This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Well, it is confusing and silly to have the Discovery Channel logo at the top of the page for the Postal Service team. I have pointed this out before, as well as the profound disrespect this action here demonstrates to the companies--in this case, the U.S. Postal Service--that actually pay for these teams. Where is the Postal Service graphic? The transition to Discovery should only be a minor part of this article. Jack B108 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Team is U.S. Postal, and that is the title of the article. This is a very irregular view of team sponsorship and one at odds with cycling journalism coverage of team names. Jack B108 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was the name of the team: the team was subsequently called Discovery Channel. Why would publicising the last-but-one sponsor be more "regular", rather than the first or last? Other defunct teams are listed by the last name by which they were known: this one should be no different. Kevin McE (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the entire policy across WP Cycling is confusing to the reader and certainly offensive to the sponsors without which there would be no pro teams. I think it is great that we have information about continuing structural team entities such as Tailwind Sports, etc., but this is really secondary material. When a person looks up "U.S. Postal Cycling Team" on WP, they should primarily see content about U.S. Postal, not Disovery Channel. WP editors should not be deciding that corporate sponsorship is a secondary process in team name rights. If a marketing executive of the U.S. Postal Service looked at this page right now, do you think they would be satsified with it? Jack B108 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to ask exactly the same question with the change that it is the marketing executive of the Discovery Channel, or indeed of Subaru or of Montgomery. Why should one historical sponsor of the team be given precedence? What explanation would you give to the promotional director of T-Mobile? Wikipedia owes no debt or obligation to sponsors. And yet they are the same team: it makes no sense to say that a person looking up "U.S. Postal Cycling Team" should not see content about Discovery Channel team, because they are one and the same entity. They are no more different teams than the 1996 Manchester United team are a different team from the 2007 MUFC team. I suggest that we bring the discussion to WT:CYC, where my proposal would be that the default position for all defunct teams is that they are listed by the last name a team had before folding, with some flexibility for teams that had fallen down the ranks in the last years of its existence. Personally, my true preference would be that it is listed as the sporting entity, but that would not stand a hope under wp:commonname. Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There ought to be a US Postal Service jersey alongside the Discovery Channel one. If anyone has the image, please post! As for the issue of respect for the sponsors, this has nothing to do with respect, this has to do with accuracy and completeness. There ought to be both the Discovery Channel and the US Postal Service logos and jerseys. Both companies are no longer sponsors since the team has disbanded. Neither holds weight over the other. This is a historical article about a team that no longer exists. Both the periods of Discovery sponsorship and US Postal sponsorship are equally valid. (I might add that if either companies executives viewed this page, they would prefer not to see their logos here at all! The doping scandal tainted the whole sponsorship. But, since this page doesn't cater to the sponsors, we can't give them that luxury! Both companies need to be represented in text and image to ensure an accurate and even-handed article.) ask123 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be Subaru and Montgomery jerseys? The only apparent inconsistency between this article and other articles of defunct teams is the name. Most others carry the final name by which the team was known. Kevin McE (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This team was hugely important, only to have a very large number of its wins stripped due to doping. The list of these appears nowhere on the page, and so the page is rather uninformative about wat happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}
