Continental level teams: professional or not?
The infobox template for cyclists asks for us to divide a rider's career into amateur and professional stages, but many (most?) riders spend some time in the semi-pro world of UCI continental level. There may be some payment, but these teams are not (as I understand it) covered by the UCI's minimum salary levels. They do much of their racing at .2 level events, which are not classified as professional races. The name by which the level above them is known (ProTeam, formerly Professional Continental) makes professionalism the distinguishing feature of the higher echelon. I would contend that these teams are internationally registered, and eligible to take place in some races alongside professionals, but are not professional teams, and as such should be in the amateur section of the infobox.
But we don't know the details of the terms under which a rider is signed: whether it is a living wage, whether a rider is expected to be committed full time, is not in the public forum. Many of the teams are development squads: are they considered to be professionals under development, or riders whose potential to become professionals is being developed.
Or is the distinction just not tenable, and we should simply list teams without distinguishing amateur from pro?
And what of the text: do we describe, e.g., Primoz Roglic as signing his first professional contract with Adria Mobil in 2013 or with LottoNL in 2016? And if the latter, can we talk of a non-professional contract with Adria Mobil? Kevin McE (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- From my understanding and what has been talked about in the media in New Zealand; although the definition of professional does mean earns money I see it being around as any UCI registered team is classed as 'professional'. After doing some quick research I cannot find the definition of a Continental Team only Pro-conti. My view on this is to keep the conti teams in the professional section because they are UCI registered. My guess is it will all come down to what the UCI define them as. Paulpat99 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- The UCI defines (Art 7 para 1) a 'new professional' as any rider who joins a UCI WorldTeam or UCI Professional Continental Team for the first time no later than during his twenty-fifth year.(Sept 2019 document, so older name for 2nd rank of team). So UCI seems not to define Conti as pro. Kevin McE (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- But with typical UCI consistency, it describes (2.17.004) a continental team thus: A UCI Continental team... will comprise riders who may or may not be professional, in the elite and/or under 23 categories. So the UCI cannot tell us whether Conti should be listed as pro or amateur. Kevin McE (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've always taken the wikipedia version of a 'professional' team to be any team that's registered with the UCI, i.e. Continental and above. I've then take National elite teams to be the Amateur ones. I accept this is probably an imperfect solution, but it's easier to manage from a content creation and maintenance point of view and like has been said above, the UCI can't even decide... XyZAn (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)We can also consider to update/improve the template. I don't think there are many cyclists for which their amateur teams are notable enough to be in the infobox. But that still leaves the problem of defining what is amateur and what is not, so this comment might not be as useful as I initially thought. --
Cycling national records lists / requested move + copyright vios
Since this might be of interest to your project in particular, please see the section with the same header at WT:SPORTS. Thanks! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
UCI (road racing) world ranking is a thing now and it seems unimportant one. I was thinking that cyclist's infobox could contain, placed between pro teams and major wins, a segment with "career ranking" and "career international titles" (all titles won on UCI recognized races) - it's similar to how tennis player's infobox is done. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- What do you propose are classed as "career international titles" is that not just the major results section? Paulpat99 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
History of Intermarche-Wanty-Gobert
We have Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux as the updated title of the article that was previously BMC Racing and CCC Pro Team, but my understanding is that the old Wanty team bought the licence from those behind BMC/CCC, not the team identity and history. Intermarche's website identifies as being of 'Want you cycling ASBL', the Belgian organisers of Wanty for many years, and still has the url wanty-groupegobert.be/. The website carries the boast "UCI Europe Tour winner 2016-2017 & 20182, which was the achievement of Wanty, and the piece about their team for the 2021 Tour de France says, "This Saturday, June 26 in Brest, Intermarché-Wanty-Gobert Matériaux will participate in the fourth Grand Départ in its history," a count obviously drawn from the history of Wanty, not BMC/CCC. Want You bought Continuum's licence, and Continuum was thus wound up/absorbed: the current team is the continuation of the purchasers of, not of those selling, a resource (a WT licence).
I propose therefore that all changes since the beginning of the current season that are currently on Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux should be reverted, and that article renamed as CCC Proteam, and edited as the article of a team that has been wound up, and all this season's details, team membership etc, be applied to the page currently at Circus–Wanty Gobert (which should then be renamed as Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux). This would be consistent with the Wikipedias (wikipediae?) of other languages in which cycling is an major sport (Danish, Italian, German, Spanish and, most relevantly, both Dutch and French), and follows the ancestry recognised by Procyclingstats, CQranking, First Cycling etc. (I have placed notes at both team talk pages, and the talk of Cs-wolves, the architect of the current situation, suggesting centralised discussion here.)
I see there was some discussion at the turn of the year between @Sebas1953: and @Benjamin112:. Kevin McE (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- At the time, this stemmed from the continuation of how the UCI presented the team details on their website. This is what I have referenced in my edit summary on 1 January on the Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux page. "As per the UCI (https://www.uci.org/road/teams/TeamDetail/15230/1001372/279), 2020 it was CCC, 2021 it is Intermarché. No 2021 option for Circus-Wanty Gobert (https://www.uci.org/road/teams/TeamDetail/14012/1001393/266). Therefore, the team [Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux] hasn't disbanded." However, these links can no longer be followed, following the UCI's recent redesign on their website. As the previous WorldTeam licence for CCC existed until 2022, they had to buy out the licence holder Continuum Sports. This differed from the most recent change of licence before that: being the Team Katusha–Alpecin–Israel Start-Up Nation "merger". As Team Katusha–Alpecin's WorldTeam licence expired at the end of the 2019, Israel Start-Up Nation did not have to buy out anything – as everything was due to expire at the end of 2019 they assumed control, which I believe is the reason why separate pages exist. Craig(talk) 14:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, given the particular phrasing and undertones (e.g., Circus–Wanty Gobert moving up to WT, a tearful farewell to CCC Team) in various media and by my own understanding, Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux seemed to be the successor to Circus–Wanty Gobert instead of to CCC Team, even if the former bought out the license of the latter. I was wracking my brain to come up with a similar case, whether in the cycling world or otherwise, but could not; perhaps Family A moving from House 1 to House 2, the latter of which was formerly owned by Family B, but Family A retains its identity as Family A. I had considered the aforementioned Team Katusha–Alpecin–Israel Start-Up Nation situation but as Craig/Cs-wolves pointed out, the circumstances were different. At the end of the day, I yielded, considering that a) I was comparatively inexperienced with such moves and b) I could not fully produce or articulate a thorough explanation of my thoughts. While WP:COMMONNAME would not directly apply here, I might also imagine that a poll of cycling fans would indicate that most would consider IWG to be the successor of (or correlate to) CWG and not CCC. Probably a flawed argument but that's my two cents. Benjamin112 ☎ 15:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it is that complicated. If company A buys company B (or an asset from them, the articles of the time were not altogether clear) and subsumes company B entirely, not retaining any of its branding, but continuing in the name A always had, then surely it is B that has ceased and A that continues. Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, there you go. Same idea with less words -- thanks for articulating that better. But going back to the original proposal, I would support the aforementioned changes. Let's see what others think. Benjamin112 ☎ 19:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)