Template talk:Infobox cycling race

Color

I'm thinking that color's should be standardised, probably to #AAD0FF. Thoughts? --Mk3severo 13:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mk3severo 10:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The color should be yellow. It represents the sport. People who otherwise have no clue what cycling is will recognize the color yellow. Most major race leaders receieve a yellow jersey. The sport is much larger than the Tour, Vuelta and Giro now. I understand that Vuelta is gold and Giro is pink but those are rare exceptions. In the 21st century, yellow will be universally known as the race leaders jersey, throughout the world. What other races recieve a leaders jersey other than Yellow? --Tdforbust (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A neutral colour should be used - this is about ease of reading for the reader. Furthermore, yellow can't so easily be considered to be representative of the sport. Leader's jerseys usually take on the colour the race sponsor wants them to - for example this week there has been the Three Days of De Panne stage race where the leader's jersey is white. Also, this assertion only applies to road racing stage races, ignoring all other disciplines of cycle racing and one day road races (which outnumber stage races). More representative colours for cycling would be the rainbow bands which world champions in all disciplines wear. Severo^TC 08:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually in favour or changing it to #CCCCFF as it's considered more neutral. Severo^TC 09:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I am neutral to using a neutral color. --Tdforbust (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Current event

Similar to the change made to Template:Infobox sports league, I added a current event parameter, which is designed to reduce the clutter at the top of the article by putting the current banner inside the infobox. Severo 09:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Most stages winner in infobox

Today the cyclist with the most stages has been added to the infobox, and removed, and added again. I am completely neutral here; I reverted it because the last change broke the template and almost all articles with this template stopped working. If you want to add something to a template, (even if you're 100% right that it should be added), it is wise to discuss it first, or at least give arguments for the change. And also make sure that your changes do not break the template. Thank you--EdgeNavidad (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking the template, the first one , yesterday, did not break the template because I edited it. I need to start using the preview option. Today I am busy during the day , working as most people do , who do not edit wikipedia all day long, so I made the mistake and forgot a part of the code. To the point, not only should the template include most stage wins, it should include most days in the leaders jersey , as well as all time mountains jerseys/most total days in mountain jesey and all time sprint jerseys/most total days in sprint jersey. These feats are just as important as the overall winner. One day races will not need to be edited but stage races are more complicated and these things need to be listed in the template. If you have overall winner records you need the others. I understand that "Severo" created the template a few years ago and has had total control over it but , it needs to be expanded and if you do not comprehend that or wish to do it, others will do the work. That is what wikipedia is for. --Tdforbust (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that most total days in mountain jersey and most total days in sprint jersey are unencyclopaedic. I have been trying to find the information for the Tour de France for quite a long time, and I can find completely no sources for that. The jersey transition before say 1995 is almost impossible to find. Nobody bothered to report that for the Tour de France, the most famous stage race, so from that I conclude that it's not regarded as important information. The most stage wins is reported, so that may be encyclopaedic information.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want people to use the template you need to be maliable , there are many races out there where people have created their own template. I chose to participate in your template while updating Vuelta Mexico, so now you need to not undo peoples work. Both of you Severo and EdgeNavidad both edited my work, some of it is appreciated but I feel now that it was done resentfully. To say , Severo, that most stage wins is "unencyclopaedic" makes no sense, and it you are just mad that someone has entered your world. I do not understand why you can edit my work but you undid my update to the templates. If it creates more work for you, then you should have thought about these things when you originally created the template. I feel like I care more about this than do you because you did not even capitalize your sentences in the template parameters. --Tdforbust (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot say what Severo's intentions were, but I really only tried to improve the article. In the Vuelta Mexico, I only moved the images out of the section title, and moved some other images to keep the layout working. When I looked at the article later, I saw that it was broken, and then I found out that it was due to this template. I saw that you changed things to this template, and that it stopped working after that. I tried to fix it, but I couldn't find out how, so I reverted it to the last working version, and started the discussion on the talk page. Whatever happens to the article is fine with me, as long as the old articles still work, and there is no edit war on the template. You responded on this talk page, you show that you try to solve this "problem" in the right way, so I'm satisfied. I hope Severo will join the discussion, and you will find a solution that improves the template.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to update the template as per my specifications in 12 hours if I do not recieve any input. It is unfair that you can edit my work to Vuelta Mexico but you undo my expansion of this template. --Tdforbust (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tdforbust, thank you so far to your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I assume that you have looked through my edit history (from the 40 categories comment on the edit summary) and you will note that I've done a lot of editing to cycling articles but not so much lately. I think it is great to have more editors interested in improving and updating Wikipedia's contribution to cycle racing - which I think is probably the most comprehensive English language resource already, even though we have a long way to go.

As for my "unecyclopaedic" comment in the edit summary, I was specifically referring to this edit from November 2008 (I mistakenly put "from feb" in my edit summary). I felt these fields, about Network and Livestream are unencyclopaedic and even if they were, they don't warrant a place in the infobox. I hope that has cleared that up.

As for fields in an infobox, generally less is more. The infobox is the place to put the most important information from an article. They are used so that someone can go to the article and get the most important quick facts. If we put in too many fields, we lose the important bits. In the case of "total number of days in the leader's jersey", this is unimportant for the vast majority of races, and as EdgeNavidad mentions, if we cannot find verifiable information for the Tour de France, the likelihood of finding verifiable information for other races (all contributions to Wikipedia must be verifiable), except those started in the past few years, is close to nil.

Finally, could you clarify what you mean by "you did not even capitalize your sentences in the template parameters"? I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If you would like to take up the encyclopaedic worth of my contributions, such as the categories I have created, please do so at my talk page where I will be happy to discuss them. Thanks, Severo^TC 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Tour de Georgia you will see that the creator created his own template maybe out of ignorance to the existence of this template. You will see that he chose to list minor feats such as most stage wins and most leaders jerseys. This is where I got the idea to include these points because I feel it looks clean and comprehensive. The race fan is very educated and I believe they will appreciate this info in the template. The Tour de Georgia editor sides with me so that is 2 for 2. Maybe he declined this template simply so that he could elaborate the details on his own. We should create a uniform template and I dont think it will break the template to have these options. --Tdforbust (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Tour de Georgia article had the table before this one was created, and indeed before many of the articles for x.1 and x.2 races, which usually use this template, were created. I think, as WP:IBT suggests, that such a field should not be included as it will only be used on a small handful of instances across the several hundred it currently is used on. The information is often not notable, or not verifiable. Severo^TC 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the UCIAmericaTour.jpg image, if I were to upload my own fair use image specifically for this article, would that be permitted? --Tdforbust (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The logo is copyrighted. We can use it "fair-use" on the article(s) which are directly connected to it (see WP:NONFREE). We don't currently have a separate article for UCI America Tour (I think we will soon), so the article section of UCI Continental Circuits#UCI America Tour is the section directly related and we can use it there. I don't know if we can use it on the annual pages (2007–2008 UCI America Tour), but we certainly can't on the race pages. Severo^TC 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Parameter Updates

The following are updates I propose to the Parameters. As a working example , please view the article for "Vuelta Mexico Telmex". The alterations included a contemporary view of races in relation to the UCI, which is the main governing body. Cycling is very unorganized but the UCI is what we have to go off of. I understand that this takes work but if you created race articles you should know well enough how to update the following categories which I have proposed. Some races are simply Pro Tour Races and some include Pro Continental along with Pro Tour and some only include Continental Teams, and some only include Local Regional Teams. This will allow for a quick understanding by the reader, as to what the level of competition is for the race. I also am going to propose a slight altering to the sequence eventually...

{{{region}}} — Area in which the race is held. i.e :

City, State, Country, Continent.

{{{english}}} — Name in english

{{{localnames}}} —
Deliniated list for local names, use Template:Xx icon (where xx is the two letter language code) after the name to indicate language

{{{nickname}}} — Nickname (if any), if a local nickname then also supply a translation

{{{discipline}}} — Mens / Womens, Road / Track/ Cyclo-cross, Race / Stage Race / Indiv. TT / Team TT, etc.

{{{competitors}}} —
Deliniated list of UCI classifications, or lack thereof, for teams competing. i.e. :

UCI Pro Tour / UCI Pro Cont / UCI Cont / UCI National Teams / UCI National Juniors / UCI National U23 / Local Regional Teams, etc.

{{{type}}} — Race classification, i.e. :

UCI Pro Tour / UCI Continental Tour, National / Local amateurs, etc. Then PT, 2.HC, 2.1, 2.2, 1.HC, 1.1, 1.2, etc.

--Tdforbust (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the "competitors" parameters. I think this is not needed if the "type" parameter is used. The other listed here I can live with.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How is the use of {{{competitors}}} and {{{type}}} advantageous to {{{competition}}}? The competition tells you what teams will be involved (ProTour includes ProTeams and ProConti teams; x.1 includes PT, PC and Continental; x.2 includes PC and C; UCI Under-23 Nations Cup implies National U23 teams etc). We discussed the issue of including UCI rating somewhere before (maybe at the WikiProject talkpage?) and concluded it could be included in another field. All these are pretty much telling the same story here: how important the race is. I think we should and can get this across in one line in the infobox.

Even if {{{competitors}}} were to be added, {{{competition}}} should not be renamed {{{type}}} as it would break the 250 or so transclusions.

Severo^TC 09:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that {{{competition}}} is renamed {{{type}}}. I oppose renaming {{{competition}}} to {{{type}}} for two reasons: 1. It would indeed break the transclusions. 2. With {{{type}}} I think of options like "stage race", "team time trial" et cetera, not the things included here.

And I agree: if {{{competition}}} is used, {{{competitors}}} is not helpful. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fellows, the first thing I was taught when giving a presentation is to explain as if the audience is entirely ignorant. Less is not more in this regard. We must list in the template the UCI categories traditionally participating in each race article. Please see Vuelta Mexico Telmex for this example. Everything is included in that article and we cannot list UCI America Tour 2.HC Stage Race all in one line. Mens Stage Race is the discipline. UCI America Tour 2.HC is the type and , Competition should refer to the "Level of Competition" partaking in the event. The audience needs to be indoctrinated into the UCI format between ProTour, Pro Cont, Cont, UCI National Teams, Local Regional Teams. I agree with you that Pro Tour implies Pro Tour and Pro Cont, but at lower levels this does not apply. The template needs to be open ended to apply to both the highest end races and the lowest end races. I agree that Wikipedia is the great English languaged source and we should expand it. --Tdforbust (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't convinced me... Maybe because I don't understand you. What do you mean with "The audience needs to be indoctrinated into the UCI format between ProTour, Pro Cont, Cont, UCI National Teams, Local Regional Teams."?

Wikipedia has a guideline about this: WP:IBT. From there, the most relevant section is:

“ Is the field of value?

How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article?

”

• I think {{{competition}}} qualifies according to this standard, as it explains how important the race is. (Small remark: maybe we should link "competition" in the infobox to an article that explains the different competitions...)
• I think {{{type}}} also qualifies, if it's used in the intended way, i.e. stage race/one day event/time trial/whatever (what you call {{{discipline}}}). In the Vuelta Mexico Telmex article, you use it to indicate the competition, which is not logical to me.
• I think {{{{competitors}}} is extended detail that is better placed in the body of an article. Just as the weather during the race, the fact wether the previous winner is participating, and other things that are important for the article but not for the summary.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What are we trying to say with the fields? I think first is the discipline (i.e. road, cyclo-cross etc) and type (i.e. one-day or stage race), and second the level of competition. We currently achieve this through three fields although I think we could actually do it in just two. I do not believe we need to "indoctrinate" readers into the UCI's classification for teams, which changes fairly easily and regularly anyway. All we need to do in the infobox is indicate if it's a top-level race or one lower down - which the Competition field achieves. I think noting the teams classifications in the infobox actually confuses the reader further at that point of the article. I don't have any problem if the information is written in the article. Finally just to think about the lower end races - I think we can only consider UCI-classified races as inherently notable and so we can only really consider those races when designing this infobox. Severo^TC 10:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2011 updates

I have introduced some tracking categories for this template's usage. The first (Category:Infobox cycling race articles using param (last)) tracks which articles use the {{{final}}} parameter (formerly {{{last}}}) as this should match the articles categories in Category:Defunct cycling races. The second (Category:Infobox cycling race articles using param (current event)) track which articles are marked with a current event to ensure that none is left too long after the current event by mistake.

I am looking at next making tracking capability to measure the most recent updates to races. Currently, many instances of the infobox use a qualifier such as "(as of 2010)" as part of the number of editions. I am looking at how we can make this standard to track any that get lost when a race disappears of the calendar without much attention. The options including using an existing templates such as {{as of}}, creating an additional field in the infobox or by employing some more advanced code to recognise the existing "as of 2010" and to assign a catgeory based on that. Severo^TC 07:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Official website parameter?

How about an 'official website' parameter? Qwfp (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

In 2016 Vuelta a Costa Rica, this template calls wikidata:Q28057330. That Wikidata item links to José Vega, which is a DAB page. The link shows as black in the article, but it can be seen in the what links here. This is a WP:INTDAB error, and User:DPL bot is complaining about it. Can anyone fix this problem? Narky Blert (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Module:Cycling race function WPlink tries to link to a relevant WP article. When there isn't one, it considers producing a redlink, but first it checks that the title isn't in use for a different purpose such as a dab page. That check (line 3997) creates a spurious record of a wikilink. Certes (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

<groan /> Not another one? That's about six templates I've come across which generate spurious links such as this one does. Every one has wasted at least 30 minutes of my time trying to work out WTF was going on. Narky Blert (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As you say, this problem also occurs with other templates, and I have proposed a solution at Template talk:Infobox journal#Bypass #ifexist again. Certes (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have created Module:Linkless. Using that module's "exists" function instead of "title.exists" in Module:Cycling race should solve the problem. However, the Cycling race module is hosted at Wikidata, so any changes I make to English Wikipedia's version are likely to be overwritten. I've mentioned the issue at Wikidata in d:Module talk:Cycling race#A link to a DAB page.

I have also created a wrapper template {{Linkless exists}}, which is no of no use here but may solve similar problems in simpler templates. Certes (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have little problems to understand the problem. It is written in black when we can have problems with desambiguation and in red for other cases when the article don't exists. But when the article is created and linked to Wikidata, the link is blue.

On EN Wiki, you just have a local copy of the module hosted on Wikidata, so when you have an improvement to to, you go on the supermodule hosted on Wikidata. Thanks to this principle, all Wikipedias can benefit of improvements made by one Wikipedian from a Wikipedia. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)