Talk:Ineos Grenadiers

2010 team roster

Moved from User talk:Kevin McE

Hi there. I wonder if you might be able to clarify your reason for making this edit where you cited WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not clear on why the information you removed is inappropriate. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what needs to be explained. We cannot say with certainty that those riders will ride for that team next year, because we do not know the future. An encyclopaedia reports facts, not expectations. Kevin McE (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Firstly, I moved your comment back here to keep this in one place so it is easier to follow. I am still not clear exactly what at WP:CRYSTAL makes this content inappropriate. This is not a predicted team roster, it is verifiable and very likely to be accurate since the chance of Team Sky confirming they have signed a contract with a rider for 2010 and then that not happening must be very slim. Adambro (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is verifiable that these men have signed to ride for that team next year, that is in the preceding paragraph and I would not challenge the appropriateness of stating that. A 2010 roster (not a word that should be used on an article about a UK subject, but that is a different matter) is not something that exists in 2009, and even as a speculative list, it is so incomplete as to be meaningless; it also does not use the cycling squad template which is standard for team articles, but these are not the point. Returning to the Crystal balling issue, you say yourself that the chance of them not riding is very slim: you thus acknowledge that this is a possibility, and therefore their inclusion in the squad is not a definite fact. Let's hope it doesn't happen, but Sky might go bust, or any one of the signed riders might have a career ending injury, before 1 January, in which case 2010 will arrive, they will not be part of the team, and the encyclopaedia will be guilty of having recorded an error. Facts, not expectation. Kevin McE (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I will happily accept that the signing of a contract to ride for the team in 2010 doesn't mean that any of these will actually ride for the team in 2010 and that the team might not even exist. However, all these riders have been signed up to ride for the team in 2010, that makes them part of the squad for 2010. We're not simply expecting them to be, they are confirmed to be. Surely though, we would be speculating if we were to disregard that and suggest it might not happen. I think you are misinterpreting WP:CRYSTAL. I'd suggest that it makes it clear that it is perfectly acceptable to include details of future events providing the information is verifiable, as is the case here. If it turns out that any or all of these riders don't ride for Team Sky in 2010 then the Wikipedia article won't have been "guilty of having recorded an error" because it was an entirely accurate description of the situation at this time based upon the information available. Adambro (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it won't happen, nor that it is not very likely, but that it is expectation, not fact. You speak of verifiability, but life teaches us that the future is not verifiable. If they were to die before the end of this year, they will not be in the 2010 team: the future is not confirmed. An "entirely accurate description" of something that does not currently exist is not possible (and as a description, a 6 man top level racing squad is not entirely accurate). Kevin McE (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I find your position on this matter a little strange. You seem to want to defend the article from speculation but in doing so, seem to be introducing your own speculation that the team might not exist or the riders might change. The names that are being announced are for the 2010 squad, so it seems perfectly appropriate to describe the list as such. We can, and should, only base the article on what can be verified at the current time, and that is that the riders named are part of the team for 2010. The information we have at the current time says these individuals are confirmed to ride for the team in 2010 and our article is, and should, only ever be based upon information available at the time. I would note that, not only has another user reverted the change you made which I am concerned about here, but also that a further ten names have been announced making a table format much more appropriate. I therefore intend to add these further names to the table and would ask that you comment further on the talk page if you have any particular opposition to the wording that is being used. Adambro (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I might speculate in talk pages about why predicted future events might not come to pass. That is very different from introducing speculation into articles: refraining from saying that some proposed event will happen is not the same as saying that t will not happen, it is simply exercising restraint to avoid making predictions that future events will be realised as currently intended. It is grammatically and logically invalid to say that "the riders named are part of the team for 2010": that is a present/factual verb applied to a future/putative concept. We could say "the riders named are scheduled to be part of the team for 2010", or "the riders named have signed contracts to be part of the team for 2010". What is wrong with waiting? Why the rush to add what is incomplete, out of kilter with comparable articles, and open to accusations of prediction rather than fact? Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We could, as you suggest, change the wording. Why aren't you starting a discussion on the talk page to make these suggestions then or making the change, instead of simply removing content which both myself and Racklever seem to support the inclusion of. There is no rush here. Rather a desire that the article should present verifiable information and do so in a way which is likely to be the most convenient for readers and is consistent with other cycling team articles. We're not making predictions here at all. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just coming on to support the argument for the information to go back into the article. Team Sky have officially confirmed the riders that were listed previous for their 2010 line up. There is an offical press release and sky news have reported the confirmation on their website. Because of this the information should be in the article. It is not a question of "predicting the future". Those riders are confirmed, signed contracts etc. If it turns out that one of them doesn't actually ride for them in 2010 for whatever reason then that can be reported as part of the article. i.e. "rider x signed a contract to ride for the team in 2010, but following a failed drugs test at the end of 2009 the contract was terminated". I see absolutley no reason why the current list of confirmed riders has been removed from the article. BobGarage (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One simple question: does this squad exist yet? Have they met together? A squad is a group of people employed by a sports organisation who train together, under the same management. That does not describe this group of men. It is a putative future squad, and because it is such, it is not true to describe them, now, as a squad. We have a perfectly accurate and adequate description of the status quo in the riders section. This section will, almost certainly, be postable on 1 January, but why are editors so keen to post it while it is premature? Other UCI ProTour teams do not carry a 2010 squad listing (and most of them already have their funding confirmed for 2010, which is more than can be said for Sky, who are still seeking secondary sponsors). Kevin McE (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course the same question can be reversed. Whay are you so keen to remove information from the article that has been confirmed and verified? These are the riders confirmed as having signed contracts with the team for 2010 in yesterdays press release from the team. As they have all signed contracts they will all ride for the team in 2010. Only if they breach their contract, fail drugs tect etc, or have a career threatening accident would they not ride for the team in 2010. IF that does become the case then (as stated above) that information can be stated as part of the main article. The information is confirmed and verified, I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobGarage (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to Kevin McE, there is no rush, rather a desire that where information is available from reliable sources that we can include to benefit our readers then we should do. Your questioning regarding whether this squad exists is flawed because we are not trying to suggest it does. The information we have from reliable sources is what the squad for 2010 will be. This is what we are presenting, not what the squad is. There is nothing in WP:CRYSTAL that supports keeping this content out, nor is it relevant whether other ProTour teams include this information, nor whether Team Sky has yet to secure further sponsors. Adambro (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is inclusion, not exclusion, that needs to be justified, so Bob's reversal of the question (while failing to answer it) is scarcely valid. I am not seeking to remove any information from the page, only the assumption that the factual list of riders who have signed in Sept 2009 will be the squad in 2010. Nobody can possibly verify or confirm what anyone will do several months from now: we can verify that they have signed contracts to do something, and that info is in the Riders section. Why add them while acknowledging the possibility that what you add might, in time, prove to be incorrect? Despite what Adam says, we do not know "from reliable sources is what the squad for 2010 will be" because we do not know the future. We know in part what the team is intended/hoped/expected/contracted to be, but we do not know, nor can we possibly know, whether those intentions/hopes/expectations/contracts will come to fruition. Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Leader?

Any mention of who the leader will be yet? I note that Arvesen is on the roster. I know that he is getting on a bit, but is there not the risk that this team is just going to be building up a "train" to launch Arvesen in sprints, à la Saeco? I do not see any names in here of GT riders, or even one-week riders. Very, very hard to see how this is going to be a "British" team if Arvesen takes all the glory.

Anyway, I think we need to mention who the leader will be. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Arvesen will, according to Norwegian media, play a central role in Team Sky. But it will be like the part he played in Team Saxo Bank. As a loyal "road captain", the veteran will lead the squad during the GT's and maybe get his opportunity to be in a break-away now and then. Even though it may be a little early, it looks like Edvald Boasson Hagen will be the rider the team will be riding for. He has already won a stage in a Grand Tour (Giro d'Italia), won a classic (Gent–Wevelgem) and having an overall one-week race win (Tour of Benelux). His triumphs include ITT's and mass sprints, and his former boss, Brian Holm, stated that if he loses 3 kg (6.6 lb), he would win Tour de France some day. If it won't be EBH they will be riding for next season, my second guess would be; Thomas Lövkvist, if no better British rider will appear before 1 January. lil2mas (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ta. I have not followed this season very closely, so was unaware of the Benelux win, and I have total respect for anyone who can win Gent–Wevelgem. I know all about Lövkvist cos he has got the Swedes tremendously excited. Still, two Norwegian stars and a Swedish star does not a "British" team make. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't note leaders on any other team article, and it varies from race to race, depending on the tactics and terrain. As regards Britishness, we don't record teams by nationality, so it's not our concern, and is a longer term goal for the team. Kevin McE (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it bear mentioning...

...that Rupert Murdoch owns this team? OK, I suppose it's technically Murdoch's News Corporation, with his son James actually at the top of the food chain, but it's still a pretty huge reason for this not to become my favorite team any time soon Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

His family owns a minority share in the title sponsors: he does not own the team. Kevin McE (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fan Site

A link to the unofficial fan site is being repeatedly added and deleted. What is everyones opinion ? Racklever (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in Wikipedia as far as I am concerned. It should be in a web directory not an encyclopedia. It seems to mostly reproduce known news sites, and doesn't seem to fit the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly doesn't comply with the external links guidelines. Adambro (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am actually the owner of the site, although ive only put it on here yesterday using my wiki login, previously in early december unlogged in but i beleive that was deleted, i think others have also linked to it previously. There are however, countless examples of teams all over wikipedia that include fansites on their list of links. While it does draw news from various sources at the moment, more and more original content is gradually being added. If you look there now you will find original blogs and previews slowly starting to appear. Its a brand new site, these things take time to become 100% original. I shall have a look at the external link guidelines and read them.. Btw. Ive no idea how to sign this message, wikipedia is a mystery to me. erm Dimspace (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)?

ive read them.. double dutch to me. Dimspace (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Try item 11 of the section headed Links normally to be avoided. Kevin McE (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha.. if it gets removed it gets removed. i didnt realise wiki had so many rules.. i shall have to become officially unofficial.. ;) Dimspace (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Fansite is containing much more original content now, its taken us a while, this is all a new thing. Reconsideration for inclusion???? 94.0.87.207 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Profile

Here's a long BBC interview and profile. Has a bunch of useful stuff. Check it out. Team Sky aiming high - BBC Earthlyreason (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Team colours

Can someone tell me whether the change to black and green jerseys is just for the Tour de France, or a permanent change - an if the latter, should the picture be changed? Obscurasky (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The green is to promote a project with the Rainforest Alliance, as already stated on the article. Same temporary change was made for 2010 Tour of Britain Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I understand why the chnge was made - I was asking whether or not the change is permament. I gather from your response that it it is not. Obscurasky (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Teams are allowed to make a temporary change to their kit once per year. Severo^TC 08:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Riders and seasons navboxes

I have posted a question about these navigation templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling#Riders and seasons navboxes at team articles.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Team Sky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 08:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days. Relentlessly (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I was originally writing this up as an "on hold". Truth be told, however, it's quite a long way from being ready. You can see where I got to with the detailed review here (I stopped at ~500 words), but the issues are bigger than the granular ones there.

First, there are a lot of broken references. Worse, many of these are to team press releases. These are not reliable sources. There are other significant parts of the article that are unreferenced. These include sections of paragraphs, and even the whole "Team management" section, where the reference bears no relation to the facts cited.

Second, article composition. There is an enormous imbalance between, for example, the 2015 Giro and the 2011 Tour. Porte's wheel-change incident takes half a paragraph, while Wiggins's broken collarbone got a sentence. Or compare the 2012 Tour, an historic moment that's dealt with in less than Stage 10 of the 2015 Tour. There's a lot of recentism, where recent stuff has far, far more detail than older stuff, so the article feels imbalanced. Lots of the detail belongs in other articles, following summary style.

This extends to several sections that are no more than lists of results. These aren't good prose: the detail belongs in child articles. The main article should attempt to give an impression, to describe the narratives of the season rather than merely the details.

I'm sorry to fail this, because it's clearly the result of a lot of work, but it's a fair way off Good Article standard. I'll be happy to have another look at it if you're able to look at the issues here and bring it to a better standard.

Relentlessly (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Team INEOS or Team Ineos

Which should it be ? --Racklever (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Name change

I can't see an explanation of why the name change from Team Ineos to Ineos Grenadiers happened, and why 'Grenadiers' was chosen. 217.42.0.4 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Grenadier is a product made by ineos. The owner of ineos changed the team name to publicise the product. I will add the information. Paulpat99 (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the information is in the lede section already. Paulpat99 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)