it was consistent with established wikipedia table styling, but theres just too many things wrong with it right now to be implemented. It has potential, but its a long long way from being able to roll out. Dimspace (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is Wikidata is done to centralize datas for different Wikipedia as Commons do the same for photos. Wikidata is not done to create quality article, just to add datas. The more Wikipedias use Wikidata, the more possibility there are to correct a change. Fr oexample, if a cyclist change of team during the season, one person can bring the correction for everybody, and even add sources. Wikidata can be a good solution for rosters to add trainees. So I am also proud of classifications where one person can do the job for everybody.
 * About the question of the documentation, the project is a project from Wikidata so the documentation is on Wikidata, example for listofstages. You can access to documentation on d:Module:Cycling race and even here if you want. Documentations are translatable. The major fact is not all the functions are again written, so we can have holes for some case, it is interesting for me to understand this. There is no documentation for stageinfobox because we are perfecting this function.
 * To make a roster, it is easy, you go or create the item of the season of the cycling team, and you add one by one the name of the cyclists for statements at the propertie P527 (has part). Each cyclist has an item were we have its gender, its nationality, its birth date, its successive teams (but we have no infobox for cyclists). When a cyclist change its nationality, it is easy to add dates in the statement, idem when he change of team.
 * Some functions are well evolved than others, infobox, stageinfobox, listofstages, listofteams, listofwinners and classifications work very well, even if we always look after good concepts to make them better. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC) PS : note that the development of functions will continue in 2017 and some functions will evolve. On this point, I need to know precisely how you write your dates in articles and tables because this point need again to be improved.
 * @Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick. While you may find the entering of for instance, a stage race extremely simple, and the documentation easy to follow, I don't think a huge number of editors will be able to. im talking the rank and file, the people who maybe just make an edit here, an edit there, maybe on a rare occasion create a small article. At the moment, a inexperienced editor wanting to create a page for a small bike for instance, they can look at the on page code for similar pages, they can learn from that, build a table, and put together a coherant article. With Wikidata it will not be intuitive for them. For example, you cite listofstages. Nowhere on that page does it tell a new user HOW to create a table. It explains what various codes mean, but it doesn't explain how to do it. Honestly, i skimmed through it, thought "what a load of gobledegook" and moved on. If I was putting an article together, my response on having to figure it all out would just be to not do the article. leave it to someone else.


 * The second problem for inexperienced editors is finding what they need to put in an article. I just tried out wikidata to find the roster data for team dimension data. Found page . Brilliant, now what do i do with it, how do i put that into my article. Wouldn't have a clue.


 * As it stands, its a complicated system for a lot of editors to get their head round, and what you end up creating is a system where a select few clever bods at the top know how to enter, edit and insert data, and the rest just look on thinking "I dont know how to do that", which goes against everything a collaborative system should be.


 * My two key issues therefore, 1) styling. It simply has to be consistent with other tabular data thats historical on wiki (Whatever language). We cannot have pages where we have mixed styling with some tabular data in wiki tables and some in these new (rather unattractive) tables. 2) until it is a lot easy, better documented, and more intuitive for the average editor so as not to be off-putting. Dimspace (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And I am agree with you. For a guy that just go on Wikipedia once a month it is difficult to understand and difficult to make a new article following Wikidata. For a new user that learn to contribute to Wikidata and Wikipedia, it is easy, we have had on FR Wiki an user that have make numerous articles, and its work was very good for a new user. The fact is as we learn to contribute on Wikipedia or Commons, we also learn to contribute on Wikidata. I contribute on Wikidata since only at the end of april 2015, before no. Normally, when you enter statements, after two or three the following propositions for statements are here. After it become an automatism. All the items of a same thing use always the same properties, and the way to fill it are the same.
 * For the continental Dimension Data-Qhubeka, datas are used on a former infobox on FR Wiki here. Datas about roster are always in the item of the season, so here it is Dimension Data-Qhubeka 2016, the code to call a roster is always the same : Cycling race/teamroster (the name of the algorithm plus the name of the function). Because it is always the same, an user from a language can do the edit for everybody if he wants. The roster in the item of a season is not original, it is the case for ProCyclingStats, CQranking and Cycling Archive, and it is logic because the roster change every year. In the same way, we have items for cycling races and items for editions where we have the winners.
 * If a new user success to use Wikidata like he has done, that means it is not so complicated, just an effort is necessary. You compare Wikipedia to Wikidata but it will never be the same, we store datas on Wikidata as we store photos on Wikimedia Commons. It is not difficult to learn how to store a date, how to stock victories, how to stock different winners of a race, how to create the item of a cyclist. It is impossible to learn all in one day, but it is easy to learn action by action. With the time, I see the new articles will not always come from an IP but now come from a work made by a danish and a colombian to their DA and ES Wiki that permits me to profite of their datas and add mines. It is a bigger collaboration, and we know now it works. I like this because I can prepare an item for a race and an article, I go on race, turn at home at night and have the winners and classification. Now, we have collaboration no matter the language.
 * Whatever language, it wasn't possible to be consistent with other tabular data. Nobody use the same tables and the same order inside them. We even have change with the time inside a same language, see fr:Tour Down Under 1999, fr:Tour Down Under 2011, fr:Tour Down Under 2015. Having mixed style is already a reality for a big number of persons, even before the introduction of Wikidata. At the contrary, Wikidata avoid mixed styles between Wikipedias and permit to give more informations to everybody. With our infobox, in one statement we are able to give a card or a podium to everybody, and if somebody decide to create an article in its language, he already have all datas. Wikidata is not difficult, but everybody need to learn how to use it how you have learn little to little to use Wikipedia. I suppose you have not becoming a pro in one day. For me, nine years ago, it had took time. For the documentation, you are free to make improvements in English, I will translate in French. Because you have another view, you are able to see things that are natural for me. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Quote "Wikidata is not done to create quality article, just to add datas. " < this for me is an issue. Dimspace (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The quality of an article like 2016 E3 Harelbeke comes from the texts added by users, not by its tables and its infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk • contribs) 09:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Continued wiki-data contributions
I just thought I'd bring it to everyone, who commented here's attention that two articles have recently been created by, using purely wiki-data, see: 2016 Ladies Tour of Norway and 2015 Ladies Tour of Norway - thoughts? XyZAn (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just created quickly the articles to display the information from wikidata, as most contributors don't have the reflex to look there. I don't plan to contribute actively on WP:en. Just thought it was better than nothing (if I am mistaken, I can change my behavior in the future). If someone wants to put the information in the old shape, I have nothing against it. I agree, that an article should not be constituted only of data. On the French WP, I always try to add some text. Psemdel (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But we shouldn't just be creating articles to display the information from Wikidata though. Ideally, pages should be created to show the tables, and ideally, text to go with it. Especially, if they are to be taken to the higher grades of article classifications. Especially, the flagcruft in regards to the teams in the relevant competing teams sections. Wikidata needs to be nipped in the bud just now, before it gets out of hand... Craig  (talk)  14:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I fear that with regard to women's races articles there is no consensus against the use of Wikidata because as a contributor to Wikipedia I have the same opinion as Psemdel. For these races where we have few users, it is better to have an article than no article. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But note how Psemdel states that they have nothing against the old style. You have yet to gain consensus for the use of Wikidata, so why should this be treated any differently? It doesn't matter how many users there are, that does not constitute whether an article should be made. Note that several races in the 2016 UCI Women's World Tour don't have articles yet. Does that mean that people are thinking that "it is better to have an article than no article"? Evidently not. Craig  (talk)  19:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "to display information", to explain why on WP:en and not on a hidden other WP with less traffic (and because I can't write in all languages obviously). Of course, the goal is still to deliver reliable information to the readers, no argumentation about it. It took me 15 minutes/article so the time investment is limited for me. I want also to highlight, that from the reader point of view, there is no difference between 2014 Ladies Tour of Norway and 2015 Ladies Tour of Norway. Only the color of the tables changes. Why all articles are not created is a question of time. I would also like to have all articles about cycling created on WP:fr, but my availability is limited. On WP:en it is the same I suppose. But back to the topic, I will wait for a concensus as it is called, just think that there are already a lot of data on women races on Wikidata before you start typing during hours result tables. Psemdel (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2014 doesn't have the issue of the, as what termed "the ridiculous 12x7 px edit icon discourages IPs editing", which is the crux of the problem with Wikidata. The better example of the issue is with the 2016 Ladies Tour of Norway; although we have top-tens for the overall standings, for the stage results, we have a top-six, a top-nine and a top-ten over the three stages. If we weren't using Wikidata for that page, we would have tens for all three. Note that if someone who had not used Wikidata before and wished to remedy it up to a top-ten, how would they use it?  noted in the section above that there is no tutorial to update certain parts of the module... But how the previous discussion went, the consensus was certainly edging towards the non-implementation of Wikidata in WP:CYCLING articles.  Craig  (talk)  00:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Still do not know why do we still have wikidata articles if no consensus have been reached yet to implement such way of editing. We should change every existing article using the wikidata documentation and warn all the current users of that style preventing them to use it. --Osplace 02:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "better to have an article than no article"
 * Find it hard to agree with that. Wikipedia is not a results storing service. An article that is purely just drawing data from wikidata, that sort of thing is best left to the likes of cqranking, procyclingstats etc. Articles are not created purely to list results, its an encyclopia, with articles Dimspace (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Before this gets stuck in the archive without resolution (and after around a month since the initial discussion was instigated), from the posts above, there does seem to be a consensus towards Wikidata not being used for the foreseeable future until its accuracy to detail can no longer be negligible. Craig (talk)  20:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed XyZAn (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2017)
I have asked for Template:Cycling data TNE to be moved to Template:Cycling data BOH, to reverse an issue previously created in 2015. See my rationale here. Craig (talk)  07:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox cyclist uciregistration parameter
has picked up an unsupported parameter (uciregistration) that's used in 75 articles. One article I've checked, Floortje Mackaij, was created by with it from the start. It's not in Template:Infobox cyclist, so I don't know how it started. I assume it was meant to state what the nationality of a rider is according to the UCI. Please reply at Template talk:Infobox cyclist. BaldBoris 20:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BaldBoris, see this thread on the talk page for some additional context. Frietjes (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

16,000 BLPs moving out of mainspace
Hi. Some of you will be aware of an ongoing issue of BLP articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel. The background at ANI can be found here. The discussion on the cleanup can be found here. In short, 16,000 BLP articles are being moved out of the mainspace to draftspace. This has already started following a Bot Approval. This should be complete in the next 48hrs or so. Articles will remain in draft for 90 days. In that time, they can be checked, and if OK, moved back to the mainspace. Anything not checked after 90 days will be deleted automatically.

So how can you help? The BLPs are broken down by occupational area. If an one of these interests you, please help. Even if it is checking one article. Check the article that has been moved to draft that a) it meets the notability requirement of the occupational area in question and b) that the facts in the article are supported by the sources. This includes, but is not limited to, the dates of birth, who they represented, when they were active, etc. If there are elements that can not be supported by the sources, they must be removed. If you are happy with the article, then move it back into the mainspace. DO NOT move anything until you have checked the sources, or supplied other reliable sources to support information in the article that may not already be cited. More information can be found here.

This is not going to be an easy task. I don't think there's too much support to check 16,000+ articles and I suspect that most of them will be gone after 90 days. If you have any questions, please raise them here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 11:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All articles relating to Olympic cyclists have been checked and moved back into the mainspace. Any help on looking at the main cyclist list would be appreciated. Remember to ONLY move an article once you've checked it. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

UCI World Championships nav templates
I have reverted the track cycling WC nav templates from the Olympics sidebar style one as half weren't transcluded in the correct position and –2009 and 2011–2014 used the original navbox format. I don't particularly like to undo someone's hard work, but sadly the job was only half done, leaving a right old mess. I have no real problem with the sidebar style, just think we need consistency. I have left the road champs for now, but as with the track only half are done. To be honest I don't think the sidebar style is really needed. Thoughts? BaldBoris 19:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Lists of Wins
I have gone through the Category:Lists of wins by cycling team and changed the names of articles to the format List of wins by Original Name and its successors. It is ridiculous to have a long list under the title "Lists of UAE Abo Dhabi wins"; it is irrational to have results extending back to 1980 credited to the brand Movistar that did not exist until 1995, and article names should not be formatted such that they need to be changed most years. As I summarised it in the edits, these new names, accurately describe all inclusions, current and future. Kevin McE (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably the best solution. I didn't move the list of Lampre wins as I too it would have looked ridiculous. The names need to be moved to have and en dash with no space between sponsors per the consensus. I have a problem with List of wins by Sky Professional Racing and its successors, because in 2010 the main article and season used "Team Sky", not the official name "Sky Professional Racing". So as its only been known as "Team Sky" on Wiki it should be changed back to List of wins by Team Sky. BaldBoris 13:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki having been inaccurate about the 2010 name of the team in 2010 does not provide a good reason for Wiki being inaccurate about the 2010 name in 2017. Kevin McE (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK fair point. BaldBoris 22:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, in the case of Quick-Step Floors for example, "and its successors" is wrong as it's the same team just a different name, so "successors" is a bit ambiguous. BaldBoris 13:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quick Step Floors is a successor as name-format to Quick Step-Davitamon, the original name. I agree that the word successor is not faultless because it is always the same team with a different name (and usually a different sponsor), otherwise we would not have any reason to gather the result.  The problem is that the team has no enduring name, or at least not one that has any public profile (with the possible exception of Abarca).  But commentators and cycling journalists habitually use the term, and I cannot think of a better concise term.  The accurate version would be List of wins by the team previously known as Original Name and subsequently having various other titles, but that is not suitable.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it's tricky. I had recently changed the opening sentence of each of the lists to "This is a comprehensive list of victories of the  cycling team." It should really be something like "This is a comprehensive list of victories of the cycling team first known as , now  ." Also, should the main category of teams and their seasons template (Template:Movistar Team seasons) follow this naming style? This will also stop the need to move it when the name is changed, which I'm sure you know is most seasons. BaldBoris 22:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why some are named "List of wins by" and some "List of wins of"? I've not yet moved List of Team LottoNL–Jumbo wins because of this.BaldBoris 22:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wins by" rather than "wins of": unintentional inconsistency on my part, I'm not bothered which is used.
 * I would like to (but am not sure when I will have time to) give the annual subheadings in those lists the historically appropriate team name (as seen in the TIAA CREF → Cannondale Drapac example).
 * As to the seasons' template, I would say that these should indeed have a consistent name, and something based on the original name seems the way to do that.
 * The more we adopt original names as a way of referring to teams' historical manifestations (or at least some consistent manner), the more becomes possible. Maybe someday we can have an equivalent to Category:Gillingham F.C. players (and for hundreds of other football clubs) at Category: Reynolds (and successors) cyclists  Kevin McE (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to sound contrary, but wouldn't it make more sense to have the articles named in a manner like: I cant help but think that List of wins of UAE Abu Dhabi and its predecesors would be more pertinent than List of wins of Colnago–Lampre and its successors, in-so-far that a user who watches the Tour in 2017, would search for UAE Abu Dhabi and not Colnago–Lampre - i have no preference, just seems that to me there's a better logic XyZAn (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That would need renaming most pages every year, which is what I was trying to avoid. Your hypothetical reader will find it linked from the UAE Abu Dhabi page in any case. Kevin McE (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

ct templates and name changes
Between us, Craig (Cs-wolves) and I have, I believe, now sorted any references that properly refer to the team UAE Abu Dhabi so that they use ct|UAD|2017a, and those that refer to UAD Team Emirates to ct|UAD|2017b (or simply ct|UAD). In keeping with precedent, Craig has removed the option of CT|UAD|2017 (with no following letter): this now returns a template problem message thus:. Craig has drawn my attention to previous discussions here and here, but even on reading these I cannot see why, if we are confident that everything that needs the text 'UAE Abu Dhabi' is now marked with ct|UAD|2017a, that ct|UAD|2017 cannot be allowed to return the text 'UAE Team Emirates'.

Allowing this would make use of cyclingteamlist a lot easier for the rest of the year, and would allow editors to forget the short lived 'Abu Dhabi' version of the name in using the template for the rest of the year without triggering error messages. Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No reply, so I have done it: both ct|UAD|2017 and ct|UAD|2017b now return the text 'UAE Team Emirates'  Kevin McE (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think in this case it's probably fine, but the reasoning is that while all pages that transclude that template variant now are fine, if I were to create a page that should call that variant, I would probably miss it. I say in this case it's probably fine as the first name was used for such a short period of time that that situation is unlikely. Severo (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed: I can understand the precedent whereby Craig thought the the 2017 with no suffix should be removed had its reason, and my proposal in this case was predicated upon the assumption that every case that will ever need 'UAE Abu Dhabi' already has it. Kevin McE (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably something I've raised before but we should find a way ont he template documentation pages to indicate the dates that the name was active. Severo (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it not be a case of changing a and b, to the parameters in which the dates would fall? It may bloat Template:Cycling showdata somewhat, but that may be the best bet. For example, 2017 Jan for UAE Abu Dhabi, and 2017 Feb for UAE Team Emirates; to go along with 2017... or am I completely off the mark with that...? Craig  (talk)  00:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't necessarily be a problem, the main difference would be that would be used instead of . My question would be does that make it easier or harder for editors? What if the team name changed on Feb 15, could you build in that nuance, or would editors used the Feb variant for all races in Feb rather than those from Feb 15? In technical terms, as long as the year variant is one word, anything could be used. Severo (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably would make it harder for some users. However, the limiting factor of is the fact that it doesn't factor in anything other than team-name-2017, which was why this was raised in the first place. I think going back to the old means, of the 2-column, even-split criteria would probably be best. However, we should also look at experimenting in relation to the variants...  Craig  (talk)  22:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)