Archives

June 2005–December 2005 January 2006–December 2006 December 2006–March 2007 March 2007–October 2007 October 2007–June 2008 July 2008–February 2009 April 2009–September 2009 October 2009–December 2009 January 2010–October 2010 November 2010–December 2011 December 2011–December 2014 December 2014–

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

For those that don't know the Tour Méditerranéen was cancelled in 2015. As such for the 2016 season there is scheduled to be a new race - La Méditerranéenne. My question is, does this race need to be set up on its own new page, or within the the original Tour Méditerranéen page. Cyclingnews suggests this new race is to replace the defunct Tour, but Procycling Stats lists this as the 42nd edition - presuming this is a continuation of one event. So again my question: do we use the existing page or create a new one? Cheers XyZAn (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would put on same page, redirect from new name and explain in prose. If more sources start to say "new race" it can always be spun out but for now I think it would be more useful for readers to get this on one page. Severo (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it is a new race, with new parcours. d:Q22670388. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've just copyedited WP:NCYCLING. Could a project member please review for correctness.
2. The separate male and female cyclist sections could potentially be merged. There's currently a difference in that UCI races for males have a "minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1" restriction while females do not -- is this deliberate?

Cheers, ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reply, I thought it was done by purpose, but not 100% sure. Women only have .1 and .2 races. Men's have more categories and races. It should be somewhere on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 12 Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydronium Hydroxide, Sander.v.Ginkel I think this was done due to the difference in the number of races on the mens calendar vs. the women's calendar. So we restricted the mens criteria to .1 races which (in theory) means that riders become notable when they ride for the bigger teams. Women's cycling is so much smaller in terms of the number events, so it's a massive effort to even get to compete in the UCI ranked races, hence for women notability extends to any UCI race, rather than a set level. XyZAn (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for a combined version? ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cyclist is presumed notable if he or she:

1. rode professionally in a UCI World Tour or UCI Women's team;
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 if male; includes Continental and National Championships).

IMO I would leave them separate, I don't see a reason they need to be merged. XyZAn (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with XyZAn on this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here to get some guidance on what should happen to articles where riders have results voided due to doping in the past. There is, of course, a very extensive talk archive, but I suggest that key info should be mentioned on the project page, so that editors who are keen to help can lend a hand without having to delve into those archives first. I've seen in a few articles that palmarès have a 'voided results' subsection. What I haven't seen so far, though, is succession boxes having been updated by removing those voided results. In some race article lists, voided results are struck out; is that what is supposed to happen? I'm asking because there are other results lists where this hasn't been done. Does a voided result mean that the second-placed person has won that particular race or title? If so, should that person get a succession box showing this? Do we include an explanation within the succession box that results for others were voided?

I guess there's a lot that ought to be defined, and it might well be worth having this all in one place. Happy to lend a hand, but somebody better tell me what needs doing. Schwede66 09:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Does a voided result mean that the second-placed person has won that particular race or title?" In general: no. The responsible cycling authorities can decide to upgrade the second-placed person to be the winner, but don't always do that, for example there are no winners of the 1999-2005 Tours de France. For this kind of information, we need to rely on external sources. If a reliable external source indicates that a rider is upgraded to the first place, (such as what happened after the 2006 Tour de France), the new winner should (in my opinion) get all the succession boxes and so on that normally go with a victory, and preferably with an explanation that results were voided. In cases where we can not find a source that says what happened, we should err on the safe side: don't declare a new winner.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, they don't automatically move everyone up a place if someone was caught cheating. Take the 1972 Olympics, for example. Two bronze medals were stripped, but the 4th place riders didn't move up to 3rd, as they hadn't been tested. It changes from race to race, so unless there's an authority saying they have "upgraded" someone's results, we just strike through the cheaters. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Femke Van den Driessche case, could someone create an article on Mechanical doping? This problem is not going to disappear overnight. 92.26.171.54 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be included in the Technology doping article, although that is a very poor article, full of unsubstantiated commentary and poorly referenced. 92.26.171.54 (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already went a long way to creating a mechanical doping article in the Femke Van den Driessche article. What I didn't put in were the materials (I have them) on the mechanics of mechanical doping. Nominated for WP:GA review. Hot topic. When approved it would be a WP:DYK no doubt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my attempts of trying to destroy the red links of Tour of Flanders editions, I made a technical mistake. I created the 1950 Tour of Flanders article under the wrong name, moved it immediately after, but now 1948 Tour of Flanders redirects automatically to 1950 and I can't seem to start the actual 1948 article. Any tips are welcome. Dr.robin (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look; should be ok now. Schwede66 15:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Dr.robin (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for WP:GA review. Hot topic. When approved it would be a WP:DYK no doubt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for sources that relate to Femke Van den Driessche's biography. Anybody out there got a line on that? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need Flemish sources I suspect, good luck! Severo (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 7&6=thirteen. Can't find a good biography.. But I found an article about the 2015 European Championships race that she won, so the article can be expanded with a short description of the race :) see here. Good luck! Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 7&6=thirteen, you can already make a request for DYK. It's not about a GA, but it has to be a new article, or an expanded article. As you expanded the article you can nominate it. To nominate see Template talk:Did you know. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While working on the Tour of Flanders separate editions articles, I noticed some major conflicts in sources. For nearly all editions of the Tour of Flanders from the 1920s until the 1940s, sources give different information on race length, average speed and time differences.

E.g. the 1925 Tour of Flanders: two different book sources (different authors) say the race was 210 km in 7h 28', while several websites (siteducyclisme.net, bikeraceinfo.com, museociclismo.it) – as wel as wikipedia articles in other languages – state 228 km in 8h 49'. Some individual time differences differ too. Those are big differences in data. What's even more worrying, is that this goes for about 30 editions of the race.

In the 1925 article, I provided the data from Vanwalleghem's work, because I noticed before it is extremely reliable (he had the right end with another conflict) and it uses sources from the official Tour of Flanders archives, but even he could have made mistakes. The official website does not provide much details either. I could go and look it up in the ToF archives, but it will be a while before I'm in Belgium. What is the best solution here? Dr.robin (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.robin, what great you are putting effort in it!! Great work! Yes, this is a problem.. Before knowing the real values, I think the best solution is that both the different times, length etc. are stated in the article, with a short explanation that there are differences in the sources. If ever the real values are known, the wrong results can be deleted. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was considering that, but I'm afraid it might look awefully messy.. Two infoboxes or one infobox with the correct and the wrong data? And two results tables with accompanying text ? I don't even know of a precedent. For now, I will focus on the post-1950s editions. – 23 to go (!) What strikes me, is that the data conflicts are structural until the 1948 race and then they suddenly stop conflicting. It's mystifying. Dr.robin (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of (for the 1925 Tour of Flanders): Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result Rank Rider Team Time[1] Time[2] 1  Julien Delbecque (BEL) Armor–Dunlop 7h 28' 00" 8h 49' 2  Jef Pé (BEL) – s.t. s.t. 3  Hector Martin (BEL) J.B.Louvet–Pouchois + 3' 30" + 4' 45" 4  Charles Juseret (BEL) – s.t. s.t. 5  Adolf van Bruaene (BEL) La Française + 3' 32" s.t. 6  Maurice De Waele (BEL) Wonder + 9' 15" + 9' 15" 7  Aimé Dossche (BEL) – s.t. s.t. 8  Leon Luites (BEL) – + 10' 15" + 10' 15" 9  Jean Hardy (BEL) – s.t. s.t. 10  Marcel Houyoux (BEL) – s.t. s.t. Note: Sources differ on the time differences for third to fifth place.

Cycling race 9th Tour of Flanders Race details Dates 29 March 1925 Stages 1 Distance 210 km (130.5 mi) Winning time 7h 28' 00" (or 8h 49'[2]) Results   Winner  Julien Delbecque (BEL) (Armor–Dunlop)   Second  Jef Pé (BEL)   Third  Hector Martin (BEL) (J.B.Louvet–Pouchois) ← 1924 1926 →

Wow, that looks very orderly indeed. Thanks, Sander! Feel free to fit it in the article, I'm more a writer than a tables fan.Dr.robin (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When creating the cyclists who competed at the previous UCI Track Cycling World Championships, I noticed that some (or all) event pages (I mean pages like 2010 UCI Track Cycling World Championships – Men's keirin) are missing before 2010. With the csv files (Excel format) at Tissottiming.com it's relative easy to create wiki tables with the results, back to 2007. Tissot also have the results of the European Track Championships (event pages missing on WP after 2012) and the results of all UCI Track Cycling World Cups in csv format. I'm thinking of creating some of these page, but it would be great to create them all. But I can't do them all alone. So are there people around who are willing to help creating those pages (I think starting with the World Championships and later with the Europeans and if it goes easy also the World Cups). Maybe Lugnuts is willing to help with creating pages, and Kante4 / WildCherry06 with adding results into the pages? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to work on creating missing biographies. I'll take a look at the individual events. Thanks for the heads-up SvG! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts awesome! I also got the results from the UCI website back to 1996. It don't has to be done in a short time frame, but it would be great if you can create the events pages like you did for the 2016 Championships. It would be great if you can create them for 2009, 2008, 2007, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997 and 1996. I'll add the full results into the pages. Even if we do it in a low pace like one year per month, they are all done by next year :). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this up people. It's been on my to-do list for a long time. Severo (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was creating a new article recently, and when I placed the WP:CYC template in the talk page, I couldn't find any information on how we rate the importance of an article's subject. I noticed our assessment page listed the importance levels, but didn't provide any criteria for rating them, so I took a stab at cleaning up the page a bit. I added the {{Importance scheme}} template, adapted to our use, and added cycling examples to both the Quality scale and Importance scale tables. It would be good to have some of you take a look at it for feedback and concurrence.

While working on the page, I noticed some unusual trends.

1. As a project, we have no A-Class articles. I thought at first we just didn't use the class, but I'm starting to believe it's just been overlooked. Since there is no formal review for A-Class like Featured Articles or Good Articles, we should look at improving some of our B-Class articles to A-Class to get them on their way to GA/FA status.
2. We have over 10,500 articles of unknown importance, 171 of which are B-Class or higher articles. I discovered that articles such as Eddy Merckx and Greg LeMond had not been assessed. Maybe starting with the highest quality articles, we should work down to assess some of these articles.
3. Right now, we have 109 Stub-Class and higher articles with an Importance rating of NA. This should not be, since the NA rating is reserved for non-article pages like categories, redirects, and templates. I cleaned out the Class-C and higher articles from the NA rating, but there's still a little work needed to clean out the rest. Mindfrieze (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea to save a hell lot of work, may it be possible a bot tags all the articles as a stub that have on their page a stub template? But I have to say I don't know much about bots... Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many pages with cycle races of which never a sub-page will be created about events of a single year (like 1922 Six Days of Ghent). So for that reason Six Days of Ghent should have the categories Category:1922 in track cycling and Category:1922 in Belgian sport etc. up to 2015. As you can imagine it would be a lot (looking chaotic) adding all those categories to these kind of pages. Would it be a good idea to create redirect pages, for instance a page titled Six Days of Ghent race redirecting to Six Days of Ghent and adding all these categories to this redirect. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that these categories are necessary at all as the article isn;t about the race in that year. Severo (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no... When for example the full results are added it is, at for example Six Days of Newark. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Six Day London is about the 2015 event and should probably be renamed "2015 Six Day London" or "2015 Six Days of London" – not sure what the official name is. The problem seems to be that there is no article about the Six Days of London.

So I want to make a point of order about six-day racing. Six days are such an inherent part of cycling and especially cycling history, but coverage on the English pages is still embryonic. Which surprised me, since track championships are covered quite complete. So if anyone is willing to join in ... there have been 104 six-day events, of which nine current ones with often long histories, but only three of them have articles. I already started the article on the Six Days of New York and I have some sources on the other North and South American six days, but unfortunately track cycling is not really my alley. Any help would be wonderful. British and Ozzie track fanatics, I'm looking in your direction here (!) Dr.robin (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I presume Six Day London is now scheduled to be an annual thing (I would guess it would sell the tickets for the foreseeable future) so that article should just be the general page, perhaps with specific editions just as article sections unless that makes the article unwieldy. I will try to add various more articles. We actually have a huge gap in all types of races that finished before around 2005, many of which would have garnered decent media coverage at the time. A similar situation exists for season-long competitions before 2005 (we have the main pages but little detail of year-on-year, which again would have attracted decent attention at the time). Severo (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I inadvertently stepped into that void. If it should be the general page, should it cover the entire history of the Six Days of London, or be viewed as a separate event? It is organized in a new and different venue, but so have most long-running six-days that had even longer interruptions. Anyway, any red-link destroying edits are nice. Good to bring the season-long competitions to my attention. I will try to fill the voids in the World Cup. Dr.robin (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first, great work on all the Six Day articles!! Indeed, they should all be created. The older Track World Championships were about a year also missing. In November 2014 I created all the championships before 1995. So it is possible to create in a short time frame many missing articles :). Are you able to get the data of the Six Day races in Excel (Coubtry, City, first edition, total editons, etc.) I can learn you how you can create an article with only a few clicks out of your Excel sheet. There are a few ways to do that :) Let me know Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a tool that you could search in categories of other language wikipedias and identify missing articles and also how many other interwikis they had. I can't find this tool now but that was useful for identifying the gaps (and system bias). Severo (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good overview of the six day races can be found at memoire-du-cyclisme.eu. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When adding the results to a race, it can takes some time. If you copy the resluts from the UCI website ([1]) in to this excel sheet download here, you don't have to fill in anything. Just copy the columns J/K/L. Go to notepad copy a "tab", pres ctrl+H and remove this "tab" with noting. Your result table is done :). Let me know if you have problems with it Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For intstance of the missing races at 2016 in women's road cycling I made tables of the results: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/missing pages races results. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, User:Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick has added some team rosters to articles (such as [2]) reliant on Wikidata. Remembering the discussion relating to race results, there was not consensus to use Wikidata in this kind of way. Are there any further thoughts on this kind of use, and perhaps from the wider (non-cycling) perspective? Severo (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To give more details, this program already works in 20 Wikipedias. All the Wikipedias have big problems to update their articles, so a ([:d:Wikidata:WikiProject Cycling|new project]] with strict rules has been created directly on Wikidata to permits users to work together, and it works very well this function is the biggest success. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi see some discussion of this in the archives, but what is the current consensus on what to include in a rider's palmarès? Since Jonathan Tiernan-Locke has returned from his ban, editors have been adding all his race results to his palmarès. This looks rather odd because wins in races such as the Modbury Spring Road Race wouldn't have been included earlier in his career, and so we go from major international races in 2012 to British 2nd-category amateur races in 2016. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]