Change of concensus decision on cycling team nationalities
The WikiProject Cycling page Consensus decisions displays the following decision on cycling team nationalities:
Trade cycling teams do not represent the country in which they are registered. As such, nationality should not be implied in tables through the use of flag templates (for example {{flagicon}}, {{flagathlete}} etc). (July 2009)
Considering a newer discussion on this talk page (September 2022) the above consensus is outdated. I suggest a change of rule:
Trade cycling teams, like individual riders, have a country in which they are registered and which they might represent on championships. As such, a nationality may be shown in tables and infoboxes through the use of flag templates (for example {{flagicon}}). (September 2022)
Please give an example of how a team might represent a nationality in a championship? Team UAE is, in terms of personnel and racing, no more Emirati than Newcastle United is Saudi. Kevin McE (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Team UAE is registered in UAE while Newcastle in England. Its the registration not the ownership that matters. For your purpose you should argument that Newcastle is Saudi not English, which is not, thus Team UAE represents UAE in same way Newcastle represents England. Rpo.castro (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I said before you reply it: "Team UAE is registered in UAE". Nobody cares what you think people are or look like. All that matters is their license. Your argument its just pointless, and the comparison with Newcastle ridiculous. Rpo.castro (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has doubted where they are registered: the issue is whether the place of registration has any relevance. That is the point that the consensus decision makes. Astana has at various times had Swiss and Luxembourgish registrations; in the past a number of teams that were undeniably Italian in every aspect of their identity had their registration at an office of convenience in Ireland.
The proposal to change the consensus statement claims that teams represent a country in championships: that is unfounded and, despite my challenge, no-one has tried to support it.
Red-Bull Bora are owned by an Austrian company, have their registered office in Austria, but have a German licence. And if next year they change to having an Austrian licence it will make absolutely no difference to where, when and with whom they ride.
There is no prohibition on mentioning the nationality of registration within articles: that is a statement of fact that is totally appropriate: the consensus decision applies to displaying the nationality and flag in tables of results and standings, which would imply that it is in some way a national achievement to have reached such a rank: it is about representation, not registration. Kevin McE (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In motorsport flags are used. Is really Red Bull, a team owned by an Austrian company, but based on England with mostly english personnel representing Austria? What about Mercedes? Mostly English personnel, based on England. Is it british or German? In F1 the national anthem of the team is played, so for any purposes Red Bull is Austrian, Mercedes German. If some team decide to register in Antigua Barbuda, their national anthem will play.
I can't see any current usuage of a cycling team representing a country, because teams aren't competing anymore at world championships. But the only thing that really changed was the end of a competition, not the way we look at teams or teams registrations. On other aspect
probably the press of X country will make a fuss if a team registered in that country achieves certain results, like a belgian team winning Tour de France maybe? Of course not in same level if its an individual achievement but still. If a portuguese cycling team (I m portuguese) gets some good result, it will be in the news. Other thing when we have a race there are always news about local teams and foreign teams, naming their nationality (their license). Is this worthy of getting a flag in infoboxes? I really have pros and cons. I think it might be too much having it in the infobox because its not so relevant. A team might change registration without changing anything else, but still I can see arguments in favour. And if we want to give a nationality to a team, it has to be the license, it only can be. Rpo.castro (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happens in motorsport has no relevance here: as you acknowledge, team nationality is celebrated in presentations, which is not the case in cycling.
The 2012-2018 WC TTT results table shows flags: that is an exception that I am sure no-one objects to. It is very untypical though, so should not create a precedent.
Your final paragraph does little to show that you are wholeheartedly behind your argument. The case for claiming that consensus has changed, when only one person has (ambivalently) argued for a change in the 6 months since the proposal was made seems to indicate that consensus is unchanged. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple consecutive wins in templates
Not sure if this has been previously discussed, but it strikes me that for consecutive wins in templates, e.g. Template:Milan–San_Remo_winners, it would be much better for several reasons (looks, sense, etc) to have these separated by a comma (Erik Zabel (2000, 2001)) than by an en-dash (Erik Zabel (2000–2001)) as at present. Anyone have any thoughts about this?. Ericoides (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only partially agree - in the case where the number of consecutive wins is only 2. Otherwise, you will get a long list of individual years. Kiwipete (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where the en-dash makes a list more concise, it serves a purpose; is it doesn't, it doesn't. There is no advantage in listing Pogacar's TdF wins as 2020-2021, 2024 rather than 2020, 2021, 2024; however, it is helpful to record Indurain's wins as 1991-1995. Kevin McE (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seatylock
Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Seatylock and assess it per WP:NORG? It was directly created in the mainspace a few weeks ago by a relatively new account (about a month old) that basically was making lots of minor-types of edits to articles about politicians before suddenly switching to creating an article about a bike lock company. That seems a bit odd to me, but perhaps others feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big Four Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To-do list for WikiProject Cycling:
_pictogram.svg)