![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Harley-Davidson XR-750 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 July 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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 As explained in the article, one of the reasons Class C rules' outdated OHV/sidevalve split finally had to go was because it was economically unviable for the British marques to attempt to sell 200 homologated copies a year of a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)
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))
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 Wikipedia 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
Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
The problem with "most successful" is that it's ambiguous, since "most successful" can, in general, be defined along many metrics: most sold, most manufactured, greatest market share, and, yes, greatest number of races won using the bike. "Winningest" works along one metric -- or two, if one is being deliberately obtuse as to what "winning" means in context of a racing bike. So why not pick a perfectly standard word that avoids ANY ambiguity?
And contrary to Skyring's fake usage claims, "winningest" is a perfectly standard word:
Hopefully that will satisfy all parties, have zero ambiguity, being universally understood, have the correct tone for an encyclopedia and be succinct. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 08:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
One final fact to cite: WP:FORMAL is only an essay, not policy, and not even a guideline, which means that "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established." The bald assertion that formal English is mandatory on Wikipedia is as false as the other uncited, made-up assertions that the meatpuppet group is claiming.
There is greater consensus for "winningest", per WP:MEAT, and those suggesting a change have cited absolutely nothing to counter the large number of citations given to support keeping "winningest". -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
|
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles. Until consensus is reached, articles should be reverted to the previous stable version, per the policy WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Considering the version that used "winningest" was reverted by some many people, so many times - it's not what I would call stable. Oh and the editor who was responsible for "returning the article to the pre-dispute status quo to resolve a content dispute" is a known troublemaker [28], so I don't really consider his edits to be a major factor in this dispute. I suggest that we leave it as it is, until things are a little more clear. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 10:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In the "did you know" column, it stated "... that Evel Knievel's preferred stunt bike, the Harley-Davidson XR-750 (pictured), has won the most AMA Races?" - that seems pretty unambiguous, while avoiding the term "winningest" - it shows that we do have options in our wording. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 08:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It's ugly and lazy. Please don't.
This looks nicer.
![]() |
than this
Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 10:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
What we have here is an article with a significant amount of its text devoted to a physical description of the parts of the motorycle, the details of its components. What goes with that? Detailed images of those components. See WP:PERTINENCE, for example, "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Or see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images_to_articles: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." The formatting is the best approximation of the rules in WP:IMGLOC given the limitations we have to work with. If I had more images showing the details of the components of the early versions I'd include those to to show the changes over time. The article covers these details because that's what reliable sources have to say about this subject, and I write what the sources give me, not what I like and don't like. The picture of a rear disc brake and cast wheels on the recent model? That matters because the early ones had drums and wire wheels.
Please stop Wikihounding me, and stop disruptively removing content from articles for invalid, made-up reasons. This is not about your personal opinions. We are building an encyclopedia based on verifiable sources, and following guidelines and policies. There are millions of articles you could be improving now, instead of devoting all of your time using Wikipedia as a battleground for your personal grudges against individual editors. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The Editor Interaction Utility shows the near-100% consistency between 72bkers and Spacecowboy420. The only thing 72bikers does is track edits and jump in with "me too" vote stacking. It's clear evidence of meat puppetry and Wikihounding. They should be treated as a single editor, per policy. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
There are more than five million other articles on Wikipedia you could be doing something to improve. But this is the only thing you care about: following me around spewing absurdities. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Please let it go. Please find a new obsession. Do you know there's actual work to be done? Look: Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/to do. Requested articles? We have them! Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Motorcycles. High-traffic articles with only Start or C grades? Yes! Many! Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Popular pages. You could be helping instead of bickering over nothing. It would also be a good way to show that you are not Spacecowboy420's yes-man, forever tracking his edits, yapping at his heels barking "me too! me too!" If you're not a meat puppet, stop acting like one. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or not? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
dont edit war and then complain about me Zachlita ( talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, may I say that I have no technical or specialist knowledge to contribute to this article. (I arrived at this article after reading the heading "Opinions requested" here.)
Although I overwhelmingly use a small notebook PC for editing, my understanding is that a large (and increasing) number of our users are viewing the English Wikipedia on, relatively small, smartphone screens.
I've just tried looking at this article with 2 borrowed Android handys - an LG and a Samsung. With both, there is the same identical problem, a gallery (of separate and disparate) images seems to be treated as a single page element and is reduced to minute and illegible proportions in portrait orientation of the phone (and, to a lesser extent, when held in landscape orientation). Since many users are even more reluctant to "click thru" to a larger view when using mobiles, I think this is a good and sufficient reason for deprecating the use of galleries in most articles in general and this one in particular. (There may, of course, be other reasons for deprecating the use of galleries...) BushelCandle ( talk) 22:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
That said, the Desktop View of this page looks just fine on my iPhone 4S, which has a smaller screen that the latest phones. The Mobile View looks just fine too: it automatically takes the horizontal row of 4 images and stacks them vertically below the last paragraph of the Development section, and before the XRTT road racer section. How is that a problem? And even if it were a problem, what on Earth could be done? You can't realistically expect every article to render flawlessly on every size display. If you think these images are a problem, just try to view Tomorrows Featured Article 1804 dollar on your phone. Same display snags, though in truth, phone browsers an cope. Other FAs like John Michael Wright or El Greco take horizontal groups of images and re-align them vertically on your phone.
I can certainly add captions to the photos. If a greater text-to-image rato would help formatting, I can drastically expand this article. I have a 4 page book chapter by Kevin Cameron just about the XR-750 engine technology, and 170+ page book by Alan Girdler entirely devoted to the XR-750. So if there's too many images and not enough text, those things are surmountable. In what possible universe is deleting the "excess" images from this article a time-sensitive issue? I find that removing controversial content from BLPs to be like pulling teeth, while minor content questions about obscure technical articles suddenly become deletionists' most urgent priority.
Or it could be my iPhone's fault. I have never tried an Android device -- as a mindless slave to the Apple cult I've only ever heard that Android sucks, but is it true it sucks that much? Can't even read Wikipedia? Wow. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
You obviously have a huge personal problem with me. Get your ass over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and go to town. Let it all out. Go spill your guts in the appropriate forum. Nobody wants to read your incessant personal whining on article talk pages. Please can the crap and do something productive. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In my recent edit I have kept all the existing photos but moved four of them from a gallery to thumbnails in the default size and position so as to display better for Android users. I've added captions and also added alt text for the sight impaired. I know that Dennis has spent a great deal of time and effort in both taking photographs and improving automotive articles and their sources and with my huge ignorance of this subject I should be the last to be removing images. I'm glad that there is more material available to expand this article so that, when using large screens, there won't be too much 'white space'. I do hope we can all work together in a more collegiate atmosphere and recognise that we all have perspectives to contribute notwithstanding how passionate we may feel about particular issues and article versions. I certainly don't feel that enthusiasm and passion and specialist knowledge about a topic (even if coupled with a certain forceful or florid style of argumentation) should warrant personal attacks (or retaliatory accusations). However difficult it may sometimes become, let's try to heroically assume that all contributors are here to make a better encyclopedia... BushelCandle ( talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Or fiddle with the parameters if you like. Johnbod ( talk) 05:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Moxy ( talk) 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
How come this gallery is stacked vertically by Chrome on iOS but not Chrome on Android? What is Android doing to the galleries? What about the various Wikipedia viewing apps? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not just stick with Wikipedia's uniform set of style guidelines build over the last 15 years, including how we traditionally use galleries, and let platform developers hit that target, as iOS has done? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
better?
So you won't accept any compromise. Most victorious. Most successful. Win the most races. Whatever people suggest, you ignore and only accept your version. You don't understand that Wikipedia is about working with other editors and consensus is based on compromise. Start compromising and working with other editors please, because your edits are making problems for everyone. Zachlita ( talk) 17:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
What to do? Patiently wait for the MOS discussion to find its end (it takes a while, because Wikipedia) and go find something else to do. Look at all the motorcycling articles I suggested above need attention. You're faced with lots of other important tasks, no urgent need to do anything about Harley-Davidson XR-750, a discussion elsewhere to resolve the problem, and a history of Wikihounding and warnings to stop meat puppetry and vote stacking. All that adds up to this: go do something else if you're really here to build an encyclopedia. The more you focus on hounding me, the more you prove that you're puppets who use Wikipedia as a battleground. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you know we don't even have an article on the Harley-Davidson KR? You're spending you whole life on this one thing when there is so much more you could do. It looks an awful lot like you're not here to build an encyclopedia. You're here to fight battles in concert with a closely-coordinated group of puppets. You could make it looks different by contributing something other than hot air. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop Wikihounding me [29] [30] [31] [32] and maybe you would encounter less suspicion and hostility. See right here where you deleted several paragraphs of well-cited content that had been stable for five years, all because you were tracking my edits? And you used the decidedly contemptuous and hostile edit summary "blahblahblah aint needed. Its a concept bike"? That kind of thing instigates a "less than open or friendly attitude". You've been doing it for weeks, like when you followed me to Honda SS125A, and today when you followed me to Motorcycle. If you are not a meat puppet of Spacecowboy420, an SPA whose only role is Wikihounding, then stop acting like it. Whether you consciously intend it or not, you behavior is identical to someone who should be indefinitely blocked from editing. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what forum shopping or canvassing you're referring to. I didn't start the discussion or any of the polls at the MOS. I didn't search Wikipedia for every instance of winningest and change it -- Skyring did that, and got a 60 hour block for it. You should take a lesson from that and pull back, per WP:NOCONSENSUS. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think going back to using the word winningest, makes as much sense (ie none) as trying to persuade all editors that we should use victorious or successful. I'm willing to accept the version as it stands, I can't speak for others. I'm not sure on 72Bikers' opinion regarding the current wording, but the current version using "win the most races" was the result of Zachlita's edit, I think. So, I'm guessing that they won't mind. At the end of the day, if there is one version that seems acceptable to most editors, I think that will have to do as regards to gaining consensus, there is never going to be a version that is accepted by all, unless we all open our minds and accept the need to meet people somewhere in the middle. The current version is not what I wanted. It is not what Dennis wanted either. But, I am trying to show that I will compromise and accept a version that I'm not 100% happy with. I wonder if Dennis can be the bigger man and do the same? I hope so, it would go a long way towards restoring a lot of the good faith that has been lost. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 07:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I like this wording very much. Not only does it avoid "winningest", it is far more precise in its meaning. There is no doubt or ambiguity. Even if everyone considered "winningest" to be a perfectly fine word (and I do not mean to re-raise that argument here!), this wording would be an improvement for that reason. btw, I would prefer to add "of any bike" after "races", but it's fine without that too. Jeh ( talk) 21:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harley-Davidson XR-750. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This problem with the infobox has been around for several years. I'd like a technical solution that lets you page horizontally through different specs in one lead infobox, but nobody has suggested they even know how that would work. Until then, we've been using multiple infoboxes below the lead, as in Honda CB900F, or in Suzuki Hayabusa and Honda CBR250R/CBR300R, where one rump inofox only has bare data, and two complete infobxoes appear below. This works, but requires even more wasted space and redundancy. It makes it look like we're in the infobox business, not building an encyclopedia. Doing it like KTM 390 series is less than ideal -- it implies the one in the first infobox is the article subject, and the second one is what? Not clear. Yes, the second is a derivative of the first. When the lead infobox doesn't match the article title, it's confusing and looks broken.
Do we want to encourage creating separate articles for every cosmetic variation and badge-engineered sub-model? No, definitely not. Even with significant mechanical differences, we shouldn't create separate articles unless we have significant amounts of text to justify it. For many mass-produced products, especially cameras, cars, and motorcycles, we have article content that exists to support stat blocks. That's backwards; infoboxes are supplements to text.
One thing we know for sure is that there is no "normal" because the problem remains unsolved. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The first picture in the Article "number 16" the motorcycle is barely visible, and it is not the first bike in the picture. There are so many racing picture where every bike is an XR-750. XR-750 has two features that make them easy to spot - left side dual high pipes, or right side dual carburetors. I don't have any personal pictures that I can upload for use with the photo policy but if you contact flattrakfotos.com (professional flat track photographer) and ask for a starting line picture circa 2000 every motorcycle will be an XR-750. [33] https://stusshots.blogspot.com/2012/09/stus-shots-ama-pro-flat-track-take.html [34] https://www.mcnews.com.au/harley-davidson-xr750-history/ Randy68r ( talk) 04:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Harley-Davidson XR-750 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 July 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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)
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))
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 Wikipedia 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
Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
The problem with "most successful" is that it's ambiguous, since "most successful" can, in general, be defined along many metrics: most sold, most manufactured, greatest market share, and, yes, greatest number of races won using the bike. "Winningest" works along one metric -- or two, if one is being deliberately obtuse as to what "winning" means in context of a racing bike. So why not pick a perfectly standard word that avoids ANY ambiguity?
And contrary to Skyring's fake usage claims, "winningest" is a perfectly standard word:
Hopefully that will satisfy all parties, have zero ambiguity, being universally understood, have the correct tone for an encyclopedia and be succinct. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 08:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
One final fact to cite: WP:FORMAL is only an essay, not policy, and not even a guideline, which means that "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established." The bald assertion that formal English is mandatory on Wikipedia is as false as the other uncited, made-up assertions that the meatpuppet group is claiming.
There is greater consensus for "winningest", per WP:MEAT, and those suggesting a change have cited absolutely nothing to counter the large number of citations given to support keeping "winningest". -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
|
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles. Until consensus is reached, articles should be reverted to the previous stable version, per the policy WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Considering the version that used "winningest" was reverted by some many people, so many times - it's not what I would call stable. Oh and the editor who was responsible for "returning the article to the pre-dispute status quo to resolve a content dispute" is a known troublemaker [28], so I don't really consider his edits to be a major factor in this dispute. I suggest that we leave it as it is, until things are a little more clear. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 10:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In the "did you know" column, it stated "... that Evel Knievel's preferred stunt bike, the Harley-Davidson XR-750 (pictured), has won the most AMA Races?" - that seems pretty unambiguous, while avoiding the term "winningest" - it shows that we do have options in our wording. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 08:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It's ugly and lazy. Please don't.
This looks nicer.
![]() |
than this
Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 10:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
What we have here is an article with a significant amount of its text devoted to a physical description of the parts of the motorycle, the details of its components. What goes with that? Detailed images of those components. See WP:PERTINENCE, for example, "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Or see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images_to_articles: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." The formatting is the best approximation of the rules in WP:IMGLOC given the limitations we have to work with. If I had more images showing the details of the components of the early versions I'd include those to to show the changes over time. The article covers these details because that's what reliable sources have to say about this subject, and I write what the sources give me, not what I like and don't like. The picture of a rear disc brake and cast wheels on the recent model? That matters because the early ones had drums and wire wheels.
Please stop Wikihounding me, and stop disruptively removing content from articles for invalid, made-up reasons. This is not about your personal opinions. We are building an encyclopedia based on verifiable sources, and following guidelines and policies. There are millions of articles you could be improving now, instead of devoting all of your time using Wikipedia as a battleground for your personal grudges against individual editors. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The Editor Interaction Utility shows the near-100% consistency between 72bkers and Spacecowboy420. The only thing 72bikers does is track edits and jump in with "me too" vote stacking. It's clear evidence of meat puppetry and Wikihounding. They should be treated as a single editor, per policy. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
There are more than five million other articles on Wikipedia you could be doing something to improve. But this is the only thing you care about: following me around spewing absurdities. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Please let it go. Please find a new obsession. Do you know there's actual work to be done? Look: Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/to do. Requested articles? We have them! Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Motorcycles. High-traffic articles with only Start or C grades? Yes! Many! Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Popular pages. You could be helping instead of bickering over nothing. It would also be a good way to show that you are not Spacecowboy420's yes-man, forever tracking his edits, yapping at his heels barking "me too! me too!" If you're not a meat puppet, stop acting like one. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or not? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
dont edit war and then complain about me Zachlita ( talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, may I say that I have no technical or specialist knowledge to contribute to this article. (I arrived at this article after reading the heading "Opinions requested" here.)
Although I overwhelmingly use a small notebook PC for editing, my understanding is that a large (and increasing) number of our users are viewing the English Wikipedia on, relatively small, smartphone screens.
I've just tried looking at this article with 2 borrowed Android handys - an LG and a Samsung. With both, there is the same identical problem, a gallery (of separate and disparate) images seems to be treated as a single page element and is reduced to minute and illegible proportions in portrait orientation of the phone (and, to a lesser extent, when held in landscape orientation). Since many users are even more reluctant to "click thru" to a larger view when using mobiles, I think this is a good and sufficient reason for deprecating the use of galleries in most articles in general and this one in particular. (There may, of course, be other reasons for deprecating the use of galleries...) BushelCandle ( talk) 22:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
That said, the Desktop View of this page looks just fine on my iPhone 4S, which has a smaller screen that the latest phones. The Mobile View looks just fine too: it automatically takes the horizontal row of 4 images and stacks them vertically below the last paragraph of the Development section, and before the XRTT road racer section. How is that a problem? And even if it were a problem, what on Earth could be done? You can't realistically expect every article to render flawlessly on every size display. If you think these images are a problem, just try to view Tomorrows Featured Article 1804 dollar on your phone. Same display snags, though in truth, phone browsers an cope. Other FAs like John Michael Wright or El Greco take horizontal groups of images and re-align them vertically on your phone.
I can certainly add captions to the photos. If a greater text-to-image rato would help formatting, I can drastically expand this article. I have a 4 page book chapter by Kevin Cameron just about the XR-750 engine technology, and 170+ page book by Alan Girdler entirely devoted to the XR-750. So if there's too many images and not enough text, those things are surmountable. In what possible universe is deleting the "excess" images from this article a time-sensitive issue? I find that removing controversial content from BLPs to be like pulling teeth, while minor content questions about obscure technical articles suddenly become deletionists' most urgent priority.
Or it could be my iPhone's fault. I have never tried an Android device -- as a mindless slave to the Apple cult I've only ever heard that Android sucks, but is it true it sucks that much? Can't even read Wikipedia? Wow. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
You obviously have a huge personal problem with me. Get your ass over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and go to town. Let it all out. Go spill your guts in the appropriate forum. Nobody wants to read your incessant personal whining on article talk pages. Please can the crap and do something productive. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In my recent edit I have kept all the existing photos but moved four of them from a gallery to thumbnails in the default size and position so as to display better for Android users. I've added captions and also added alt text for the sight impaired. I know that Dennis has spent a great deal of time and effort in both taking photographs and improving automotive articles and their sources and with my huge ignorance of this subject I should be the last to be removing images. I'm glad that there is more material available to expand this article so that, when using large screens, there won't be too much 'white space'. I do hope we can all work together in a more collegiate atmosphere and recognise that we all have perspectives to contribute notwithstanding how passionate we may feel about particular issues and article versions. I certainly don't feel that enthusiasm and passion and specialist knowledge about a topic (even if coupled with a certain forceful or florid style of argumentation) should warrant personal attacks (or retaliatory accusations). However difficult it may sometimes become, let's try to heroically assume that all contributors are here to make a better encyclopedia... BushelCandle ( talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Or fiddle with the parameters if you like. Johnbod ( talk) 05:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Moxy ( talk) 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
How come this gallery is stacked vertically by Chrome on iOS but not Chrome on Android? What is Android doing to the galleries? What about the various Wikipedia viewing apps? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not just stick with Wikipedia's uniform set of style guidelines build over the last 15 years, including how we traditionally use galleries, and let platform developers hit that target, as iOS has done? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
better?
So you won't accept any compromise. Most victorious. Most successful. Win the most races. Whatever people suggest, you ignore and only accept your version. You don't understand that Wikipedia is about working with other editors and consensus is based on compromise. Start compromising and working with other editors please, because your edits are making problems for everyone. Zachlita ( talk) 17:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
What to do? Patiently wait for the MOS discussion to find its end (it takes a while, because Wikipedia) and go find something else to do. Look at all the motorcycling articles I suggested above need attention. You're faced with lots of other important tasks, no urgent need to do anything about Harley-Davidson XR-750, a discussion elsewhere to resolve the problem, and a history of Wikihounding and warnings to stop meat puppetry and vote stacking. All that adds up to this: go do something else if you're really here to build an encyclopedia. The more you focus on hounding me, the more you prove that you're puppets who use Wikipedia as a battleground. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you know we don't even have an article on the Harley-Davidson KR? You're spending you whole life on this one thing when there is so much more you could do. It looks an awful lot like you're not here to build an encyclopedia. You're here to fight battles in concert with a closely-coordinated group of puppets. You could make it looks different by contributing something other than hot air. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop Wikihounding me [29] [30] [31] [32] and maybe you would encounter less suspicion and hostility. See right here where you deleted several paragraphs of well-cited content that had been stable for five years, all because you were tracking my edits? And you used the decidedly contemptuous and hostile edit summary "blahblahblah aint needed. Its a concept bike"? That kind of thing instigates a "less than open or friendly attitude". You've been doing it for weeks, like when you followed me to Honda SS125A, and today when you followed me to Motorcycle. If you are not a meat puppet of Spacecowboy420, an SPA whose only role is Wikihounding, then stop acting like it. Whether you consciously intend it or not, you behavior is identical to someone who should be indefinitely blocked from editing. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what forum shopping or canvassing you're referring to. I didn't start the discussion or any of the polls at the MOS. I didn't search Wikipedia for every instance of winningest and change it -- Skyring did that, and got a 60 hour block for it. You should take a lesson from that and pull back, per WP:NOCONSENSUS. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think going back to using the word winningest, makes as much sense (ie none) as trying to persuade all editors that we should use victorious or successful. I'm willing to accept the version as it stands, I can't speak for others. I'm not sure on 72Bikers' opinion regarding the current wording, but the current version using "win the most races" was the result of Zachlita's edit, I think. So, I'm guessing that they won't mind. At the end of the day, if there is one version that seems acceptable to most editors, I think that will have to do as regards to gaining consensus, there is never going to be a version that is accepted by all, unless we all open our minds and accept the need to meet people somewhere in the middle. The current version is not what I wanted. It is not what Dennis wanted either. But, I am trying to show that I will compromise and accept a version that I'm not 100% happy with. I wonder if Dennis can be the bigger man and do the same? I hope so, it would go a long way towards restoring a lot of the good faith that has been lost. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 07:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I like this wording very much. Not only does it avoid "winningest", it is far more precise in its meaning. There is no doubt or ambiguity. Even if everyone considered "winningest" to be a perfectly fine word (and I do not mean to re-raise that argument here!), this wording would be an improvement for that reason. btw, I would prefer to add "of any bike" after "races", but it's fine without that too. Jeh ( talk) 21:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harley-Davidson XR-750. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This problem with the infobox has been around for several years. I'd like a technical solution that lets you page horizontally through different specs in one lead infobox, but nobody has suggested they even know how that would work. Until then, we've been using multiple infoboxes below the lead, as in Honda CB900F, or in Suzuki Hayabusa and Honda CBR250R/CBR300R, where one rump inofox only has bare data, and two complete infobxoes appear below. This works, but requires even more wasted space and redundancy. It makes it look like we're in the infobox business, not building an encyclopedia. Doing it like KTM 390 series is less than ideal -- it implies the one in the first infobox is the article subject, and the second one is what? Not clear. Yes, the second is a derivative of the first. When the lead infobox doesn't match the article title, it's confusing and looks broken.
Do we want to encourage creating separate articles for every cosmetic variation and badge-engineered sub-model? No, definitely not. Even with significant mechanical differences, we shouldn't create separate articles unless we have significant amounts of text to justify it. For many mass-produced products, especially cameras, cars, and motorcycles, we have article content that exists to support stat blocks. That's backwards; infoboxes are supplements to text.
One thing we know for sure is that there is no "normal" because the problem remains unsolved. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The first picture in the Article "number 16" the motorcycle is barely visible, and it is not the first bike in the picture. There are so many racing picture where every bike is an XR-750. XR-750 has two features that make them easy to spot - left side dual high pipes, or right side dual carburetors. I don't have any personal pictures that I can upload for use with the photo policy but if you contact flattrakfotos.com (professional flat track photographer) and ask for a starting line picture circa 2000 every motorcycle will be an XR-750. [33] https://stusshots.blogspot.com/2012/09/stus-shots-ama-pro-flat-track-take.html [34] https://www.mcnews.com.au/harley-davidson-xr750-history/ Randy68r ( talk) 04:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)