Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Category:Road cycles

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

Retroactive "Stage xx to Stage xx" pages?

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

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

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

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

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

Bicycle Ride Across Georgia Article Tags

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

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

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

Di Luca/UCI World Ranking

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

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

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

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

Geraint Thomas

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

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

Please help as you are able

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

Colnago CSF Inox

We need to figure out what this team is. They've referred to themselves as a "brand new Italian team", but they have the same title sponsor as CSF Group–Navigare, most of this season's ridership, and I'm pretty sure the license is held by the same people, as they're already one of 19 teams that will have Pro Continental status next year, which wouldn't seem to be an easy thing for a brand-new under 25 team. So is this the CSF team in 2010, or is it a "brand new Italian team?" Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

De Rosa – Stac Plastic

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

Liquigas–Doimo

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

Hyphens vs endashes in team names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How were teams classified before 2005?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book-class

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Team Columbia ct template

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

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

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

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

Since this was never fully resolved here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VeloNews link rot

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

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

Cylingwebsite profile in Cyclistprofile

Couldn't we better put the link to the profile on the Cyclingwebsite WikiProject Cycling/Archive 8 at Cycling Archives into the profilebox of the cylist??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechtcastel (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 December 2009