![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2014. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the deletion debate, the possibility of renaming this article was raised. Jargon#Examples might be a good place to look for ideas. I kind of like Motorcycling jargon. — Brianhe ( talk) 05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not necessary. If someone wants to try their luck with a dubious, crowdsourced definition, Urban Dictionary is right there for them. Or Reddit. Or any number of other sources. It's not Wikipedia's job to be all things to all people, and when it comes to these slang terms, it's not a job for Wikipedia because the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy excludes all but maybe three of them.
Any objection to removing the unsourced or poorly sourced entries now? There's nothing keeping us from putting them back if sources are found, but every day they stay here another day of hoaxing defintions which we really don't know are correct or not. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It's really of no relevance whether other glossaries are unsourced. Generally, published books or dictionaries are credited to their author or publisher. Wikipedia is written anonymously, and rests entirely on its sources. Hence the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, which says under WP:BURDEN that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."
You could perhaps beg for more time to provide citations for some of the entries, but if your argument is that you're never going to cite it because it's not necessary, policy doesn't back you up. You could try to ignore Wikipedia policy, but most of the time, that fails spectacularly. "Policy" is another way of saying, "hundreds of thousands of editors agree". That's a lot of editors to contend with.
Keep in mind that there are many other places on the internet where people can find useful (but not very reliable) lists of motorcycling lingo. There is no compelling reasons why we must have these guesswork and speculative definitions, and regardless of how you or I feel about it, policy says delete it, either now, or soon. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do not accuse editors who want to remove unsourced material of having a "hangup" or being "righteous" or having "indignation" over it, or being "lame". Name calling and personal attacks are not acceptable, and if you continue you may be blocked from editing. You chose to re-start this discussion after it was idle or 10 months, and I treated you with basic respect, and engaged with you rather than simply nuking everything with a curt "see WP:V" edit summary. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2014. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the deletion debate, the possibility of renaming this article was raised. Jargon#Examples might be a good place to look for ideas. I kind of like Motorcycling jargon. — Brianhe ( talk) 05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not necessary. If someone wants to try their luck with a dubious, crowdsourced definition, Urban Dictionary is right there for them. Or Reddit. Or any number of other sources. It's not Wikipedia's job to be all things to all people, and when it comes to these slang terms, it's not a job for Wikipedia because the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy excludes all but maybe three of them.
Any objection to removing the unsourced or poorly sourced entries now? There's nothing keeping us from putting them back if sources are found, but every day they stay here another day of hoaxing defintions which we really don't know are correct or not. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It's really of no relevance whether other glossaries are unsourced. Generally, published books or dictionaries are credited to their author or publisher. Wikipedia is written anonymously, and rests entirely on its sources. Hence the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, which says under WP:BURDEN that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."
You could perhaps beg for more time to provide citations for some of the entries, but if your argument is that you're never going to cite it because it's not necessary, policy doesn't back you up. You could try to ignore Wikipedia policy, but most of the time, that fails spectacularly. "Policy" is another way of saying, "hundreds of thousands of editors agree". That's a lot of editors to contend with.
Keep in mind that there are many other places on the internet where people can find useful (but not very reliable) lists of motorcycling lingo. There is no compelling reasons why we must have these guesswork and speculative definitions, and regardless of how you or I feel about it, policy says delete it, either now, or soon. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do not accuse editors who want to remove unsourced material of having a "hangup" or being "righteous" or having "indignation" over it, or being "lame". Name calling and personal attacks are not acceptable, and if you continue you may be blocked from editing. You chose to re-start this discussion after it was idle or 10 months, and I treated you with basic respect, and engaged with you rather than simply nuking everything with a curt "see WP:V" edit summary. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)