Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 15

ct templates and temporary name changes
We don't seem to have done so last year, but should we have a ct|LTS|2017b (maybe ct|LTS|2017PN )pointing at Lotto Fix-All? Should the list of teams in the event refer to Soudal or Fix-All? Kevin McE (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Defunct cycling teams
I want to sort out Category:Defunct cycling teams, and need I'm needing some adivce before I start. Example: Carpano (cycling team); if I add Category:Defunct cycling teams based in Italy, should I remove Category:Cycling teams based in Italy, Category:Defunct cycling teams and Category:Defunct sports teams in Italy as these will all be covered by that? ? BaldBoris 18:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This depends if they are diffusing categories, the policy is at WP:DUPCAT although I don't always find that particularly clear. My feeling would be that you should remove Category:Defunct cycling teams and Category:Defunct sports teams in Italy but not Category:Cycling teams based in Italy. It may be worth seeing what other sports do? Severo (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, I'll take a look. BaldBoris 22:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

UCI Professional Continental Team or UCI professional continental team?
Category:Lists of UCI Professional Continental and Continental teams is a mess and I also want to create articles for both team types, like UCI WorldTeam. The wikidata links are and, respectively. The [http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/17/31/01/Article2.2.001_Participation_Equipes_2017_06.03.2017_Neutral.pdf Teams participation, art. 2.2.001 (version on 08.02.2017)] UCI doc uses UCI professional continental team in a sentence and UCI Professional Continental Team as a table heading. This November 2016 news article from the UCI website uses UCI Professional Continental Team in a sentence. I'm pinging, as he moved List of 2015 UCI professional continental and continental teams back in January 2016. BaldBoris 23:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a mess. Still a lot of caps where sources provide no support for proper name status, but I haven't looked deeper than that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Anachronism
Just to mention that on 2013 Grand Prix de Dottignies, Iris Slappendel, Sanne van Paassen and Roxane Knetemann are members of the team WM3, which is an anachronism. No idea, how it occurs (I find nothing in history). Bot? Psemdel (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just fixed it. This article uses the template, which needs a year to know how to call the team. If no year is given, the most recent team name is used. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I thought that the issue was more important. Thank you. Psemdel (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Tour de France
This made me chuckle. Seems to have done a drive-by tagging on a ton of other future events too...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Use the original and authentic name for big races
I've noticed that people insist on using Tour of Flanders instead of the Ronde van Vlaanderen on English wikipedia pages. But at the same time you're using the original name for the 3 Grand Tours and the Giro di Lombardia. Why not write Tour of Lombardy instead of Lombardia then? This is just unprofessional and sloppy. You always stick to one system when writing an article. Furthermore, the original name is always the preferable option.

Take Gilbert's palmares for example. It lists "1st, Tour of Flanders" and "2nd, Dwars door Vlaanderen". Why is one in English and the other one in the original Dutch name?

The quality of many English cycling-related wikipedia pages is simply sub-par and it's time we do something about it. Don't hide behind "it's consensus". That's a weak argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1C10:C700:893B:778:DAAA:3A80 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is governed by larger Wikipedia policies and guiselines, namely WP:EN, which states, The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language. Various articles have been moved over the years and there would seem to be inconsistency, but the consistency is as stated above i.e. each one uses the most common variant in the English language. For example, I've never heard the Tour de France called the Tour of France, but I've also never heard of the Tour of Turkey in it's local language. Severo (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to add to Severo's comment, the usage here, at least with regards to the Tour of Flanders and the Dwars door Vlaanderen, follows that used in popular publications such as Cycling News (see its calendar) and Cycling Weekly (as you can see on its side-bar calendar). I otherwise have no specific opinion on which version is better, but I reverted the change to Philippe Gilbert because we ought to aim for consistency in the naming of any one race across different pages – i.e. since the main page on the race is titled Tour of Flanders, other mentions of that race, for example in palmares sections, should if possible use that same name. --David Edgar (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. Complaining about it and doing nothing is unprofessional and sloppy. Next.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2014 Tour de France
The four-month-old FLC of the list of teams and cyclists in the 2014 Tour de France has been held up as one of the reviewers has disappeared. His unresolved comment was that the team classification time should be in the "by team" section. I ended up making a table for the "teams" section, a preview of entire list can be seen. What are your thoughts on this? Where, if at at all, should the teams times go? Also, more input is needed in the review, so if you get a chance can you please added any comments or give your support. Thanks, BaldBoris 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Vital articles
Just letting everyone know that Fausto Coppi was just removed from the list of vital articles (at the bottom), see the discussion here, led by. I'm amazing that the people at Vital articles didn't want our input, and have asserted that his five Giro wins don't compare to others Tour wins. It may not be the case now but, as many may know, some regarded the Giro more highly. Including his many monuments and the hour I would consider his no low than the current list. I know for a fact many people would say he is the "greatest" or below Merckx. Would anyone rather Bernard Hinault be listed as an article vital to Wikipedia over Coppi? BaldBoris 22:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Race articles: include women's results
I just added a line to the 2017 Amstel Gold Race article to indicate that there also was a race for women. Is this the right place for it, or should it be a separate article, e.g. 2017 Amstel Gold Race Women? My opinion is that it is the right place, but this would mean that to do this properly, we would also need to change the template for the infobox, to allow mention of the women race, and perhaps more smaller changes, so I thought it would be best to mention this here before I do any changes. I have no deadline, so it might take me months/years to really do something about it. ;) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the one line you added is fine, but the all the details that would normally apply should go in its own article. Take a look at 2017 UCI Women's World Tour - some of the events have articles, some haven't been created. If you're up for turning some of the red links blue, please have a go.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, thanks! --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD
Please see this AfD. It's off the back of the one linked to the notability section, above. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia cover this sort of "bicycle"?
I've just come across Richard and Hannah Maynard, a husband and wife team of photographers in pioneer Canada. There's a lovely photo of them at the cutting edge of technology with their self-propelled wheeled machine. What is it called? There doesn't seem to be anything about it in History of the bicycle. Obviously it's a type of tricycle, but surely there's a more precise name? Wasn't there a craze for couples riding together, side by side not like a tandem? We don't have a History of the tricycle. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability
Please see Village_pump_(policy), which directly questions the notability of articles in this project's scope.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Following on from this, the article mentioned by the OP in this discussion has been taken to AfD. You can see it here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So. That cyclist's article has been deleted - I am wondering if her world-level riding stats were preserved somewhere else within the pages of Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Michele Scarponi ITN
If anyone is interested, Michele Scarponi's death is a candidate for WP:ITN, see In the news/Candidates. BaldBoris 13:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well it's in the recent deaths section of the news. Hats off the anyone who has help on the article, especially ! GA? Sorry if there's been any edit conflict troubles. BaldBoris 23:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice work all round on the editing here.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't think I encountered any edit conflicts, if I remember correctly. I think as everybody was doing different subsections, it allowed the compilation to be done without any issues. I've done all I can in regards to the article: it has gone from 13.59 kB pre-death to 101.28 kB with my most recent edit. Still a bit shorter than the Tom Simpson FA, but plenty of room to improve the Scarponi article if need be. Suppose we should thank ITN for putting the wheels in motion for expanding the article! Craig  (talk)  15:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Really good work there. All that's needed is the lead and that's a GAN right there. Not sure what can be found on his "personal life". BaldBoris 15:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Apart from a parrot called Frankje, I've not seen much other than what is already there; it would be pretty much be a duplicate of the early life section. I had also avoided the lead, because if I had looked at it, it would be far too long! Much prefer doing the leads for the stage races! Craig  (talk)  19:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review
Please see here for a deletion review against Magdalena Zamolska XyZAn (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability
An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Chad Young at AfD
Please see this discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Tightening up of WP:NCYC
In light of some recent discussions (Articles for deletion/Magdalena Zamolska and Village_pump_(policy), I would like to start a discussion here about WP:NCYC. I think one of the problems we have is that some of our sub-notability policies (not just related to cycling or sports, this is a widespread problem) are too inclusive. I heard numerous times, for example, that 'sportsperson who competed at the highest level is notable', and I don't disagree with this sentiment. But who decides what is the highest level? I know very little about cycling (or sports, to be honest). To an amateur like myself, the top level means only one thing: Olympics. But NCYC suggests that simply participating (not even winning, just participating) in a number of other competitions should suffice (let's leave aside the weird wording: for UCI World Tour you have to 'rode professionally', for Grand Tour or Monument, just 'rode', and for Olympics and few others, 'competed'). Anyway, the list of competitions in which you apparently have just to participate to be notable, besides Olympics, is as follows: UCI World Cups (composed of UCI Road World Cup, UCI Women's Road World Cup, UCI Mountain Bike World Cup, UCI Track Cycling World Cup, UCI Cyclo-cross World Cup, UCI Trials World Cup, UCI BMX Supercross, UCI Cycle-ball World Cup, UCI Para-cycling Road World Cup), UCI World Championships (UCI Road World Championships, UCI Track Cycling World Championships, UCI Mountain Bike World Championships, UCI Mountain Bike Marathon World Championships, UCI Urban Cycling World Championships, UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships, UCI BMX World Championships, UCI Indoor Cycling World Championships, UCI Para-cycling Road World Championships, UCI Para-cycling Track World Championships, UCI B World Championships, UCI Juniors World Championships, 2010 UCI Juniors Road World Championships, UCI Juniors Track World Championships), the 'Monument' races (Milan–San Remo, Tour of Flanders, Paris–Roubaix, Liège–Bastogne–Liège and Giro di Lombardia), Grand Tour (cycling) (Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a España). That's 32 events (some of which occur annually, some don't, some have been discontinued, but still it is a list of THIRTY TWO events, a few of which seem to be red links which I find puzzling - if they are top competitions in which very participation makes one auto-notable, you'd think those events would have at least some stubs about themselves). And then we get the UCI World Tour which according to its own article :consists of 37 events", some of which overlap with the list above, but most don't - I won't list them all here, but I will just give two examples - Abu Dhabi Tour and Tour de Pologne; let's say that's another two dozen or so articles. So we end up with a list of 50 or so competitions, a few of them red-links, in which participation seems to make a cyclist auto-notable in light of NCYC (oh, do note this is just for the male participants, women get yet another very large pass at rode in UCI Women's Teams - something that doesn't seem to apply to men, who don't get a pass for just being in some team...). Also, let's not forgot that NCYC doesn't end there: apparently it also grants notability for winning gold in any of the Category:Cycling at multi-sport events and UCI race classifications, as well as World University Cycling Championship and National road cycling championships (again, I did not count those, but I wouldn't be surprised if they went to 100+ events). Now, I don't understand why for those events the bar is set higher (particularly with regards to disqualification of silver and bronze medals for notability); this seem like another arbitrary decision (for group A, everyone, for group B, only gold). Moving on, as I noted, I am very green when it comes to cycling, but I googled for 'top cycling competitions' and got entries like or, listing events like Crankworx, which don't seem to be the same as the lists above, suggesting to me that this list is more arbitrary than based on any real consensus. I think editors here are much more qualified than me to look at this, but I would like to stipulate that it is irresponsible to say that anyone who participated in one of the 50+ events is auto-notable as those events, all of them, are 'at the top'. Sportspeople know very well that, I'd think, that there can be only one person at the top. Sure, there are different categories and such (which is fine, Olympics also have several categories for cycling: Cycling at the Summer Olympics), but I think that, as rule of thumb, all non-Olympic events should be capped (with regards to auto-notability) as placing in the top three  (gold, silver, medal). Just participating at them should not grant one an encyclopedic entry (of course, this is not meant to exclude people who pass GNG to to coverage and such, as I am sure many of them would do anyway). NCYC would be much less controversial if it wasn't so inclusive. On the final note, there is also the criteria for team notability, but let's leave it for another discussion. TL;DR: can we limit the NCYC to 'everyone who participated at Olympics', then make the other events listed there only 'top 3'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to clear-up some of the issues in this wall of text. You say you "know very little about cycling" (you then go on about not knowing much about sports either...) Lets assume you have heard of another sport, say football (or soccer for the Yanks). Lets treat the 2017 UCI World Tour as the 2016–17 Premier League (apologies to all members of the cycling project in advance for the crass comparison, but bear with me). You say there are lots of events in the UCI calendar. Well yes. Just as there are lots of matches in the Premier League. Say each cycling team is the broad equivalent of a football team. The team manager will select from their squad of cyclists (example roster) the eight or nine cyclists to ride at the UCI event. There are multiple events, each one being better suited to different types of rider (one-day specialist, multi-stages, flat sprints, etc). And much like a footballer, these cyclists are professionals and each race (or stage of a race) is the equivalent of a start in a football match (for a very broad comparison). Now each and every race will get a ton of coverage throughout the year, from ones you've heard of (Tour de France) to ones you (probably) have not (E3 Harelbeke). So multiple professional athletes riding at the top level of their sport in races that are considered by the cycling community (not on WP, but in the real world) as being the very peak of their sport.


 * Now go back to football. How many fully professional leagues are there? Not just in England, but worldwide? Hundreds. With each league having 10 to 20 teams. With (on average) 15 players per squad. You can see where this is going. It's making a like-for-like comparison to the top level of other sports. Of course you can replace football with baseball, cricket, American football, basketball, etc.


 * There's also the good faith that should be applied that the guidance has been written, debated and fine-tuned by people on the cycling project who know what they're talking about. It's not an attempt to shoe-horn in any old biography, but to make sure a level of agreed notability, again broadly in-line with other sports, is met. Just as there are hundreds of subject areas on WP I am not familiar with, but I don't pick at the bare-bones of their guidelines on something I know nothing about.


 * In short, riding for a top-level team in events that are top-level races is as high as you can get in cycling (no Armstrong jokes here, please), and demonstrates the level of notability for the riders concerned. Hope that helps.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keeping it short, I still don't see why riding is sufficient. Winning a bronze+ medal in a top-level race - that seems fine. But just riding? I don't see that. This is the same logic for other professions: if you win major awards in business or science, you are notable (this is pretty much was GNG states). Otherwise, even if you are near the top, you are just doing your job pretty good, but not good enough to be encyclopedic. Of course, there are other criteria, like newspaper coverage, and plenty of sportsepeople get it despite not winning any medals (maybe they set records, or did something else that makes them important). That's all cool. But again: just riding for top teams at top events, without winning, and without getting dedicated coverage, seems to me not enough to put one in encyclopedia. WP:NOTSTATS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "I still don't see why riding is sufficient" - Because it's the same as making one start in other sports (football, cricket, baseball, etc). They are professional sportspeople competing at the top of their sport. No different than Tommy Cockles coming onto a football pitch to play for one minute in a low-division clash for a professional club. This is the standard across all sporting articles.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it? I'd ping User:BlackJack for his thoughts on whether he thinks cricket and cycling do seem to be about as inclusive, before moving forward with this line of reasoning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you've been told this many times. You're either not grasping the basics or WP:IDHT. Tell me, what sport do you understand? Or indeed what topic areas (if any) have you got some idea about?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you resort to personal attacks, I see no reason to indulge you in this. If you have a coherent argument to make, rather than attacking me, do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have no coherent argument to make, as you freely admit you know nothing about cycling or sports. It's hard to explain anything to someone who hasn't got a clue what they're actually writing about in the first place.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

NCYC is too loose (certainly for women), but the proposed replacement is way too strict. This discussion belongs at NSPORTS or VPP though, to get a wider variety of editors participating (discussing notability standards with a group of people alreday seriously interested in the subject increases the chances of creating too broad criteria, as many people tend to regard their interest as more important and well-known than it actually may be). Oh, and playing for one minute for a professional club is not the standard across all sporting articles, even in soccer (which needs tightening as well) you need to play in a fully professional league, not just a fully profesionnal club. E.g. for ice hockey, playing in a fully professional league is not considered sufficient to be automatically notable, only the most important leagues get that treatment. Fram (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, league instead of club. Thanks for your pettifoggery to clarify what I was meaning.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hardly a detail, and even with that correction it was wrong. Fram (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, wrong again.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You claimed "No different than Tommy Cockles coming onto a football pitch to play for one minute in a low-division clash for a professional club. This is the standard across all sporting articles." But for many sports (e.g. icehockey), even playing in a fully professional league is not sufficient to be included through NSPORTS. So it definitely is not "the standard across all sporting articles". Fram (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? WP:NHOCKEY - "1.Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". Maybe you should read things first before thinking you are right.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For the last time, please stop with the personal attacks and remarks here (and in edit summaries). You said "a low-division clash for a professional club": NHOCKEY only takes a "top" professional league into account, and lower level professional leagues not. You can see that distinction here (linked from the top of NHOCKEY). Fram (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly said "even playing in a fully professional league is not sufficient " - when NHOCKEY states "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". Again, another contradiction.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not every fully professional league is (according to NHOCKEY) a top professional league, as explained by that page I linked. Many fully professional leagues (again, see their list) are not considered by them as being "top" enough that playing one game grants notability, but instead require 200 games to be deemed a notable player. Fram (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Having been pinged and not knowing cycling, just want to add my voice in favor of reform, without having anything specific to say exactly. The point being that WP:NCYC is not working. Articles for deletion/Magdalena Zamolska shows this. You can't force articles upon the community, and if WP:NCYC is being used to encourage the creation of articles that community is going to decline to host, it's just a waste of everyone's time.


 * I think the issue is this: looking at the chart here at English-speaking world, I see that USA contains 64% of the native English speakers. And cycling is essentially unknown in America. While it's bigger in Britain and Australia etc. (I guess), I think it's biggest in the non-English speaking world. I can see the argument "that shouldn't matter" but it does matter and you can't force it to not matter.


 * We cover people, schools, statues, historical events, bands, everything to a much finer level for English speaking countries than for Poland and France etc. Sports also. That's reasonable IMO, and even it's not reasonable it's human nature. But even if you think its a great wrong, it is not the purpose of specialized notability standards to fix this great wrong, but rather to answer the question "In an encyclopedia for English readers where most all the writers are native English speakers and most are Americans, what is a reasonable level of notability for this activity that will be accepted, and how can be best codify that". A specialized notability standard can push at the margins, but not more than that. Herostratus (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Having been pinged and not knowing cycling" - Yes, it looks like Piotrus has been doing some canvassing here. I'll make a note of the diffs for later use. "And cycling is essentially unknown in America" - really?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, cycling is essentially unknown in America. I didn't say completely unknown. Most Americans could not name one single cyclist beyond Armstrong, and he's being forgotten. It's just a minor sport here. Whether that is unfortunate or not I can't say -- maybe Americans are just lazy and stupid -- but it is true. Denying true things is not usually a good way forward.


 * We're trying to be helpful here. Collecting diffs for some kind of prosecution of people who feel there ought to be reform is probably not the best approach. If you won't reform WP:NCYC it will just continue to be ignored, and if becomes enough of an annoyance it will be sent to WP:MFD. Would that be a better outcome. Herostratus (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are we using the "know in America" as the benchmark? Lots of sports have little or no interest in the US. It's a strawman's argument.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, you're right in that it shouldn't matter, or matter that much. We cover subjects universally. I was just saying as a practical matter of politics the fact that cycling is minor in the US means that support for an expansive NCYC is absent from that quarter. Herostratus (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I suspect Piotrus has simply pinged everyone who took part in one of the related discussions. This discussion is directly linked from the DRV anyway, which is how I found myself here.  Otherwise it would be pointless as the only people discussing the issue would be cycling editors! Black Kite (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My take: the first step to take, before we start wading through the dozens of race types, is to simply amend all of the SNGs so that they clearly state that all articles must have the secondary sourcing to pass GNG. (And before anyone else says "it does say that at the top of the page", that's too unclear - anyone clicking straight on a link to WP:NCYC - or any other SNG - won't see it). Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I dunno if that's possible or good. It means clearing out a mass of baseball players for instance. You would have a fight on your hands for sure. Comparing the proximate case here to Ed Brown (baseball)... Neither his birth or death dates or locations are reported and are probably unknown. It's not known if he batted left or right. He played two years (and poorly) as a benchwarmer, in the 19th century for a long-defunct losing franchise in a marginal major league. There's nothing in the article except bare statistics (and a very fuzzy photo), and quite probably nothing else is known about him. The article has a single ref.


 * There are two differences between Brown and the cyclist in question:
 * Brown is ref'd to a site known to be reliable, Baseball Reference, whereas Magdalena Zamolska is ref'd to two (or three) sites that may well be reliable but we don't have any indication of that, at least not to satisfy me. (At the same time, "reliable" or no, did Brown truly have exactly 38 hits in 213 at-bats... I would not be at all surprised if it's off by a few. We'll never know.)
 * Baseball. Baseball is huge in America which like it or not is the biggest player in English-speaking world. As a purely political matter, the baseball people will swarm you if you try to delete their articles (I'll be one of them). This isn't fair, exactly. It is life, though.


 * I'd forget that idea and concentrate on tightening up NCYC a bit so it can serve a good predictor of which articles are likely to be kept. I think that "Doesn't meet GNG but does meet NCYC" will get a lot more respect if it requires winning a championship or a major race or finishing in the top ten in a season or whatever is decided. In that way NCYC can serve its purpose of pushing a little bit at the margins to include a few cyclists who don't meet GNG, maybe. I'm fine with that. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a little bit confused by this - are you saying that athletes from certain sports should be exempt from GNG? We can't pick on NCYC and ignore the others, even though I agree with you that NCYC is far too broad (to be honest a lot are far too broad, including NFOOTY which I am familiar with, and by your posting, NBASEBALL).  Surely any sports BLP should be able to meet GNG? Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually scratch that, it's confusing the issue. Let's concentrate on NCYC.  How do we make it less broad than it is now, where it is "allowing" the creation of BLPs that don't pass GNG?  I'm guessing the first stage is to limit it to cyclists who have been successful in that huge list of "notable" races?  Clearly there are going to be edge cases (people who pass GNG but not the "new" NCYC - but that happens in all sports. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Glossary of cycling" and "List of parts" (add common terms and images)
Common or notable terms such as Sprocket should be added to the List of bicycle parts, and other terms to the Glossary. Also add images when helpful.—LithiumFlash (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Lanchester Valley Railway Path
Hello all. I have forwarded a proposal that Lanchester Valley Railway Path be merged with Lanchester Valley Railway. Discussion is here. The page is in the scope of this project. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The VP discussion has closed:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Julien Vermote (cyclist, born 1989) page move
Please see this discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
With over a week of discussion, as I count it, with dissenting opinion from User:Lugnuts, those in favor of some form of tightening are: User:Black Kite, User:Herostratus and User:Fram. Do correct me if I misinterpreted anyone's viewe. Given that this discussion is taking place at the forum where we would expect cycling fans to dominate, so hardly biased against notability of cycling, 4:1 represents the majority of participants here who agree NCYC needs tightening. If so, there are two questions to consider. First, procedural - do we advertise this discussion further? I linked it from Village Pump a while ago, should we post it at RfC and/or some other forums (anyone is welcome do so, and inform any editors they think might be interested, of course, at any time). Second, I think we should attempt to draft a revision for the guidelines. To facilitate the latter, here is the current state of NCYC (which perhaps I should've posted above). Any takers? To start the ball rolling, I will propose a cosmetic change - replace 'rode' and 'rode professionally' with 'competed'. Standardizing vocabulary would be the first step to clear this mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A male cyclist is presumed notable if he: A female cyclist is presumed notable if she: A team is presumed notable if it is: A race is presumed notable if it:
 * 1) rode professionally in a UCI World Tour;
 * 2) rode in a Grand Tour or Monument;
 * 3) competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;
 * 4) won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship) ;
 * 5) won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships).
 * 1) rode professionally in a UCI Women's team;
 * 2) competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;
 * 3) won a UCI category race (including Continental and National Championships) ;
 * 4) won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship).
 * 1) a men's road team in the 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd (UCI Continental) tier;
 * 2) a UCI team (UCI women's team, UCI track team, UCI mountain bike team, UCI cyclo-cross team, etc.).
 * 1) is ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2, CDM, JO, CM, GT, CC, CN) ;
 * 2) is part of an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship) ;
 * 3) holds significant recognition (e.g, Parel van de Veluwe and the People's Choice Classic).

I mean, I don't know. I don't know anything about cycling, or what really shows a high level of accomplishment. I just want to avoid Articles for deletion/Magdalena Zamolska and Deletion review/Log/2017 May 4 not to mention the effort of creating the article article in the first place. That means we want to encourage articles that will survive. And to that end two things that would help are 1) there's at least something to say about the person beyond a bare list of race times even if they don't really meet WP:GNG, and 2) you can point to a real significant accomplishment, like a top finish in a famous race rather than just being in the race, which might help sway voters. Can't help with the first, but re the second, I mean something like:

A male cyclist is presumed notable if he: Team stuff, I don't know. Maybe leave it out. Herostratus (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * rode professionally in a UCI World Tour finished in the individual top five in a UCI World Tour season. (I use top five because UCI World Tour lists the top five.)
 * Won a UCI World Tour race. (new)
 * rode in a Grand Tour or Monument Finished in the top five in a Grand Tour or Monument
 * competed at the Olympics... (Maybe keep this? Aren't Olympic competitors generally kept?)
 * ... or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup (just "competed" does not seem sufficiently important. "Finished in the top ____" might fly.)
 * won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship) won gold at the Pan-American Games or the _____ or the ______ (whatever else is of the same level of just-below-Olympics notability as the Pan-American Games, if any. Maybe the Asian Games, I don't know. Having "International multi-sport event" seems rather broad.
 * won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). (I don't know what this means, even after reading UCI race classifications. If it is something where civilians are likely to respond "Oh OK, he did that, well then Keep the article" then leave it in I guess; if not, maybe not.
 * I am fine with top 5 instead of top 3 (but don't cyclist get gold/silver/bronze medals too?). And I am totally fine with anyone who is at Olympics being notable. I agree with other suggested changes, as they generally match my analysis of problems listed above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the rode/competed change. Don't agree with the rest. Again, how can you agree with something you don't understand in the first place? The Grand Tours/Monuments are the top level races in cycling. They are the flagship events of the sport. It's the cycling equivalent of playing in a FA Cup Final, Superbowl, Ashes series, etc. Again, with the UCI World Champs - these are the senior events for cyclists. People are selected to represent their country at them. For the race categories, anything ending with a 1 (IE 1.1) again is the highest event, but most of these (not all) are covered in the UCI World Tour. And the National Championships are just that. You become the champion of that country for a whole year. These current guidelines are not designed to allow every single person who's ever ridden a bike to get a WP article, quite the opposite. It defines the cut-off for the top level cyclists who ride in the top level races.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I'm comming late to this conversation, but I'm concerned that nothing has been said about the notability standards for Para-cycling events and cyclists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Para-cyling looks to be a lot less notable than regular cycling (the article itself has zero independent refs), so I'd assume articles on para-cyclists would have to meet the WP:GNG, same as bocce players or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the sentiment of, whilst I can see the value in what is trying to achieve here it seems to be too much of an uneducated (for lack of a better word, no offence meant) attempt. Lugnuts football based example is the best we example of the make-up of cycling. I've tried to get what's in my head down, based on Lugnuts football comparison, now I am by no means a football fan or expert..
 * As a cycling fan, i'd give the below proposal:

Cyclists

 * Competed in a UCI World Tour or UCI Women's WorldTour race (aka the cycling 'Premier league' ) - for total clarity I would give WP:NSPORTS the specific list of events which fulfil this criteria, covers all x.WT events
 * Achieved a top-5 finish in a UCI Continental level event (aka the cycling 'EFL Championship' ) - This covers all x.HC, x.1, x.2 events
 * Competed at the Olympics (both the road race and individual time trial)
 * Competed at the UCI Road World Championships (both the road race and individual time trial)
 * Won a gold-medal at the athletes respective continental games (African Continental Cycling Championships, Pan American Road and Track Championships, Asian Championships, European Road Championships, Oceanian Cycling Championships)
 * Won a gold-medal at a major international cycling competition (All-Africa Games, Pan American Games European Games, Commonwealth Games)
 * Won gold in one of the athletes respective National Championships (covers Road, Time Trial, Track, Cyclo-cross... disciplines)

Teams

 * Registered with the UCI (WorldTeam, Womens, Pro Continental, Continental-status)

Events

 * 1) Registered with the UCI fulfilling classifications: x.WT, x.WWT, x.HC, x.1, x.2, JO, CM, GT, CC, CN
 * 2) is part of an International multi-sport event (Olympics, World Championships, Continental Championships etc.)
 * 3) Holds significant recognition e.g, Parel van de Veluwe and the People's Choice Classic - give a complete list of events that meet this level of notability.
 * XyZAn (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the proposal. Can you explain to a layman, like myself, why you sometimes chose just compete, sometimes top 5, and sometimes gold only? In particular, I find it strange that competing in world famous Olympics is seen as equal to the more specialized and much less famous UCI Road World Championships (both the road race and individual time trial) and a UCI World Tour or UCI Women's WorldTour race (aka the cycling 'Premier league' ). Wouldn't Top 5 be sufficient for those races as well? Why is just making to them, and them placing near the end, sufficient to be notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts: NCYC should be much stricter. The biggest problem is with cyclist articles. And I propose a simple criterion for male cyclists: I am not saying that grand tours are all that matters in cycling, but I am saying that everybody who really matters will ride in a grand tour. Every year, around 450-500 different cyclists ride in a grand tour. They can get a free pass for notability. This will undoubtedly exclude a few cyclists that are notable, but let GNG take over from there. The "problem" is mainly with recently active riders. Before 1940, there were cyclists who rode in grand tours, whose full names we don't even know; they were clearly not notable back then for the press, so are not notable now. To fix this, I added the " professional or national team" clause. Not crucial for the current discussion, I think. For women's cycling, I don't see such a simple criterion. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A male cyclist is considered notable if he rode in a professional or national team in a grand tour.
 * Interesting, so you think the Grand Tour is bigger than Olympics for cycling? No free pass for Olympians? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If a small country with no significant record in cycling nonetheless has one or two places in Olympic cycling events, then it is relatively easy for a decent (perhaps amateur or semi-professional) cyclist from that country to go to the Olympics, whereas to race a grand tour, a cyclist would have to be riding for a top-level professional team, so I would say that the grand tours are more selective for those from less prominent cycling countries (though obviously being selected to represent a major cycling country such as Belgium, Italy, France, GB, etc. is significant). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that a Grand Tour is bigger than Olympics. But I just tried to back this up with facts, and the facts were against me: it has happened occasionally that cyclists skipped the Tour de France, to better prepare for the Olympics. If most other projects also give 'free passes' to Olympians, the cycling project can follow. But it feels very strange to give a free pass to cyclists like Brian Babilonia. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think Olympics get a free pass due to the event being more recognized even by people who are not sports fan. Regarding the Grand Tour, I will defer to the consensus of the sports fan here. I am not opposed to recognizing participation in a non-Olympic event as sufficient, if there is consensus it is even more important, or at least roughly as important, than Olympics; my main concern was that the current NCYC seems to recognize over a dozen if not several dozens of events as such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

- so what can we agree to change? For now I've done the uncontroversial wording change. What else can we get consensus on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The rest is fine as it is. Again, bemused by someone who has no understanding of the sport trying to change it.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see consensus to change more, although I would be in favor of doing so. And @Lugnuts: it would be strange if Piotrus was trying to change the rules for cycling races, but that is not what is happening here. Piotrus is trying to change the rules for how we deal with wikipedia articles related to cycling. Maybe it is even better to have a wikipedia contributor who is not a cycling fan determine these rules, otherwise there will always be a bias towards making more articles notable.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I see a consensus - majority - suggesting we need a change for less inclusive criteria, but there is no clear agreement what to do. Would be nice to see more comments. Which aspects of this guideline need tightening and how? As indeed I am not an expert here, I don't want to make changes myself without input from fans and experts, but as noted in the RfC, there is a broad consensus that NSPORT policies, including CYCLING, have been written by the fans and made too inclusive. The way they read now is pretty much if you ride a bike and get your name mentioned on the Internet, you end up on Wikiepdia :P Limiting this to participants and winners of clearly defined major races seems only logical. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Late to the party but.. the trouble with only classing riders as notable if they ride a grand tour. First, you can have some very non-notable riders ride a grand tour, for instance a domestique at a wild card team like fortuna-vital-concept, you could then have some very notable riders that for whatever reason havnt, for instance it took Ian Stannard donkeys years to ever ride the Tour de France. The problem with cycling is its a very unique sport, the roles of domestiques, lead out riders etc, that you also cant define notability purely on results, because you could have very notable riders who dont win races, for instance a guy who acts purely as a lead out guy for a sprinter. Its hard to pin down what makes a pro cyclist notable. It could be finishing top 10 in a classic, it could be being part of a grand tour winning team as a domestique, it could be wearing a jersey in a world tour race, it could be being a great lead-out specialist, it could be winning the u23 version of a monument, u23 flanders, u23 roubaix etc. It could also at the other end of the spectrum be any rider with a doping positive, that immediately, in the grand scheme of things, makes them notable Dimspace (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, as far as proposal 2 goes, including any rider to race a gt, or top 5 in uci race, only thing i would add is provision for winners of notable junior races. namely, u23 Flanders, Roubaix or other monuments. The baby giro, and the world championship. that a very small group of riders, literally half a dozen per year, but riders that at the very top end of junior sport that will be of interest to the cycling community down the line. Dimspace (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm too late, but since I've been watching cycling for around 10 years I totally agree with Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:40 - cycling is a unique sport, where many domestiques may never win a race but they still may be very notable and helpful for the team. I guess the comparison with football and the premier league was very accurate. (talk) 19:26, 22 Sep 2017 (UTC)

State/regional level hour records
Another CYC author and I have been discussing adding an article category for state/regional level hour records. Are they notable? Probably not on an international scale, but consider the opportunity we have here to promote cycling, track cycling and regional tracks.

A consortium consisting of FloridaVelo, Orlando Runners and Riders, USAC and FBRA recently started promoting the state hour record. This is an attempt to get riders out to the tracks and take a shot at "greatness." Unfortunately I have a dilemma, as I was asked to (and did) set the inaugural record. Kind of makes it difficult for me to start the category/article doesn't it? I wish there was another Wiki editor in our group but I have been unable to find one.

Does this topic have merit? Is it a proper use of Wiki, within guidelines? Should I write a draft article for review? Johnwilltenney (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you find secondary sources discussing these hour records? That is the only thing that matters. We are not here to promote cycling... (It might be your secondary goal, but not the goal of Wikipedia or the project.) And I think it will not be possible to find enough reliable secondary sources for an article, although I did actively not look for them, so I might be wrong.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I agree the primary goal is factual, historical, significant education. The keyword there is significant.  It seems to be the "common argument."

What would be a good example of a secondary source? USA Cycling? FBRA? Below are two I have so far:

Florida Velo Track Records Orlando Runners and Riders Track Project

Johnwilltenney (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Tour race regulations
I can't seem to locate this year's Tour race regulations (French: règlement de l'épreuve) PDF file. There's usually a download link on the Sporting stakes / rules page on the official site, like last year. I believe they have made it available to download on the site since at least 1999, so it's odd they've not done it this year. Can anyone help? BaldBoris 17:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From looking at the page source, it's still the 2016 PDF that is being listed but not actually visible on the site. I doubt it'll become visible until 2017 is available for publication. Roadbook is causing similar issues... That said, the 2017 version of the site is terrible compared to previous years/LeTour races... Craig  (talk)  22:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. It's stopping the article from getting going.. very frustrating. It's usually available before the race starts? The new site is lazy web designing, just small CSS changes. BaldBoris 00:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as long as I can remember, it's usually available well in advance of the race, so 2017 is certainly an anomaly. Craig  (talk)  01:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference worth bookmarking our (velorooms) google drive https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6g1gOm2sMzAZVU4eDBIT0x3MXc we put roadbooks in there. sometimes the regulations, sometimes not, depends how we are feeling :D Dimspace (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is now available --Racklever (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was checking it daily, but gave up. BaldBoris 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cycling race report vs. Template:Cycling race/infobox
Hi - I don't have any specific experience editing cycling articles or being involved in this project, but looking at the 2018 Tour de France stub, I noticed that this article used a different template to the one that seems to be used on other Grand Tour articles. This other template is apparently integrated with Wikidata so the data can be used on Wikipedias in other languages as well, which would seem to lessen the workload across Wikipedias. However, it has a different look, creating visual clashes when browsing between various Grand Tour editions, and I haven't checked if the same parameters are available. Is there a consensus, or can we get one, about using one template or the other, or alternatively one for some races and one for others, among the members of this project, as well as any others who may have opinions about the subject? Kranix (talk &#124; contribs) 22:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . See numerous discussions about the subject, that were able to be located in the archives.
 * Using WikiData in cycling infoboxes (June 2015)
 * Cycling Race Template (June 2015)
 * New program Cycling race to list stages (January 2016)
 * Use of Wikidata (March 2016)
 * Wikidata discussion 2.0 (December 2016)
 * The most sustained discussion was the most recent one. Craig  (talk)  07:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I did indeed skim the archives, but I thought that last discussion was specifically about team rosters – I should've looked more closely. I would change the templates on the 2018 article, but I can see you've already done so. Thanks. Should I or someone else add this to Consensus decisions? Kranix (talk &#124; contribs) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Winning times for the Tour
Hello WP Cycling, I was going through articles for various editions of the TDF. For the 1999-2005 editions of the race, the infobox states that there are no winners for any of these races due to Lance Armstrong's doping scandal, which is correct. However, the infoboxes for all of the aforementioned articles state a winning time. Should there be a winning time even though there was no official winner for any of these races? Do you think that the winning times should be kept, removed, or is there another solution to this? Regards, Jith12 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

UCI World Ranking
We have world ranking in the article UCI World Ranking (Template:Current Top 10 Men's Road Rankings - Individual, Template:Current Top 10 Men's Road Rankings - Nations). Now I cannot find it on UCI website - maybe it was redesigned. I see here a ranking in which Greg Van Avermaet leads with 4377.25 points. But according to Procyclingstats he has 4605 points. The latter seems more believable, considering that in the revision showing rankings as of 18 June 2017 he has over 5242.25 points. --Kompik (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you found the ranking on the UCI website, I don't understand why you say that you could not find it. The website prominently shows "UCI WORLD RANKING". Probably the scores were not the same because when you looked at the UCI website, it was not yet updated for the 2017 BinckBank Tour, where Van Avermaet received 228 points. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, I did not notice that the points from BinckBank tour are not counted yet. The difference between what I read on UCI website and Procycling stats was what made me think this is not the correct ranking, but PCS are probably updating rankings every day while - as opposed to official UCI rankings which are only issues new ranking perhaps once a week or after end of some event. --Kompik (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * After all, the UCI website is the one that counts. --Nicola (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have in the template. Thanks to all for the responses. --Kompik (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent! --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Grand Tour timelines
If anyone is up for helping add GT timelines for the following riders in this years TDF, a barnstar will be heading your way:


 * Mathew Hayman ✅ XyZAn (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Julien Simon ✅ XyZAn (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack Bauer (cyclist) ✅ XyZAn (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Daniele Bennati ✅ XyZAn (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Michael Albasini ✅ XyZAn (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ben Swift ✅ XyZAn (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jens Keukeleire ✅ XyZAn (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jan Bakelants ✅ XyZAn (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll look at working on them at some point if there's no takers. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , yup - i'm on it XyZAn (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All sorted, were there any more? XyZAn (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks! Looking through the DNFers, there's just Marcel Sieberg and Mark Renshaw. And thanks once again.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , both sorted.. XyZAn (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * - I've gone through the startlist of the Vuelta and these don't have a GT timeline:


 * Sergey Chernetskiy
 * Juan José Lobato
 * Svein Tuft
 * Fabricio Ferrari

If you have time to add them, that would be great. No worries if you're busy with other things - I'll add them later if needed. Thanks again!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS
Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack &#124; talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Need for a new category
I cannot find any suitable category for people who write about cycling and bicycles. Yes there is Category:Cycling journalists but that is a small subset of what I mean: non-fiction and fiction writers who take cycling - racing, touring, transport, couriers, suffragettes, whatever - either as their main subject, or who make repeated references to it.

I want to make Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Josie Dew findable to each other. Category:Touring cyclists doesn't quite cover it, as that includes people written about by others. Mary Eliza Kennard wrote fiction and non-fiction (e.g Guidebook for Lady Cyclists (1896) and The Golf Lunatic and His Cycling Wife (1902)) so Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area is not wide enough. Tracing categories upwards from Three Men on the Bummel doesn't lead me to one that satisfies this need. Any suggestions? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I want the category to be wide enough to include people such as Richard Ballantine of Richard's Bicycle Book (1972) fame. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that Category:Authors of cycling related fiction, which seems to be essentially what you are looking for, is too restrictive, and insufficiently definitive of the authors, to pass muster. Kevin McE (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I want a category that will include writers of fiction and non-fiction. There are Category:Angling writers and Category:Fox hunting writers and Category:Cricket historians and writers and Category:Golf writers and broadcasters, so why not something equally broad and specific for cycling? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need our permission. Kevin McE (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Cycling

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; Rod talk 14:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links at Cromford and High Peak Railway
Talk:Cromford and High Peak Railway. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Mitchelton Scott
This is going to be trickier than most team name changes. Orica takes on the name of a team that already exists. Kevin McE (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * men's and women's teams are OK


 * Mitchelton–Scott (men's team)
 * Mitchelton–Scott (women's team)
 * propose moving the continental Chinese registered team from Mitchelton Scott to Mitchelton–Scott (continental team) if the name doesn't change. XyZAn (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The men's team disambiguation is not that great, due to the fact that there are now going to technically be two men's Mitchelton–Scott teams. WorldTeam and Continental team would surely be the most logical option as it stands, but until the UCI put up the 2018 teams on the website, it would be open to exploration... Craig  (talk)  21:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , that makes sense but looking at the current article title I don't see how that really helps people if they don't know what "WT" stands for - Mitchelton–Scott (men's WT team). Surely if we distinguish the articles based on their licence status then Mitchelton–Scott (men's World Tour team) and Mitchelton–Scott (men's Continental team) would be better? XyZAn (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By all means change WT to World Tour, a valid point, but changing it back to a title that describes 2 teams (one of which is not an accurate title for the entity described there until next month) is not a positive move. Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I totally agree with where you're coming from, but I think until the UCI release the Continental listings and given the information we have to hand, the current distinctions are reasonable. The world tour article accounts for 98% of hits (58,603 / 59,737) for both articles, so I don't see much potential for a reader to be confused about which article they are on, given your 'Continental' title distinction. XyZAn (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A team that competes in the current UCI World Tour is called a UCI WorldTeam (as Craig said), so I think either Mitchelton–Scott (men's UCI WorldTeam) or Mitchelton–Scott (UCI WorldTeam). BaldBoris 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Gents, this isn't going to be an issue any longer. Continental team going to be Mitchelton–BikeExchange. Craig (talk)  00:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, looks like the UCI have done us a favour for once! XyZAn (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, Mitchelton-Scott has been the name of 2 different men's teams, and so 'Mitchelton-Scott (men's team)' should not point to one team. Kevin McE (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it needs some dabbery; what I meant by isn't going to be an issue any longer, was that it was announced early in January! Should have been more clear there. Craig  (talk)  19:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community. Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability criteria: consistency needed
I was tidying up an article, and tried to apply WikiProject Cycling/Notability, only to find that what failed those criteria can pass WP:NCYCLING. Which of these has our consensus support? The other needs to be brought into conformity/deleted/redirected. Kevin McE (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, WP:NCYCLING is the current standard. XyZAn (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So is there a general agreement that that text should be copied to WikiProject Cycling/Notability? Or should that simply be deleted and have signposts to WP:NCYCLING instead.
 * No disrespect to XyZAn intended, and I appreciate that not many editors seem active here at the moment, but is the silence other than that one reply because there is uncertainty, or simply because XyZAn has said all that needs saying? Kevin McE (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cycling Weekly back issue
Anyone happen to have a copy of the October 29, 2005 Cycling Weekly? I'd like to see its coverage of Zak Carr (AfD). Υπογράφω (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Strider Sports G11
Strider Sports International is probably going to be deleted on WP:G11 grounds, unless it can be quickly rewritten in a more neutral way. Lots of sources exist but it will take a little effort if anyone wishes to do it right away. If it gets deleted, we will probably write something else later down the road. See Talk:Strider Sports International. We might also look into more coverage of Rolf Mertens of Kokua/Like-a-Bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, too late. It's over at Draft:Strider Sports International now, which is probably best. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Career achievements
Don't you think that riders with more than 100 professional victories deserve a page only for Career achievements like Sagan and Cavendish have? I am thinking especific in the case of Valverde and Greipel
 * Yeah I would agree on that point, makes the article about 'the person' easier to navigate/read too. XyZAn (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That have been done before, for example with Rafael Nadal with his separate List of career achievements by Rafael Nadal, Jessica Chastain and her List of awards and nominations received by Jessica Chastain. I mean, a separate article for the career achievements. --Osplace 14:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Going off PCS 'all time wins' list the following riders would be elligible to have their results split (I'm not sure which of this list already have, I know a few have..)

Pos --- Rider --- Total wins
 * 1) 	 Eddy Merckx	221 - done
 * 2) 	 Mario Cipollini	164
 * 3) 	 André Greipel	146
 * 4) 	 Mark Cavendish	145 - done
 * 5) 	 Roger De Vlaeminck	132
 * 6) 	 Alessandro Petacchi	129
 * 7) 	 Rik Van Looy	122
 * 8) 	 Tom Boonen	119
 * 9) 	 Freddy Maertens	118
 * 10) 	 Erik Zabel	112
 * 11) 	 Giuseppe Saronni	106
 * 12) 	 Sean Kelly	102
 * 13) 	 Peter Sagan	102 - done
 * 14) 	 Costante Girardengo	97 - eligible?
 * 15) 	 Alejandro Valverde	96 - done
 * 16) 	 Bernard Hinault	92 - eligible?
 * 17) 	 Francesco Moser	90 - eligible?
 * 18) 	 Laurent Jalabert	87 - eligible?
 * 19) 	 Marcel Kittel	86 - eligible, would make sense to given age, win rate etc.
 * XyZAn (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Team split?
The List of teams and cyclists in the 1999 Vuelta a España indicates that riders from the Costa de Almería (cycling team) took part in that iteration of the race. The team page however says that the team was founded one year later, in 2000. This is consistently reproduced in the Spanish versions of both articles. Should the team in question not be es:Amica Chips-Tacconi Sport, not currently included on the English-language Wikipedia? I am not a subject expert, so any clarification or BOLD edits would be appreciated. Thanks, C679 15:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

On 30 March 2018, has removed the hundreds of bio articles from    due to their relations with subcategories  and. Is it a correct action? I think, should be the non-diffusing subcategory of. And  should be divided by nationality in the future. So, revert that edits back please. 46.211.112.207 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it a correct action? — It certainly was at the time, before you changed to be non-diffusing. WP:SUBCAT is quite that articles should not (in general) be in both parent and child category. Whether  should be non-diffusing is a matter of opinion. Possibly instead  and  should be non-diffusing subcats of, per the last sentence of WP:DUPCAT. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Women's race articles
I noticed that the article on the 2018 Tour of Flanders also includes the women's race summary and results. Although I am not opposed to the idea of a joint article (given the often second-rate treatment of the women's races -- if the article exists at all), it doesn't seem right to put it in a bottom corner while the infobox can only carry the men's info and there is no mention in the top paragraph. Any suggestions? Maybe a women's section in the infobox? Or is it better to split the article altogether? Dr.robin (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Split to 2018 Tour of Flanders for Women, similar to 2017 Tour of Flanders for Women. 46.211.129.174 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Problem remains though, few pages are being created. Dr.robin (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Cobbled roads
Do we have articles on the cobblestone sections used in cycling races as individual articles on Wikipedia? It would be good to add those to List of cobblestone streets -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I love this initiative. I started some articles about the climbs of the Tour of Flanders in Belgium, but haven't addressed the flat cobbled sectors yet. Time is not on my side the coming weeks, but in case someone is up for it ... here are some of the pages from the Dutch WikiPrjoject: Huisepontweg, Haaghoek, Mater-Kerkgate, Paddestraat, Lippenhovestraat, Jagerij. There are fewer cobbled streets than in France, so it's manageable, but hard to find sources. Most of the cobbled hills (Kemmelberg, Paterberg, Taaienberg, etc. have pages though). Dr.robin (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the French WikiProject has (well-written) pages on all cobbled sectors from Paris–Roubaix (see: Cobbled sector of Mons-en-Pévèle). Dr.robin (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No consistency in namegiving of women's races
I am currently working on the races of the Women's World Tour and came across an old but annoying problem of titel consistency:
 * Strade Bianche Donne -- uses the (unoffical) Italian name
 * Tour of Flanders for Women -- with capital for women, although not the official name
 * La Flèche Wallonne Féminine -- this truly hurts my eyes. Not the official name; the capital letter for French adjectives gives every self-respecting linguist a heart attack (see French article of Flèche wallonne féminine). The use of the article in the title (also in the men's race) is quite mystifying as well
 * Liège–Bastogne–Liège (Women) or Liège–Bastogne–Liège (women's race) -- brackets, small or capital letter
 * 2018 Amstel Gold Race (women's race) -- brackets and small letter, no page for the main women's event (that's a different problem)
 * 2016 Gent–Wevelgem (women) -- why not "(women's race)" like Amstel or Liège? Also no main event page
 * 2016 Omloop Het Nieuwsblad – Women's race -- no brackets but a dash, capital letter. No main event page
 * 2018 Strade Bianche Women - no brackets or dash, capital for women. Main event page is Strade Bianche Donne
 * Giro d'Italia Femminile -- Italian name, but grammatically different from Strade Bianche Donne. Femminile is not part of the official name, but an Italian modifier (another Romance adjective with capital letter, this is killing me). Not sure what the official name is (I think Giro Donne until 2012, Giro Rosa since 2013)
 * Ladies Tour of Norway -- official name, so no complaints, but you might ask why we don't say "Ladies Amstel Gold Race" or "Ladies Giro d'Italia"
 * Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's individual road race -- consistent with men's events at championships, but why with dashes and not use "(women's race)" or "(men's race)"?

That's eleven different ways of expressing the same thing and there are even more. It is really annoying when working on a rider's page, be it in prose or tables, and causes a plethora of redirects. Any thoughts on how to streamline this? The French articles consistently add "féminin/féminine" as a modifier and nothing else, regardless of which language. I'm on the same page as Cs-wolves to use either bracketed "(women)" or "(women's race)". I don't mind what is used, but how can we agree on using one system? Dr.robin (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good quesion. It's a women's races, so use "Name (women's race)" in most trivial cases, excluding official names (well-known for some races) or Olympic naming standards. 46.211.2.54 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there anything against using the actual names that are contained within the UCI calendar (and/or the official name as per the organising body?) for the WWT and by extension the other elite races? Where the men's and women's races have exactly the same name, the bracket option '(women's race)' could be used (as it is with team names) & some already exist.


 * Gent–Wevelgem In Flanders Fields
 * Amstel Gold Race Ladies Edition
 * La Flèche Wallonne Féminine
 * Liège-Bastogne-Liège Femmes
 * Tour of California Women’s Race
 * Giro d'Italia Internazionale Femminile
 * XyZAn (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to go with the names on the UCI calendar, using the dismabig of "(women's race)", if and when needed. I would hold-off on making any page moves specifically related to the Olympics though, as that has a long-standing naming convention.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Major results/palmares
Hi. What do other editors think of having some inclusion criteria to define what exactly is a "major result". In my mind, it would only be listing a race if the individual race has a an article for that race or season. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal transporter requested move notice
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Personal transporter, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Article update needed
Hi team, I have a WP:COI and thus cannot edit the John Lieswyn bio. There is material on the talk page. Apparently, USA Cycling now lists him as the 2004 United States National Time Trial Championships (I haven't looked at the sources too closely) and if that's correct, that page needs amending, too.  Schwede 66  19:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please help with cycling articles
Persons at WikiProject Cycling: A few years ago I amended and expanded Albert A. Pope and Pope Manufacturing Company. If anyone is interested in 19-century cycling history, please consider casting a critical eye on the articles and making improvements. I have not yet considered his work with motorized vehicles and have not made any attempt to improve that aspect of the articles. However, most of his career focused on selling bicycles and promoting the activity of cycling. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Standards for Cycling Event Articles
Hello!

I'm new to Wikipedia, I got 1934 Tour de Suisse from SuggestBot for me to edit it on, but I'm not sure of where to look for a good example for it to be improved from the Stub-Class rating for the higher ratings. Please let me know if there's any suggestions for me to look at or not.

Cheers, Pingu18 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Besides guidance like the Manual of style or A primer for newcomers, you should look to Featured articles as the best role models (usually!). In cycling events, you have the examples of 1987 Giro d'Italia, 1988 Giro d'Italia, 2009 Giro d'Italia, Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race, Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's individual road race, 2012 Tour de France, and 2015 Vuelta a España. Many similar FAs are at Featured articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Androni–Sidermec–Bottecchia
Please see this discussion at CfD. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

NCR 27 and the Granite Way
Hello, I've started a new page on the UK NCN Route 27. It can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cycle_Route_27. I have also worked considerably on the Granite Way article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Granite_Way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkwadee (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Track World Cup Berlin
Hi, I made some photos in Berlin. Some more of the podiums will follow, but I do find them not really satisfying. --Nicola (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

"Ultra-distance cyclists" and "touring cyclists"
Finding that Category:Ultra-distance cycling was largely a mixture of events and people, I created a subcategory, Category:Ultra-distance cycling, and moved the people there. I thought of a number of people who'd famously ridden long distances (most of them at high speed), and added them too. I noticed that some of these people were already in Category:Touring cyclists (which I hadn't previously encountered), looked into that category, and added most of the people within it to Category:Ultra-distance cycling.

Each stage was meant well (but of course I'd claim this), but even I realize that having two categories that largely overlap is hardly desirable.

To me, "ultra-distance cyclist" means somebody who has ridden perhaps 1,000 km or more in one trip, and it usually suggests harsh conditions (time constraints, lack of decent roads, lack of supplies). OTOH if somebody cares to spend an entire year going around the coast of Australia, I can't deny that this is a great distance, regardless of cruising speed or the opulence of the beds and meals enjoyed on the way.

To me, "touring cyclist" suggests somebody who's out to enjoy the scenery, the company, or some other part of the experience. OTOH I can't claim to speak for all or even most native speakers of English.

Incidentally, "ultra-distance"/"ultradistance" appears in the OED (oed.com), but the examples in both are all from running. ("Ultra-distance" is understood to mean something significantly longer than a regular marathon.) In Wiktionary, "ultradistance" is again only explained in terms of running. Unsurprisingly, "touring cyclist" doesn't appear in either dictionary. Neither dictionary's entry for "touring" is helpful. More.coffy (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Alfonsina Strada
Until I removed them], a few minutes ago, the article Alfonsina Strada had eight references to it:Alfonsina Strada. The article badly needs good references. Unsurprisingly, the good material on Strada seems mostly to be in Italian. Any readers of Italian here? (Strada is a far more than averagely fascinating biographee.) More.coffy (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Side by side on one machine
Where does Wikipedia cover this sort of "bicycle"?, asked Carbon Caryatid. It's alluded to within the article "sociable", although most of that article is devoted to bicycles (whereas this is basically a trike, with a tiny fourth wheel for stabilizing at the back). More.coffy (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much More.coffy! A response almost two years later is a record for one of my questions, I think. Now that I have the word, I can go about linking to that article, and improving it. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's certainly interesting, but there aren't two people side by side on one machine in that photo, nor does the machine appear designed to allow such, so it isn't a sociable. Qwfp (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * After closer inspection, I believe it bears a marked similarity to the machine ridden by the central gentleman depicted in the latter of the two images currently included as Tricycle, where the text makes clear that were a great variety of early designs of tricycle. Similar models appears in this page on the history of tricycles. I would describe it as an early front-steered tricycle. --Qwfp (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Qwfp, you are of course right. More.coffy (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a tricycle; it's one of a great variety of early tricycles described and illustrated in chapter 4 ("A tendency to tricycle") of Jim McGurn's book On Your Bicycle: The Illustrated Story of Cycling (2nd ed, 1999). I've mentioned the tiny fourth wheel; the result is still normally called a tricycle. However, one company chose to name its own versions of this idea (three wheels for routine use, fourth to make one kind of spill less likely) the "Salvo Quadricycle". More.coffy (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Eeva Sarlin
The author of Draft:Eeva Sarlin says on their talk page that the races Sarlin has won, namely the Finnish National Criterium Championship and the Finnish National Omnium Championship, should establish notability per WP:NCYC. The presented source is this, which seems to be hosted by the UCI and which does list Sarlin as a winner of some events. Is that sufficient to establish notability? The draft's current sources largely are not reliable, and a Google News search found very few results, none detailed and none related to the Criterium or Omnium championships, so I'm skeptical here. Some additional input would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

World Championship on team pages
I have noticed that individual World Championship titles are given in results on the team pages, for instance Oscar Freire's 1999 win on the page of Vitalicio Seguros. My suggestion would be to remove all of them, since the WC titles were not achieved for the team, but for the national squad. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I believe it's just something that's ingrained into cycling. The teams and their riders are governed by UCI, for instance Quick-Step are the UCI TTT world champs. Olympic champions are under the IOC and can see a reason the remove those like at Team Sky. BaldBoris 16:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Tour of the Basque Country page move
Please see this discussion.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Jerseys in Cycling race Infobox template
Greetings.

While I have been a sporadic contributor on Wikipedia for many years, I'm still a novice when it comes to the more technical aspects of editing.

I recently created the 2019 Giro di Sicilia article, and went back to update it after the race was over. I think I managed to insert the race infobox template without messing things up completely, but those cute little jerseys usually present next to the names of each classification winner in for other stage races are missing. Can I create jerseys for this article? Kittens n thugs (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In the template at the top of the page, add the jersey colour (i.e. "yellow") to the empty parameters ,   and  . BaldBoris 16:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to add custom jerseys (like "the red and yellow" jersey) or do you guys simply chose the jersey that most closely resembles the one used in the race? Kittens n thugs (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the jersey on the website I've gone with and, but you could use   (File:Jersey salmon.svg.) All the colours are in commons:Category:Cycling jerseys by color at the Wikipedia's sister website Wikimedia Commons, where all the free-use media is. BaldBoris 21:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Stage with mountain(s) or Stage with mountains
Can we please get consensus on a small point that was recently raised by during the 1962 Tour FAC. Mike's comment was Just a suggestion, but in the "Stage characteristics" table you have "Stage with mountain(s)"; I know this is probably standard wording, but I'd think you could safely make it "Stage with mountains". made a suggestion to make a change from "Stage with mountain" to "Stage with mountain(s)" during the 1907 Tour GA, but can't find where originated from (?). I propose using Mike's "Stage with mountains" as it looks cleaner. BaldBoris 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal research (OR, I know) suggest that there is an "official" distinction in the rules between stages seen in the percentage used for the time limit since 1932. (I have a newspaper article from 1933 that shows that there was a distinction in 1932 and 1933, but no indication that it did not happen in 1931, nor a proof that it happened in every year afterwards.) I think that the typical name for stages with high time limits because of mountains is "mountain stage", so I would use that name, it is shorter. The stage type could in theory be sourced by the Tour de France rule book of each year (were it not for the problem that those rule books are impossible to find).
 * In 1907, there was not such a rule, so when I made the table, I put a description of how I determined the stage type. If Memoire du Cyclisme (the most authorative source at the time when I wrote it) indicated that there were one or more mountains, I put the mountain icon, otherwise the flat icon. It feels wrong for me to write "stage with mountains" when there was only one stage, so I wrote "stage with mountain(s)".
 * Summarizing: I would suggest to keep "stage with mountain(s)" for years without any distinction in the rules, and "mountain stage" for years that had a distinction. (I ignore the problem that we don't know which year is which, because I don't have a solution for that.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My approach to this is similar to Edge's, I used the mountain stage and hilly stage when I nom-ed the '88 Giro for either FA or GA. He raised the point that there was no official marking of the stage types that we could find. Therefore, with all the other articles that I then edited - atleast relating to the Giro - I would mark it as "stage with mountain(s)" if it had categorized climbs within it or if before the Giro's mountain classification (pre '33), I just marked it as such when the stage contained a mountain. Hope that made sense Disc Wheel  ( T  +  C )  22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the responses guys. I'm good with how the stage types are labelled when there's nothing official, I just really wanted an MOS consensus whether to use "Stage with mountain(s)" or "Stage with mountains". It's not a cycling specific question, but thought I'd see what people here thought about it. I think the point Mike raised was that "Stage with mountains" is fine if there was only one mountain in the stage. BaldBoris 23:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't even remember making that suggestion, but I do think that "with mountains" is definitely better than "with mountain"... other than that, I don't lean to one or the other... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that all options suggested so far are reasonable, so (as far as I am concerned), the editor who wants to do the work and change everything can decide what it should be. ;) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK good, it's not a big deal I know, but I like consistency. BaldBoris 21:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Grand Tour result timelines
I know this would be a huge endeavor, but maybe we can make the Grand Tour result timelines in driver articles consistent? We have the small format (like in Bernard Hinault) or the bigger one with stage wins and classification standings (like in Lucien Van Impe). I very much prefer the smaller one, since it is easier to research (especially for riders in the early era) and it does not look so convoluted. Also, the bigger one seems to be from a time where no there were no articles on the Giro and Vuelta editions, so there are a lot of wikilinks missing there... Thoughts? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the smaller format. A lot less data to maintain and update. Even the most prolific of cyclists will have a lot of zeros in the stage win line on Grand Tours.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the Hinault-standard is the better IMO. XyZAn (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is consensus, then I will try and change this whenever I come across instances of the bigger boxes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you create these? I think they're very informative for the more decorated riders, but I think we need to be consistent so may have to lose them. BaldBoris 21:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I might have been the first one to add one to a cyclist's article, I'm not sure. I now think that the smaller one is best for a normal article (like Eddy Merckx), while a bigger one might be used in career articles (such as List of career achievements by Eddy Merckx). Does that make sense? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata templates
Pinging project members BaldBoris, Lugnuts, Cs-wolves, XyZAn, Severo and Dimspace, per their involvement in the previous discussion.

Following the earlier discussion, I've spent a few weeks removing the Module:Cycling race templates from the mainspace. Comment is requested about about making these templates. Several further points about why these templates should be deprecated:
 * Wikidata is an external website, using user-generated content. This fails WP:USERG, and often provides no WP:RS.
 * The wikidata templates appear to break the inclusion of references within a.
 * These templates, previously used in the article body, also failed this resolution, as they each include a visible link to the wikidata pages, within the article body.

I propose deprecating the body table wikidata templates in favour of either standard wikitables or where appropriate, and deprecating the infobox wikidata template in favour of. Also, should Module:Cycling race, and its group of templates, be considered for outright deletion? EP111 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support using standard wikitables going forward Dimspace (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How is cyclingresult preferable to a standard wikitable? Severo (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be any decision about the two. As an example, has been used on 2018 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11 and 2018 Tour de France, Stage 12 to Stage 21, even though wikitables are more commonly used elsewhere. I'm willing to deprecate those wikidata templates just to wikitables, if that helps? EP111 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * EP111, great job ridding us of the wikidata so far, your hard work hasn't gone unnoticed. I strongly support the deletion of all modules. cyclingresult is just there for ease, as the output is as would be with wikitables (with the correct use of captions). To be fully compliant it should use  for the column headers and   for the "Rank" row headers. I don't use cyclingresult, but can't see any reason to delete it as it encourages edits from IPs and newbies. BaldBoris 15:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Compliance requires formatting according to standard wikitables, then. EP111 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bit too technical for me, but what you say makes sense, and anything to get rid of those terrible wikidata tables has to be good.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and I've marked the wikidata templates and module as deprecated. If anyone wishes to continue the process and nominate the templates for deletion, then please feel free to notify me. EP111 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've nominated the templates for deletion. * Pppery * has returned 19:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Team Sky > Team INEOS
Hi. I don't really get involved in the actual cycling teams side of the project, but what's the rationale for moving the former to the latter, instead of creating a new article? Apologies if this is an obvious question!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting they should be separate articles? It's the same team with a different name. My understanding of article naming is that active teams use the current name and former teams use the most common of their history, for example U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team, or use the most recent if no clear common one exists, like HTC–Highroad. BaldBoris 20:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's all a little strange isn't it? I would argue that clearly, HTC should actually be named "Team Telekom", since this was the name under which it was known for the longest time and under which the greatest successes and media coverage were achieved. In the case of Gitane–Campagnolo and Renault (cycling team), there are seperate articles even though the sponsor did not even really change (Renault is the parent company of Gitane). Team Bianchi is the biggest mess of all, considering that it only covers the short-lived 2003 team, instead of the more prominent Bianchi team of old, and even for the 2003 team, I would argue that "Team Coast" would be the better common name. Anyway, I agree that Team Sky should be moved to INEOS. But other articles in the project definitely need a LOT of work and there needs to be more consistency. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say everything was perfect, just my view of how things should be. There's a lot of mess in this WP. I think the main issue is whether a team is new or not. The more recent teams look to all have kept their latest names. If you think a change should be made bring it up or be bold and just go ahead and do it. Maybe you should propose a move to Team Telekom? It's definitely debatable. The Renault merge and Team Coast move are also good shouts. I sure could've used better examples, those were just the first two I saw. BaldBoris 14:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, this was not meant as an attack on anyone. I will try to look into a couple of those articles in the future, but for now, I am quite busy on other fronts. I just thought I'd lay out some of the issues here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also please note that there is now a template problem with Team Sky, all race articles before the name change need to be updated to "2019a" for Team Sky. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many are aware of this. Watch Category:Cycling team data problems and you can keep track of these and future problems. BaldBoris 14:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed it for Paris-Nice, will change more whenever I come across it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In my mind, I do think they should be stand-alone articles, and that should apply for all teams when they change from X to Y (esp. when two teams merge). But I think it's too late now to start to unpick this across WP. The vast majority of the info about Team Ineos relates to the Team Sky days, and the article is pretty big right now too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pro road cycling teams are unique in that their name can change each season. No sponsors, no team. Nothing else but the name changes. Your proposal would equate to a hundreds of extra articles, which doesn't make much sense to me. BaldBoris 14:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also agree that we should keep articles together wherever it makes sense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just thinking out loud, more than making a (formal) proposal. Say ten years from now, and someone's looking back for the history of Team Sky, wont it look a bit odd that it's at another title? I understand the sponser issue behind each team, but maybe this should be the exception to the rule.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, as long as Team Sky redirects. And any confusion can be avoided with a well-written lead. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - thanks for everyone's input on this.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

AE or BE?
I saw that added a "use American English" template to 1998 Tour de France. I had so far always used British English for cycling articles. Is there a standing convention on this? This surely is not a clear cut case, but one could argue that cycling has a little bit more of a history in Britain than it has in the US, so maybe BE makes more sense? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You used AE in 89 (mostly) so I assumed you would again be for 98. 89 is the only Tour article using AE as far as I know. I asked this when doing the 2015 Tour, and advised me to use BE. Being English myself, AE spellings stand out for me. I use BE on WPC articles unless the subject is American. It's probably best that you make sure you're 100% on the differences before saying you'd "always used British English". I'm now going to tag all Tour articles with  and change them accordingly. BaldBoris 15:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did? Jesus, I didn't even realise that... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have changed everything to BE now in the 1989 article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Two month virtual editathon on Women in Sports
WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to write more articles about women cyclists who lag far behind men on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Cycling past winner tables
has reverted a to the Cycling past winner start commenting it "Does not improve visually". This change was adding "wikitable" class to Cycling past winner tables.

On contrary I believe that "wikitable" does improve visually these tables:
 * the look of the table becomes coherent with the other tables in these articles as many of them are styled with "wikitable"
 * one could follow the rows in the table more easily

For example, consider the Critérium du Dauphiné current style:

vs.

{| class="wikitable sortable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" ! width="8%" style="text-align: left;" | ! width="4%" style="text-align: left;" | ! width="44%" style="text-align: left;" |Rider ! width="44%" style="text-align: left;" |Team

which is followed by "Multiple winners" and "Wins per country". Both styled with the "wikitable".--Vаdiм (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also go for the version with wikitable. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the one without wikitable (the first example) looks nicer, but I assume that somebody (the girls and guys from WP:MOS?) thought hard about the wikitable configuration, that they also considered aspects like accessibility, consistency, graceful degradation and other aspects that I can not even aware of. This seems to be some sort of standard, let's just follow the standard, and use the wikitable class. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow I created that template 12 years ago! I think wikitable is probably the right way to go, but the question comes to how to implement it while giving rider nationality due weight (and sortability, which the use flagathlete, which the original mimics, does not achieve). Perhaps we should change to something like this:

{| class="wikitable sortable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" ! Edition ! Rider ! Nationality ! Team
 * 1947
 * Edward Klabiński
 * 🇵🇱 POL
 * 🇵🇱 POL


 * 1948
 * Édouard Fachleitner
 * 🇫🇷 FRA
 * La Perle–Hutchinson
 * La Perle–Hutchinson


 * 1949
 * Lucien Lazaridès
 * 🇫🇷 FRA
 * France Sport–Dunlop
 * France Sport–Dunlop


 * 1950
 * Nello Lauredi
 * 🇫🇷 FRA
 * 🇫🇷 FRA


 * 1951
 * Nello Lauredi
 * 🇫🇷 FRA
 * 🇫🇷 FRA


 * 1952
 * Jean Dotto
 * 🇫🇷 FRA
 * France Sport
 * France Sport


 * 1953
 * Lucien Teisseire
 * 🇫🇷 FRA
 * Terrot–Hutchinson
 * Terrot–Hutchinson


 * 1954
 * Nello Lauredi
 * 🇫🇷 FRA
 * Terrot–Hutchinson
 * Terrot–Hutchinson


 * 1955
 * Louison Bobet
 * 🇫🇷 FRA
 * 🇫🇷 FRA


 * Severo (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The best example we have to follow is the one used in the Grand Tours GC winners featured lists (Tour, Giro and Vuelta), although I'm not sure some all of the columns are necessary. BaldBoris 00:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, apparently there is a certain consensus about using the wikitable style, so if there are no more objections against it then I'll put it back to the Cycling past winner start. As for the further development of the style then it seems an implementation of the Grand Tours GC winners style, as suggested by Boris, would require some amount of effort for adding more data into the tables. Any interest in implementing the version suggested by Severo? --Vаdiм (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely the best option would be to decide upon the new version to be used – i.e. the comments that Severo & BaldBoris have made above – rather than revert to the original format only to revise it again at a later date, no? I'm not trying to be difficult, but with 741 transclusions for that particular template, I feel that we should get it right technically before going live with it. That was the main reason to bring to the WikiProject as a whole. Craig  (talk)  23:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As we can see, there is no much of interest raised so far for the other options, so I'm putting the wikitable style back into action --Vаdiм (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While I think it prioritises nationality over the actual name of the rider, BaldBoris makes the good point that the featured lists as the standard to follow. For most historical races, the distance/time etc columns would be difficult to establish in detail without significant original research or research into non-online newspaper archives in and of the country of the race. So a slimmed down version would look like this:


 * {| class="wikitable sortable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2"

! Year ! Country ! Cyclist ! Sponsor/Team
 * 1947
 * 🇵🇱 poland
 * Edward Klabiński
 * Edward Klabiński


 * 1948
 * 🇫🇷 france
 * Édouard Fachleitner
 * La Perle–Hutchinson
 * La Perle–Hutchinson


 * 1949
 * 🇫🇷 france
 * Lucien Lazaridès
 * France Sport–Dunlop
 * France Sport–Dunlop


 * 1950
 * 🇫🇷 france
 * Nello Lauredi
 * Nello Lauredi


 * 1951
 * 🇫🇷 france
 * Nello Lauredi
 * Nello Lauredi


 * 1952
 * 🇫🇷 france
 * Jean Dotto
 * France Sport
 * France Sport


 * 1953
 * 🇫🇷 france
 * Lucien Teisseire
 * Terrot–Hutchinson
 * Terrot–Hutchinson


 * 1954
 * 🇫🇷 france
 * Nello Lauredi
 * Terrot–Hutchinson
 * Terrot–Hutchinson


 * 1955
 * 🇫🇷 france
 * Louison Bobet
 * Louison Bobet


 * Another thing I do want to pick up is that when we sort by team name, there comes a difficulty when a team has changed name - one the one hand it would be good to sort those together, but ont he other hand they would then not be alphabetical so would be confusing. I don't see an easy answer to that. Severo (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Flags for teams
I thought we don't use flags for professional road teams apart from the UCI Road World Championships – Men's team time trial? The 2018 Tour TTT winners now have a flag (2018 Tour de France) and the TV coverage uses them also. A consensus was reached in July 2009 to not use flags, but as it's 10 years later, maybe thoughts have changed? BaldBoris 14:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that flags are put next to team names on the TV. A TTT in a stage race is perhaps similar to a world championships TTT. But putting flags next to every mention of a team in a table is in my opinion WP:FLAGCRUFT. Severo (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are featured articles ([FC Porto in international football competitions|example]) that have flags next to sport team's names. Teams have a clear-defined nationality (UCI defines them, at least for current teams), so putting flags next to a team's name is (for me) the same as putting a flag next to a rider's name, which we also do. So I think that we can use flags for teams (which I also thought in 2009). --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The comparison to football teams doesn't stack up. Football teams must play in their domestic competition, and when they play on a continental level they do so on the basis of a qualification place from their national association. What's more, they have clearly defined bases (training ground and stadium) in a certain location. They do not change country. None of this is true of World Tour teams. The designation is technical - what (for example) makes Sunweb a German team - and why was it Dutch before? Severo (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have removed the flag for now in 2019 Tour de France. I don't feel strongly about it though, please discuss further. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "The designation is technical - what (for example) makes Sunweb a German team - and why was it Dutch before?" Because the UCI says so. We don't need to understand their reasons, we only have to recognize them as an authorative source. All publications (that I have seen) follow UCI's designations. - EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The teams decide, not the UCI. But is is arbitrary for the teams to decide. There is no denying the teams have a country of registration: what is up for debate is the extent to which this is given prominence within articles. We don't have to do what the UCI say. Cyclingnews, for example, did not list the countries of registration on their results page. Severo (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're correct, the teams decide (UCI regulations, part ii, rule 2.15.051), but what I meant is that the UCI accepts the team's choice, and it is UCI's acceptance that makes it official. Sunweb can say tomorrow that they consider themselves French, but the UCI (almost surely) won't accept that, and all publications that show a team's nationality will still show them as German.
 * But let's split the discussion in two parts. 1: If we show a flag, which flag should we show? 2. Should we show a flag?
 * The answer to the first question is (in my opinion) clearly: the one that the UCI also shows. I don't think you or anybody else really disagrees with that. The answer to the second question is somewhat less clear. I think that we should follow the main sources. As you showed, cyclingnews doesn't show team's nationalities on result pages, neither does letour.fr (but it does so on the team's page), nor memoire-du-cyclisme.eu, while all do show riders' nationalities. On the other hand, UCI.ch and Procyclingstats.com show flags for teams. So it is not really decisive for me. If sources are not clear, we should find other arguments. For me, the argument that UCI is the authority and that UCI shows nationalities is somewhat, but not 100% convincing. You previously presented the argument that teams don't compete in competitions according to their nationality, and don't score points for their nation, this argument is for me also somewhat, but not 100% convincing. I lean towards showing flags, but for 10 years I have accepted that teams don't have flags, and I can easily accept that for another 10 years. -EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Links to a couple of the discussions around the time of that consensus decision:here and here. Those discussions were 10 years ago, when very Italian teams hired a post-box in Dublin for tax reasons.  But I guess, when we contrast the Frenchness of FdJ with the unSwissness of Katusha, the question is largely the same as it was back then: "whether the close national ties of some teams is sufficient, and sufficiently common, to justify the assumption that nationality is relevant, although in some cases it clearly is not."  Kevin McE (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As has pointed out, you could argument one way or the other. I'd like to throw in another argument: readability. If we include flags for teams, would we then only do it in team-only competitions (such as team time trials or the Hammer series)? Or would they be included everywhere? For instance, on the List of winners of a particular race, would we then have two flags, one for the rider and one for the team? I would find the second option excessive and bad for the readers. Also, per MOS:FLAG, flags should be used as little as possible, so if in doubt (which we apparently are), consensus should probably be to leave them out. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At most in team competitions, I agree that otherwise it's excessive. And for team competition, I'll accept to have the minority view just like ten years ago, so I think that consensus did not change. - EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

AFD of interest
Please consider participating at Articles for deletion/Bicycle magazine. --Doncram (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Detailed race descriptions in biographical articles
There seems to be a growing tendency for editors to show themselves to be frustrated sports journalists, giving sometimes rather lengthy detailed descriptions of stages that are important in major races within rider articles. For example "On stage four, a mountain top finish at La Molina, Bernal and Pierre Latour (AG2R La Mondiale) were the only two riders able to respond when the Movistar Team trident of Alejandro Valverde, Nairo Quintana and Marc Soler forced the selection in the final seven kilometres of the stage. Bernal tried to attack the trio and eventually distanced Soler but then Quintana and Valverde worked him over, with Valverde eventually out-sprinting Bernal to win the stage. " Can we agree, and maybe raise to project policy, that this is not the purpose of an encyclopaedic biography? Kevin McE (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox on cyclist biography
Please see this RfC (!) Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Cycling
Portal:Cycling, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cycling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Cycling during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

ISO photos...
Am looking for CC-BY-SA photos of the following early cyclists who died in cycling accidents: I have found some supposed photos of Bert Harris online but their copyright/CC-BY-SA status remains somewhat unclear to me. Thanks in advance, Shearonink (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pierre Froget - French, died 1894
 * Bert Harris - UK, 1873-1897
 * Oscar Aaronson - Swedish, died 1900
 * Charles Kerff - Belgian, died 1902
 * Pilack - German Empire(?), died 1904
 * Karl Käser - German Empire, died 1904 Found!
 * Hubert Sevenich - German Empire, died 1904 Found!
 * Gustav Freudenberg - German Empire, died 1906 Found!
 * Richard Huhndorf - German Empire, died 1906 Found!
 * Moritz Hübner - German Empire, died 1907 Found!
 * Gustav Schadebrodt - German Empire, died 1907 Found!
 * Ernst Wolf - German Empire, died 1907 Found!
 * Tim Johnson - UK, died 1907 (Turns out this Tim Johnson was a boxer and not a cyclist so his name has been removed from the list.
 * Much thanks to for finding pics of most of these men - I remain hopeful that the other dudes' images will turn up as well. BRAVA Nicola! Shearonink (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone have a public-domain photo of Bert Harris? He was one of the most famous athletes of the 1890s...would be great to have a photo of him for List of cyclists with a cycling-related death. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 UCI Road World Championships nominated for Main Page
2019 UCI Road World Championships is nominated at In the news/Candidates. Article improvements would be good. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi there, I think we should try to cut down the number of unassessed cycling related articles. It is currently at 594 so my suggestion is we do a week long blitz or drive to cut down this number. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Greetings I have reviewed the unassessed articles and they appear to be mostly talk pages. I would love to help with getting this number lower but am uncertain as to how these pages should be categorized. Any guidance on this topic will be appreciated! SpacedonutAE (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * firstly, I would recommend installing User:Evad37/rater if you haven't already. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)