| Revision as of 20:38, 9 January 2016 editDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 edits →Proposed wording change: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:24, 9 January 2016 edit undo72bikers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,056 edits →Proposed wording changeNext edit → | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| ::Why do you feel the need to berate or harass editors that disagree with you? Is this your way of just getting what you want when consensus is against you? Why is there a need to change '''most successful'''. You have never even given a valid reason for making a change to this wording. if that was done then editors would consider the change. but really is this not such a trivial matter just seems like arguing just to argue. ] (]) 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) | ::Why do you feel the need to berate or harass editors that disagree with you? Is this your way of just getting what you want when consensus is against you? Why is there a need to change '''most successful'''. You have never even given a valid reason for making a change to this wording. if that was done then editors would consider the change. but really is this not such a trivial matter just seems like arguing just to argue. ] (]) 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::It's not berating or harassing to point out your argument "but why bother if it isnt gonna be an improvement" is fallacious: Brian is offering a compromise that bridges the difference between editors. It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable to enough to win consensus and allow us to move on to other matters. Yet you two guys, who follow Spacecowboy420 around as he follows me around, insert yourself in to a topic you had never cared about before, and it's only for the purpose of stonewalling. Refusing to accept any compromise. And this is '''after''' I had already I would ]. You have nothing better to do than stalk me and stonewall everything I do. Even when I've given up! --] (]) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) | :::It's not berating or harassing to point out your argument "but why bother if it isnt gonna be an improvement" is fallacious: Brian is offering a compromise that bridges the difference between editors. It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable to enough to win consensus and allow us to move on to other matters. Yet you two guys, who follow Spacecowboy420 around as he follows me around, insert yourself in to a topic you had never cared about before, and it's only for the purpose of stonewalling. Refusing to accept any compromise. And this is '''after''' I had already I would ]. You have nothing better to do than stalk me and stonewall everything I do. Even when I've given up! --] (]) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::I don't follow anyone and take offense to your personal attack on me sir. '''It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable'''this is your idea of a better encyclopedia really? Why do you feel like you have to win every battle why must it even be a battle. You have never even given a valid reason for making a change to this wording. ] (]) 22:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:24, 9 January 2016
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | A fact from Harley-Davidson XR-750 appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 July 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Retail price US$ 3,200 in 1970
WP:NOPRICES and WP:MC-MOS discourages listing retail prices unless there is a cited reason the price is notable. I've included the price of the XR-750 sold to the public in this article. The cost of a first class professional racing machine that anyone can buy is inherently notable, and beyond that, the existence of this bike was determined by economic forces. As explained in the article, one of the reasons Class C rules' outdated OHV/sidevalve split finally had to go was because it was economically unviable for the British marques to attempt to sell 200 homologated copies a year of a 500 cc OHV bike.
For the kind of money they needed to ask for these homologation specials -- something like $20k in today's money -- you wouldn't buy a bike that had only two thirds the displacement of a mainstream non-race bike. I think this is currently explained sufficiently, but source material exists to go into greater detail. The article Homologation (motorsport) could also benefit from an expanded discussion of the economics of motorsport, and how money, sales, and profits determines racing rules, and helps to create racing dynasties like the H-D KR and XR bikes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Winningest?
Not really formal enough usage for encyclopedic use. Suggest "The XR-750 went on to become the winningest race bike in the history of.." is replaced with "The XR-750 went on to be the bike which won the most races in the history of ..."(Rolanbek (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC))
- According to what Misplaced Pages policy? There is none that I'm aware of that requires all words in the encyclopedia be "formal". This issue came up in the DYK hook, and nobody cited anything other than they didn't like it. The following articles have undergone extensive scrutiny by Misplaced Pages editors, and the use of winningest was deemed acceptable:
- Featured Articles
- Featured Lists
- Good Articles
- Winningest is either standard American English, or at worst, informal American English, and we have no cited policy against informal English. Winningest has appeared in the linguistically conservative New York Times at least 2,000 times. We have a Misplaced Pages guideline of neutrality between American and British variants, generally conforming to the article subject's associated region, if any.
Winningest is also Australian English, not only American. H.W. Fowler says winningest is "without stylistic taint." Fowler cites several similar examples from Shakespeare, Tennyson, Carlyle and George Eloit: easliest, freelier, darklier, proudliest, neatliest. There is no Misplaced Pages policy against informal English, if winningest even is truly informal, and there is in fact a guideline of neutrality between regional variants, conforming to the regional English associated with the article subject, if any. The only argument against it is that the English of the British Isles gets veto over American, Australian an other widely used language, which is silly.
If any regionalisms should be removed, we should look at petrol, lorry, loo, and so on, since their meaning is not obvious if you've never been given the definition, while with winningest, the meaning is clear on sight, even if it's new to you.
Cited facts and policies against using winningest would be persuasive, but I don't think there are any. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
MOS:COMMONALITY We should use terms that are internationally understood. Winningest, isn't one of those terms. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"Opportunities for commonality
Misplaced Pages tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.
Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English)."
Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why would anyone want to edit war over national language issues that were settled long ago? It is considered wp:lame to try to engage editors in nationalistic battles. Please revert to the stable version-- how many years?-- per wp:retain. Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing nationalistic about it. It's about making something that everyone can understand. If there is a term that is easily understood by all English speakers, it seems logical and in line with MOS:COMMONALITY to use it. What is the point of using a term only understood by one group of people, when there is an equally suitable term that is understood by all? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think non-Americans can't understand the six Featured Articles/Lists, and any number of Good Articles that use the word? Do you see anybody on any of those talk pages saying "I don't understand what winningest means." Anybody?
The phrase "most successful" is also misleading; it implies things not contained in any sources cited in the article. "Success" implies things like giving a company credibility to enter a new market segment, like the BMW S1000RR. Or giving the company a vital branding image, like Ducati. Or developing technology, as Suzuki and Honda and others have done. Or it could mean winning the most major world championships. Or maybe financial success. We have no sources saying anything of the kind about the XR-750. The sources only say it had the largest (by a huge margin) number of wins in sanctioned races of an single model. Many of the cited sources actually use the word "winningest" because it's the most accurate word choice. It's why the word is used here, as well as on a large umber of WP:GAs and WP:FAs listed above. MOS:COMMONALITY says we try to find common terms but not at the expense of inaccuracy. You're creating more problems than you solve by messing with it.
What could be the reason for this? Lots of highly-regarded articles on Misplaced Pages use "winningest" and nobody is uncertain as to the meaning. How did it all of a sudden become a problem? How come nobody else in all these years has come along and said they are confused about the meaning of this word? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think non-Americans can't understand the six Featured Articles/Lists, and any number of Good Articles that use the word? Do you see anybody on any of those talk pages saying "I don't understand what winningest means." Anybody?
- There is nothing nationalistic about it. It's about making something that everyone can understand. If there is a term that is easily understood by all English speakers, it seems logical and in line with MOS:COMMONALITY to use it. What is the point of using a term only understood by one group of people, when there is an equally suitable term that is understood by all? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
No, the context of the article (competition) makes it obvious. There is no major reason for this, I edited the article and saw the potential for improvement. Exactly the same as I improved the image layout. And from looking at the talk page, I'm not the first person to come to this particular article and have an issue with this use of "winningest" - you replied to their comments, surely you remember? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh. The term most successful is clearly supported by the first source. That makes it an easy choice. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- So now we have to go through source by source and fight over this? I read them all very carefully, and now you're here to litigate this article word by word.
I answered their objections, as I did the WP:DYK editors who mistakenly thought it was slang. Slang isn't allowed, but American English is. Can you point out what problem you're solving? Can you explain why nobody has complained in six years? Why none of the FAs and GAs have this issue? It doesn't add up. There must be some other reason for the sudden need to change from American English to, um, an incorrect, unsourced superlative. You're really violating verifiability by touting "success" when all our sources say is "winningest". Are you going to go "improve" those FAs and GAs too? Or is it only this one instance that you think is causing harm? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I guess no one complained, because this is a minor article that isn't visited that often. The problem I'm solving, has already been explained. I see no need to repeat myself. And yes it is sourced, correctly. If you have anything new to add, that I feel I should address, I will do so here, otherwise, please refer to my previous comments on this talk page. I have no interest in repeating myself, going round in circles or interacting with you, anymore than is necessary. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- So: no evidence of a problem. No evidence that non-US speakers can't understand it. You don't care that many other highly regarded Misplaced Pages articles use this exact word in the same way. You're only here because for some reason you homed in on this one particular article and suddenly felt that you HAD to remove a particular set of photographs, out of a dozen, and you had to change a particular word on this one article.
And you don't indeed to address these objections. I don't think you've given any reason to respect your "improvements". It should be revered to the stable version. Please stop edit warring over nationalistic language, per WP:RETAIN. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- So: no evidence of a problem. No evidence that non-US speakers can't understand it. You don't care that many other highly regarded Misplaced Pages articles use this exact word in the same way. You're only here because for some reason you homed in on this one particular article and suddenly felt that you HAD to remove a particular set of photographs, out of a dozen, and you had to change a particular word on this one article.
- I guess no one complained, because this is a minor article that isn't visited that often. The problem I'm solving, has already been explained. I see no need to repeat myself. And yes it is sourced, correctly. If you have anything new to add, that I feel I should address, I will do so here, otherwise, please refer to my previous comments on this talk page. I have no interest in repeating myself, going round in circles or interacting with you, anymore than is necessary. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Spacecowboy420, please do not violate WP:3RR. Leave the article at the stable version and seek dispute resolution if you think there's a need for other editors to involve themselves in getting rid of US English from articles. Consensus is nobody wants to switch between national varieties of English, or waste time talking about it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- The word winningest proper or not does look improper and sound like a child would have wrote it. Most successful looks and sound better and I believe it conveys the information better. Don't understand why would anyone have a problem with this minor change. 72bikers (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- (Copied from my contrib to the protection request discussion) It's not an ENGVAR (nationality) issue. It's a formality issue. The American Heritage Dictionary , Oxford dictionaries , and dictionary.com all show "winningest" as "informal". And, Dennis, you are incorrect in your assertion that there is nothing in PAG that precludes such style. Per WP:TONE, "Misplaced Pages articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone." Per dictionary references, "Winningest" is not formal. That other articles here use it is an other stuff exists argument, possibly the most derided argument on Misplaced Pages. The correct action in this case is to remove the word from the other articles unless they're using it in direct quotes. As for this article, "most successful" is a perfectly fine wording. Jeh (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Winningest" is a word belonging in an advertising slogan or nonsense song. Not a reference work. This deserves an entry in WP:LAME. --Pete (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- The word winningest proper or not does look improper and sound like a child would have wrote it. Most successful looks and sound better and I believe it conveys the information better. Don't understand why would anyone have a problem with this minor change. 72bikers (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- No comment on word choice as protecting admin, except that I agree this deserves to go on Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars. Deryck C. 20:09, 8 January 2016
- I'm really dismayed at the deeper issues here. I thought we recognized that a word is American, and not UK, English, because dictionaries tell us so. Not because a couple editors say, "Well, I'm American and I don't like it." I thought we used FAs and GAs as a guide to what good writing is; WP:Writing better articles is just an essay but FAs and GAs are the result of serious work and strong consensus among veteran editors, and the language is fully in context. But no? Just toss that away with WP:OSE? It's really hard to believe that's how we want to do things.
But it's time for me to quit here. I can see that it's not going to get any better any time soon. Maybe these language issues can be discussed later under better circumstances. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm really dismayed at the deeper issues here. I thought we recognized that a word is American, and not UK, English, because dictionaries tell us so. Not because a couple editors say, "Well, I'm American and I don't like it." I thought we used FAs and GAs as a guide to what good writing is; WP:Writing better articles is just an essay but FAs and GAs are the result of serious work and strong consensus among veteran editors, and the language is fully in context. But no? Just toss that away with WP:OSE? It's really hard to believe that's how we want to do things.
Proposed wording change
I think that the 2-3 editors involved in the content issue would be satisfied by changing "The XR-750 went on to become the most successful race bike in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing" to "The XR-750 went on to win more races than any other bike in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing." It is precise about what was accomplished, while avoiding the controversial term "winningest". Brianhe (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- No that does not look or sound better than most successful. Are you just trying to add the word win? Why dumb it down and use 5 word to take the place of two precise words. Why is there even a need to compromise on such a trivial matter. Its done its over move on. Is this about one editor that has to be right about every single thing? This deserves an entry in WP:LAME. --72bikers (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
it looks good now. compromise is nice but only when 2 people have a valid point. no reason to change it most successful is damn clear. Zachlita (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- So 72bikers and Zachlita you are basically rejecting an overture to change the wording in any way? You've preemptively decided that any other wording is not "valid" or "dumb down"? You're putting all the other people who would like to discuss this in a difficult position, if your stance from the get-go is unwillingness to come to any compromises. – Brianhe (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
if there is an improvement of course it should be considered. but why bother if it isnt gonna be an improvement? Zachlita (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why bother indeed? You seem to have nothing better to do than to spend literally all of your time on minor edit disputes like this. If you think there's more important work to do, why aren't you doing it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you feel the need to berate or harass editors that disagree with you? Is this your way of just getting what you want when consensus is against you? Why is there a need to change most successful. You have never even given a valid reason for making a change to this wording. if that was done then editors would consider the change. but really is this not such a trivial matter just seems like arguing just to argue. 72bikers (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's not berating or harassing to point out your argument "but why bother if it isnt gonna be an improvement" is fallacious: Brian is offering a compromise that bridges the difference between editors. It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable to enough to win consensus and allow us to move on to other matters. Yet you two guys, who follow Spacecowboy420 around as he follows me around, insert yourself in to a topic you had never cared about before, and it's only for the purpose of stonewalling. Refusing to accept any compromise. And this is after I had already announced I would drop it. You have nothing better to do than stalk me and stonewall everything I do. Even when I've given up! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't follow anyone and take offense to your personal attack on me sir. It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptablethis is your idea of a better encyclopedia really? Why do you feel like you have to win every battle why must it even be a battle. You have never even given a valid reason for making a change to this wording. 72bikers (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you feel the need to berate or harass editors that disagree with you? Is this your way of just getting what you want when consensus is against you? Why is there a need to change most successful. You have never even given a valid reason for making a change to this wording. if that was done then editors would consider the change. but really is this not such a trivial matter just seems like arguing just to argue. 72bikers (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)