Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750

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 As explained in the article, one of the reasons Class C rules' outdated OHV/sidevalve split finally had to go was because it was economically unviable for the British marques to attempt to sell 200 homologated copies a year of a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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors, and the use of winningest was deemed acceptable:

Featured Articles

• 2005 ACC Championship Game
• 2008 Orange Bowl
• Roberto Luongo

Featured Lists

• List of Tennessee Titans head coaches
• List of Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons
• List of Maryland Terrapins football honorees

Good Articles

• Brad Stevens
• James Naismith
• Sherron Collins
• Maryland Terrapins football under Jim Tatum (1947–1955)
• Clark Shaughnessy
• Steve Morrison (American football)
• Colt McCoy
• Bud Grant
• Mark Vlasic

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 Wikipedia 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 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)

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 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

• 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 [23], Oxford dictionaries [24], and dictionary.com [25] 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, "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

• No comment on word choice as protecting admin, except that I agree this deserves to go on Wikipedia: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)

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[ed] 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)

I don't need to win here. I'm done here and I'm not supporting any outcome. I encourage you to seek consensus and collaborate, that's all. Maybe if somebody bedsides Brian makes a suggestion, you could accept it and not stonewall. Or you could put aside your animosity to Brian and try to meet him halfway. Or not. I'm done here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So if I disagree with someone on the fact that I feel there point is not valid I am just stonewalling. Then you leave threating messages on there talk page and take out complaints against them claiming there sock or meat puppets or trolling you or whatever else you have claimed. So your saying other that disagree with you only because of some personal dislike of you and not based on just there own personal opinion. And when you speak of consensus that only seem to work when its in your favor. Because if not you go round and round make all kind of claims and that editors are just stonewalling. I will not change my personal opinions or scare me away with threats from you left on my talk page sorry. So please stay off my talk page with uncivil and threating messages. 72bikers (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, please quit harassing other editors. WP:FOC. If your preferred word choice fails to win consensus, then making personal comments on those editors holding other views and attacking them on their talk pages is unlikely to change their minds. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to try very hard to make clear points, regarding my changing of winningest to most successful as this is something that requires a clear head, not emotional or personal comments.

I didn't change it because of any desire to change from US English to UK English. It's an article about a Harley, of course it should be based (where possible) on US English. If I had changed tire to tyre I would understand and agree with the edit being immediately reverted (and quite rightly so). However, most successful is a term that is equally understood by speakers of American and British English. (And Australian/NZ/Irish/etc).

I was trying to find a term that would be understood by all speakers of English, not just speakers of American English. I've previously encountered articles with a bias towards one variant of English, and I have dealt with those issues as per MOS:COMMONALITY that requires us to find a term common to as many variants of English as possible.

In addition to MOS:COMMONALITY, we are required to use a formal tone, as per WP:FORMAL - the word winningest is considered to be informal, and as such is not suitable unless being used in a direct quotation. When I looked at the source that the disputed wording is based on, it stated "Most successful race bike of all time." , so I saw no need for an informal term to be used.

Regarding the potential for confusion with the use of the term most successful in regards to a motorcycle, given the context of the previous sentences and that it is a race bike, it is very very clear that it is referring to success in races.

I have no objections to rewording the lead, if it results in an article improvement. I don't however see any improvement in the proposed changes given above, but of course that proposal is something we can deal with it succeeding or failing to gain consensus, and any new suggestions from any editor are very welcome. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The current wording looks fine to me. Clearly the term "most successful" is not referring to sales or anything else but racing. I don't think there's any potential for confusion here, unless we are aiming our article at people completely unfamiliar with motorcycles. --Pete (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

To you, perhaps, but then, you had the unambiguous term "winningest" to help you. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity

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:

• The Grammarist:

Most participial adjectives are made comparative and superlative with more and most. For example, we say more troubling and most sickening instead of troublinger and sickeningest. So, to many English-speakers, the superlative adjective winningest—meaning having the most wins—sounds wrong. And indeed some peevish grammarians hate the word. Yet despite the existence of grammatically unquestionable alternatives (most winning, best), winningest is deeply entrenched in sports commentary and is not going away any time soon. Those who dislike it might as well get used to it.

Google News searches show winningest has been common since the 1940s, and there are scattered examples from earlier. The word has always been confined mainly to American and Canadian publications. (This is also confirmed by Google Ngram)

• My copy of the OED 2nd Edition -- while it doesn't have usage notes -- uses "winningest" in three of their example quotes for the "winning" entry. So the OED editors don't have a problem with it, either.--Calton | Talk 06:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

replaced successful with victorious

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)

I concur. "Most successful", while having the right tone for an encyclopaedia, could mean "best-selling" or some other measure of success. "Victorious" deals with victories. --Pete (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes that does look and sound better a perfect choice of words. there is no mistake as to what it is referencing. 72bikers (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that Spacecowboy420, Zachlita, 72bikers and Skyring have been operating as a vote-stacking team, on Talk:Dodge Tomahawk, and on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and (without Skyring) on Talk:List of fastest production cars and Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles and now here, they should be treated as a single editor, as explained in WP:MEAT: "for the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." So we have me, Brianhe, and Calton who do not support this change, while a "single editor", the meatpuppet group, who is pursuing this change here, and on a few dozen other articles. Note also that Calton and I, as well as Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and others, have actually cited sources which explode the false claims that the word is "nonsense" or "not a word", or is a neologism (it's 200+ years old), or that it is anything other than American English subject to WP:ENGVAR. The meatpuppet group has not cited a single source. They simply assert their opinion about what they like and don't like. The current argument, that "victorious" somehow contains nuances or specificity that is not contained in "winningist" is based again on the "because I said so" argument. For example, neither victorious nor winningest contains any indication of whether greatest win/loss percentage, or most absolute number of wins, is meant. "Most victorious" is more words, but otherwise doesn't tell us anything.

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)

Bwahahahaha! Meatpuppets! --Pete (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL: "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you admit it, Dennis. Don't do it again, hey? --Pete (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Please stop filling discussions with long, off-topic personal remarks and deliberate provocations. User talk:Skyring would be the appropriate venue to discuss your habit of baiting others, but you've insisted it can't be discussed there, and has to be on article talk pages. Do you have any facts or citations (not mere opinions) that editors who are interested in this article would actually want to read? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL! PKB, Bro! --Pete (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• At this point is it even about the validity of winningest or witch word better informs and educates the reader. Just like the fact that the word encyclopedia comes from the greeks. How do they express wining victory as in the greek goddess of victory nike. And are they not the first creators of sport as in the olympics. They also did not name a shoe after winning its nike victory .So how is winningest a better choice over victorious. 72bikers (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Also dennis by making unsupported claims that people are sock or meat is a personal attack of witch you know is not allowed. You presume to make up rules as you go as if a effort to get rid of editors that do not share your views. Shame sir shame on you. 72bikers (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• How do you presume that the word is 200 plus years old because it is a American word and just going by the age of America? merriam-webster.com/dictionary states first known use is 1972. It also seems most online discussion of this word say horrible lazy word. Or just debating the even validity of the word. Just to let you know calling editors meatpuppet group is a personal attack on a grand scale. Is that really how you choose to make your point by trying to belittle others? 72bikers (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone point out any problems with the current version using the word victorious ? Is it misleading? Are there NPOV issues? the wrong tone for an encyclopedia?

I really tried to find a term that would address the possible issues with the use of both winningest and most successful , so I'm really curious what benefits could enjoyed be by removing victorious Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Dennis, I'm curious when " Spacecowboy420, Zachlita, 72bikers and Skyring have been operating as a vote-stacking team, on Talk:Dodge Tomahawk, and on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and (without Skyring) on Talk:List of fastest production cars and Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles was happening. I edit List of fastest production cars and don't see any edits or talk page comments from any of the editors you listed, apart from myself, so when exactly did the vote stacking on that article happen? diffs please. On List of fastest production motorcycles I saw 72Bikers on the talk page, disagreeing with Zachlita's inclusion of the Ducati 1199 Panigale R, and then I reverted Zachlita's edit. Does disagreeing with alleged members of your own alleged vote stacking team, count as vote stacking? surely, if we wanted to vote stack, we would have been agreeing with Zachlita's edit and certainly not reverting it. It's kinda difficult to understand what your criteria is for a meatpuppet group you list editors that you claim support your content, does that count as a meatpuppet group? Or does the criteria to be called a meatpuppet group, only apply to editors who do not support your edits? If you could explain the difference, then I would be very happy. And please, don't you think there has been enough drama? Perhaps a better option for you, would be to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of off-topic talk here about votestacking, Xpuppetry etc. I'd like everyone's permission to collapse that part and minimally refactor their comments so we can concentrate on article content. – Brianhe (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. A lot of talk page space and editor time is being wasted on worthless accusations of puppetry, votestacking, etc. It's becoming a disruptive distraction from article content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: Thanks so much for your permission. @Dennis Bratland, 72bikers, and Skyring: would you care to follow suit? I think de-escalation is in everyone's best interest. – Brianhe (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No you should not touch the page as it stand. I feel the only person to be off topic or to make personal attacks is dennis. And that should stand so that the world can see how he misbehaves. I repeat do not delete his comments. Also I do not feel you to be impartial because you are dennis close friend. So I feel anything you do here would be to just cover up his behavior. 72bikers (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Winningest in sports articles under 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)

The current version is stable, with consensus based on talk page discussion. The version of the article with winningest was obviously not stable, neither did it have consensus. This is obvious due to the number of reverts and the lengthy discussions on the matter. A stable article wouldn't have been the subject of an edit war, neither would it have had an overwhelming majority of editors wanting to change it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 you can't be serious. Let's see how many edits there were to this article in 2014: seven. In 2015: five. Suddenly something started happening in January 2016 with an uninvolved third party explicitly returning the article to the pre-dispute status quo to resolve a content dispute. A little while later it was protected by an admin per content dispute [26]. After the expiration of the page protection the article immediately started flapping at least four times between 12 January and 18 January. There is no way under the sun you can say in good faith that the current version is stable. The stable version at the end of 2015 did say "winningest" [27], as it had since mid-2011. – Brianhe (talk) 09:55, 18 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)

What you just said is the exact opposite of policy: WP:NOCONSENSUS says it should revert to the stable version. There isn't wiggle-room written into the policy for you to make up reasons to keep your preferred version, like that you think that WP:AGF doesn't apply to a particular editor. The policy is telling you exactly what to do: "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." This is not a complicated or confusing question. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering whether ongoing edit warring when the subject is under discussion is OK or not, please note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Skyring reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked 60 hours) for continuing to revert while Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles is being resolved through civil discussion. Please return the article to the stable state it was in for 6 years, and allow the community process to run without further inflammatory back-and-forth edit warring. Again, please read the policy WP:NOCONSENSUS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I give my word that I will not go hunting for articles that contain the word "winningest" with a view to remove that term, while the discussion is taking place. However, seeing as the edits and discussion to remove "winningest" from this article took place before the MOS discussion, and that comments proposing the removal of "winningest" date back to 2011, I don't see any validity in claims that either version was stable, or had the support of consensus. I don't see agreement of editors to use that term, or an agreed to compromise, so it doesn't seem much like consensus to me. Perhaps if this issue had been brought to MOS when the initial comment was made in 2011, we might have consensus by now. But it wasn't... I suggest leaving the article as it is for the time being. Or if anyone has some nice ideas for a compromise (or even improvement) then please make those suggestions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, trying following your own advice. If you think that edit warring would be a bad idea, then don't revert to remove the word winningest (obviously) . These things go both ways, you seem to think that edit warring, incivility, etc, only apply to those whose edits are in conflict with your own, while you are free to do as you wish. Just leave it alone, please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For example...

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)

Gallery usage

It's ugly and lazy. Please don't.

This looks nicer.

Team Latus XR-750

Engine left

Engine right

than this

• c. 2015 XR-750 details
• 
• 
• 
• 

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please go and find one of the millions of articles on Wikipedia that you could improve. It's clear that you have nothing better to do than follow me around and revert anything I do. "Nicer"? That's your whole reason for this persistent disruption? It's obvious to everyone that the only reason you care about these images is your personal grudge against the editor who added the images. If you continue this Wikihounding, you will likely be blocked from editing again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

why do you make personal attacks every time someone disagrees with you? You are aware you do not own the article and have no right to tell a editor what they can or cannot edit.72bikers (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, if I was changing the images due to some personal grudge against you, I would simply remove them stating that the article already had enough images, or replace them with other similar images. I didn't do that, I merely changed them from an ugly gallery (without captions) to standard thumbnails (with captions) and removed the following image, because some elements of the image were blurred. (I'm sorry, was that an attempt at tilt shift, or just a poorly taken photo?)

Due to our past history of less than friendly interaction, I didn't remove all the images. To be brutally honest, if this was a random article that I had stumbled upon, I would have removed every single image, because they are just more examples of something that is already covered in the article, uploaded by an editor who seems to be confusing Wikipedia with Flickr. But, I know you like uploading pictures, so as an attempt to be nice, I gave you a little leeway and attempted to improve the layout. Oh, I shouldn't forget my manners... You're welcome for my assistance. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You did in, at one point, remove every image, for no reason except that you are Wikihounding me. I've repeatedly asked you for objective, policy-based reasons for these destructive edits, and per usual, you offer no intelligent reasoning whatsoever. Instead, just your peevish rationalizations. "Too many?" Based on what? "Ugly?" "Looks nicer?" You've been repeatedly told that "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever", per the policy Wikipedia:Consensus.

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)

There are already a pic of the wheels and the brake just cluttering the page with redundant pics. 72bikers (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is literally the only picture of any disc brake at all. The other 5 images all show wire wheels. The gallery contains the only pictures of any rear brake, any disc brake, and any cast wheels. That's exactly the opposite of "redundant".

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)

How many times do I have to state just because state your misguided opinion does not make it reality. The first pic in those series of pics of the whole bike shows the rims and rear brake. And really it is obvious that you try to make up some excuses or personally attack to get rid of editors that merely disagree with you that is obvious for all to see. 72bikers (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Right there behind the exhaust and the swingarm. Why it's perfectly clear to anyone with x-ray vision. Can't argue with that logic.

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)

I don't personally know 72Bikers or anything about him (I'm even making an assumption when I use the word "him) but from the account name, I would guess that they are into bikes. So are you. You can't demand that editors avoid a huge section of articles just because you edit those articles and you don't agree with their opinions. I have similar interests. Please play nicely and learn how to share. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be aware that "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever". Since you have no facts to cite, no policy or guidelines to support your likes and dislikes, and I have given multiple specific reasons in policy and guidelines for why these images are necessary, I think we're done here. Adding more opinion on top of opinion doesn't change anything. It's time to move on and do some good instead of this obsession over some images you don't want to see in the article, yet can't give objective reasons why. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been given facts. If you choose to dismiss them and state they are just opinion that just seem to be your go to argument. What is interesting though is that you your self have used 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' or simply stated we are not doing that or it just clutters the page. And now you pretend to hold some made up high ground interesting. 72bikers (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What facts? That a tiny glimpse of the disc brake is visible in one other photo? That's what you call "facts"? Please find something useful to do. Isn't it likely that if these photos were causing such disruption and offense, somebody else would say so? If having one extra photo were stabbing the eyes of readers like knives, why doesn't one of them speak up? We get about 300 page hits a month on this article. Maybe one of these 300 readers will speak up and demand action to stop this horrible, terrible, unsightly extra photo. But until then?

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)

Typical you almost made a point then resorted to personal attacks. 72bikers (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

dennis, readers dont demand changes, editors make changes. you cant accept people saying your photos or wording sucks so you cry about meatpuppets. are readers complaining about the removal of winningest? if not then i guess its ok.Zachlita (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And here's the other WP:SPA meat puppet, right on schedule. Your edits are a violation of policy and you will be blocked from editing if you continue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

dont edit war and then complain about meZachlita (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Running a meat puppet account is the same as running a sock puppet account. You will be blocked for this. Please do not continue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• image sizes needs to be fixed here and captions added ...we are not a bike magazine...no need for images to take up 50% of screen sizes...simply horrible for mobile devises. Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts -- Moxy (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the 'mobile view' important?

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)

Well, sure if there is consensus for deprecating galleries, then by all means go make that WP:PROPOSAL. For now, galleries are very much a part of the Wikipedia we have today. Even if this set of images displays poorly on a phone, how does removing the images help phone users? Either keeping them or deleting them, phone users miss out on the images. Why should every other user miss out on information just because some displays can't do it?

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 make it sound like you are totally unwilling to make any correction or compromise to change. Why if I can read thru your sarcasm you have a iPhone and deem it far superior to android. You are aware that android has about 8o% of the global smartphone OS market and iOS hold only 15%. That is a potentially large number of users that may have problems. But you are unwilling to address this simply because you have a iPhone and deem it superior? 72bikers (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I's sorry you don't find phone war jokes funny. I said I was willing to add captions, and I said I was willing to expand the text. I said that twice, because I have the unfortunate tendency to repeat myself. Yet even when I said a total of three times specific things that I was willing to do in response to other editors' input, you felt the need to come here and accuse me of refusing to compromise. That is so unhelpful, and a waste of everyone's time. I even suggested that image use policy could change to deprecate galleries, and it could change to require arranging images in some way to improve phone rendering (though I personally don't see how, but I have an open mind). Without having to spell it out, that is me saying that I'm willing to comply with guidelines. The reason this article is the way it is is because I work hard to comply with guidelines. So. Once again, you have posted demonstrably false accusations which serve no useful purpose. You have wasted everyone's time when you could have said something intelligent and relevant to the actual subject, which is mobile views.

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)

With my limited set of platforms to test on, I can't figure out how that's an improvement. It renders basically the same on my iPhone 4S, and much worse on my desktop. But if you're saying that this change makes the article readable on Android, then I believe you. At least the information we're trying to get across is there somewhere, which is the bedrock goal, whether it always looks pretty or not. Once I write a longer description of the development process and add more technical details, as well as a longer accounting of the racing records, the proportions will be better and many of these issues will be moot. So I say we've got a winner. Perhaps the winningest version so far. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, ALL editors -- every one of you! -- are invited (I beg you!) to take the initiative and expand the article with Kevin Cameron, Alan Girdler, and other authors' works. I will do this when I can, but have other projects too. It's discouraging to see four, five, six editors who seem to have endless hours to compose zingers to post on talk pages, and elaborate rhetorical flourishes, yet no time at all to go to libraries and check out books and read them, and then write article content and cite it. Imagine how much work could be done if all that energy were directed at building an encyclopedia? NO special knowledge of motorcycles is needed: I myself consider Harley-Davidsons and their oddball flathead and pushrod V-twins practically Greek to me. I've never seen a flat track race and I don't get what it's really all about. I ride high-revving, quick-turning DOHC lightweight Japanese and English supersport and tiddler bikes, not tractor-like Hogs. Harley's are alien to me, really. Never sat on one, let alone ridden one. Nobody where I live even rides one. Please, anybody, everybody, feel free to expand this article. Those of you in WP:BATTLEGROUND mode? Please do some reasearch and expand some content. That's why we are supposed to be WP:HERE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that looks much better, BushelCandle. It's tidy, thumbs are always a good choice and it retains all the images. (even the kinda blurred one) salamat po. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Walay sapayan (or, if you don't speak Cebuano, walang anuman...) BushelCandle (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

hindi ako pilipino. I know a few words only. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that's really horrible! This is better:

• 
  caption per the new version
• 
  caption per the new version
• 
  caption per the new version
• 
  caption per the new version

Or fiddle with the parameters if you like. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The title I chose for this sub-section when I started it was "Is the 'mobile view' important?"

Would I then be wrong to assume that your answer is either "not all important" or "not at all", since your "better version" takes no account of the visually impaired (no alt text), those users who have set their default thumbnail width to a setting larger or smaller than the fixed width of 200px you wish to impose on them and, those mobile users who see gallerys of images as a monolithic page element that will be shrunk to unreadable proportions ? BushelCandle (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it would be "it's all too complicated, and varies with devices". Most complaints I hear about mobile views are that the images are too large and dominant when there are lots. The alt text can of course be used. Galleries are different from text images, and defaults should not apply. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Harley-Davidson XR-750 page exmple.png

Image is simply to big...text looks all messed up...image should never take up more then 50percent of the screen...plus does the lead image help anyone identify the bike? ....let do what is best for our readers.

-- Moxy (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems like if we want to deprecate galleries we should propose that at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. All this effort to remove one gallery from one obscure article, meanwhile 85% of phone users are having problems on thousands of high-traffic articles.

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)

My point exactly. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not all browsers react identically and, indeed, there are differences between platforms. For example, Safari on the desktop handles WWW3C frames properly but, the last time I looked, on iOS it did not. Please help me to understand your point of view - what exactly are the various "Wikipedia viewing apps"? BushelCandle (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Wiki Browser
• Wiki Encyclopedia Gold
• GWiki
• TinyBrowser for Wikipedia
• WikiBuddy

My experience was none of these were necessary because Safari and Chrome on iOS were already reformatting the image galleries appropriately to fit my phone. But if an Android user for whatever reasons isn't getting that feature, then there are a range of options. Seems like we're changing pages to work around a bug on one platform that will probably be fixed sooner or later anyway.

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)

win the most races?

better?

The policy WP:NOCONSENSUS says you should revert to the stable version while there is an ongoing dispute. Note that whatever version was locked at any point in the past, it's always the wrong version. Admins lock it how they find it, not any special preferred version. But we all know this article was stable for 6+ years, until a few socks decided to make it their battleground. Everyone has been notified of the discussion at the MOS talk page, and many editors are participating. Refusing to comply with the simple rules of policy is further evidence that this small group of meat puppets is here only to disrupt Wikipedia, and is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

I will wait patiently for the matter to be resolved in the community discussion, which is not yet closed. I will certainly accept whatever resolution comes out of that. That is what the policy WP:NOCONSENSUS is trying to tell you: stop fighting the pointless battle on this one article, revert it back to the stable version, and wait for the process to run. You know Skyring/Pete got a 60 hour block for ignoring the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles and heading off on his own to remove winningest from a bunch of articles he had never been interested in before? Just like you never cared about Dodge Tomahawk or this article until you saw a chance to come at me again. He's been blocked many times for sock puppetry, canvassing, and hounding. All the things you're doing right now.

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)

You can say whatever you want but look at the history. You put winningest back into the article even though the MOS discussion ain't over. That's just the same as skyring removing it from another article. You are doing exactly the same as what you complain about from other people.Zachlita (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I put winningest back not just here, but in 139 articles, because the discussion isn't over. Putting it back was what the policy said to do. Who got blocked? Me, for putting it back to the way it was? Or Skyring for removing winningest? Skyring got a 60 hour block for disruptive editing and edit warring. Read the policy: WP:NOCONSENSUS. Have you looked at Yamaha YZF-R1? It gets ten times the traffic of this article, and it's been an unsourced poorly written trainwreck for years. Go do some good. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't twist things. Winningest wasn't removed from here after the discussion started, skyring was blocked for removing winningest after discussion had started, this article had winningest removed way before that discussion had started, and you tried to put it back in the article today. No difference between what skyring was blocked for and what you did today.Zachlita (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of "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" do you not understand? Retain the version prior to the proposal or bold edit. The bold edit was when winningest was first removed. The proposal was the beginning of the discussion here, which then moved to a larger forum. It needs to go back to the stable version, before the edit war started, and wait for resolution.

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)

The word was not here for weeks before the discussion started. There was a consensus here on this talk page to not use the word. You were the only one to not accept this so you then forum shopped and also canvassed other editors in a effort to get your way. You have sense turned this into a battleground and repeatedly made personal attacks on other editors. Your argument has gone from acknowledging it is a informal word but that we use informal here. To now you would have us believe it is a formal word when all other references state informal. Just to suit your current argument. You have not offered up any substantial proof of this but to just state your opinion. Show one legitimate dictionary reference that states formal. You then would have us believe the word is hundreds of years old to further legitimize it when all state just over 40. And simple state they got it wrong the same references that you yourself would use to try and make your case. I would state that maybe what they got wrong was even using the word to begin with. And as far as the age goes witch is actually trivial. When I point out that you are trying to date the word from when a book would have been first wrote The first edition. From a latter edition that could have added the word in any of the latter editions. Your response goes back to more personal attacks. And you still cling to the notion that somehow this word is not controversial. 72bikers (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong. The wording was "winningest" from 2011 until 2015. Please read what I wrote about the stable version and consensus, which this article hasn't had since December 2015. Brianhe (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

wow 2011. who added the word winningest and where is the discussion in which they gained consensus? and i think the initial complaint about winningest also dates back to 2011, so there have been complaints from day one. that doesnt seem stable.Zachlita (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

brian thanks for being the voice of reason. this was a good suggestion of yours https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarley-Davidson_XR-750&type=revision&diff=698919520&oldid=698877351 its a shame others dont understand that compromize leads to consensus Zachlita (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Zachlita for your kind words. Just as an observation on the 2011 language objection here, it was literally that editor's final word on Wikipedia so I don't think it could be considered a really robust debate. Waiting to see the outcome of the current MOS discussion; jumping into that isn't really my cup of tea but I've been watching it from time to time. – Brianhe (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

perhaps the less than open or friendly attitude of the other editor involved was enough to put him off from ever editing wikipedia again? it makes me want to quit when i see simple requests refused with a huge list of obscure policy links Zachlita (talk) 11:52, 24 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)

And there was a consensus with the other editors and compromise was used to make a stable article. Just dennis was unsatisfied with this so he proceeded to forum shop and canvas other editors to get what he wanted. From the very outset of the use of this word here in 2011 it was challenged. And the fact the editor got so frustrated with dennis who would not allow change. To what should have been a trivial matter it was literally the very last thing he ever did here. So truly how is this word not controversial. And yes dennis all editors that disagree with you are just really one editor it is all just one big conspiracy. Do you know how you sound you sound like you are on drugs with all of your paranoia. If this is truly how you feel please go make a case of it and have it dealt with. It is truly getting old all this whining about editors following you around or some conspiracy out to get you. Was there another shooter on the grassy knoll? Did the government orchestrated 911? Did we really land on the moon? Are there aliens at roswell? Do you subscribe to these conspiracy theories as well? 72bikers (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You were already told that admins don't show any preference for versions when they lock a page for edit warring, per Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION. Or WP:PREFER. Yet again you repeat that you think the admin was declaring a winner. Nope. See WP:IDHT for why this makes editors question your WP:COMPETENCE to edit. They were just stopping an edit war. And now you think you can read the mind of an editor from 2011? Nobody's going to buy that, you know that right? Because it's nuts to claim you know what they were thinking. It looks an awful lot like they accepted my explanation and moved on.

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)

OK, 72bikers, you just completely rewrote the post that I replied to just above. You removed the series of false assertions that I called you out on, and replaced them with a new set of false assertions. I guess the charitable way to interpret that is that you've admitted, indirectly, for the first time, that you were wrong about something. So congratulations, I guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Really they moved on? So why was it literally the very last thing they ever did here. Was it not more likely they got fed up with you. How is this not controversial? And yes your repeated personal attacks and claims of some conspiracy speak worlds of your WP:COMPETENCE. 72bikers (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

More likely? Nope, that kooky theory is pretty darn unlikely. Look at the dates on their edits. A bunch in 2005, nothing for 5 years, about 20 edits in 2010, and then they go dark for a year, make one edit, then stop. Not a single post anywhere expressing any frustration about anything. Looks a lot like somebody who simply had a diminishing interest in editing. Could be they're still editing under a new name, like Zachlita here. Who knows? Not you. You're really grasping at straws based on nothing. Why? Just follow the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy, sit tight and find something useful to do in the mean time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Now look who is stating to know what is in the minds of others rich. If maybe you weren't trolling the page. To look for some argument you can get in. And let someone finish what they were working on. You would not falsely be claiming to know what is in the heads of others . And yet again you are just looking for confrontation making a battleground are you not 72bikers (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the point of WP:NOCONSENSUS is to stop the pointless battle and allow things to be resolved peacefully. So follow the policy and let this go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

But you claim to know the minds of other really. And remind me what your qualifications are. Do you even have any formal training or higher learning degree? Please enlighten us all so that we all will be in aw of your mighty intellect. 72bikers (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You have no respect of consensus. If others overwhelmingly disagree with you. You just forum shop and canvas other editors till you get your way. 72bikers (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. 1000000% An absolute disregard of consensus and how it is formed. It's formed by reaching a compromise, by discussing differences of opinion, and finding a version that is suitable for all. It is not formed by having month long debates, picking rules and guidelines to support your arguments (while ignoring other rules), edit warring and boring people to death until they walk away from the article, out of boredom and frustration, just because you are totally unwilling to accept any version of the article that is not your own. This is the best example I have ever seen of selfish and arrogant editing of Wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

proposal.

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.

---

Ok, ignoring all the arguments, does anyone actually disagree with "The XR-750 went on to win the most races in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing." ? and if so, why?

It's not the version that I would choose, I prefer victorious/successful - and I'm sure there are maybe one or two editors who like winningest. But is there anything actually wrong with the current wording? Is it confusing or misleading? Does it show bias towards a certain national variation of English? Is it original research? Is there any reason for continuing to discuss this issue, for any other reason that to prove a point?

I would like to propose keeping the article with the current wording, as an attempt at compromise, unless there is anything actually wrong with the current wording. What do others want? To argue to prove a worthless point, or to have a good article? 07:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

I like it. Plain, unambiguous, uncontroversial. --Pete (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• How about we revert to the stable version and wait for the community discussion? Per WP:NOCONSENSUS policy. Whatever you propose here is going to be overruled by the MOS discussion, so what's the point? See Snowball clause. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, I believe your proposed wording was asked and answered at #Proposed wording change. It was explicitly opposed by 72bikers and Zachlita, and I think implicitly opposed by Dennis Bratland—sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth. Restarting a discussion now while the whole MOS thing is still up in the air is premature. - Brianhe (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

In a effort to compromise and reach a consensus. I am also ok with the current version. 72bikers (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So far, myself, 72 bikers and pete are all ok with the compromise edit made by Zachlita. Is there anyone else involved who wishes to state that they are ok, or not ok with this compromise attempt? Dennis? Brianhe? We might actually be close to a solution, if we can all agree on something. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking my opinion. I feel that I've made a good effort already at reaching a compromise and I won't defend it a third time. At this point the best thing IMO is to let the MOS discussion run its course before trying to change this article from its 2015 consensus version. There are other things to do that are lots more productive than wikidrama. I'm taking this off my watchlist and don't plan to comment further anytime soon. - Brianhe (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I have to repeat again that I'm waiting for the discussion at the MOS talk page to resolve. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

How come? You've edit-warred on this article multiple times while that discussion continues. You have weighed in on the edit-warring report, so you are well aware. The MoS discussion is hardly likely to recommend that directions over a single word will be included in the Manual of Style, so it's pretty much a moot point. You have also claimed multiple times that there is no consensus in that discussion, allowing you to revert multiple times on affected articles. You can't have it both ways, Dennis! --Pete (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's WP:WABBITSEASON, bud. I just can't do this with you any more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel you need to evade questions about your behaviour? Running away isn't going to solve your problems, but standing up and taking responsibility would be a very good start. --Pete (talk) 21:11, 26 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)

I'm counting five in favour of the current wording, one against, one withdrawn from discussion. Looks like we've reached a consensus here. --Pete (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 72bikers (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, let's assume for the moment that an answer from MOS will either take a long time, or not be conclusive. While we are waiting, can you accept some form of compromise that avoids the following terms: "winningest", "most successful" and "most victorious" ? I'd suggest the current version as it avoids those terms, but other suggestions are always welcome. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You're free to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and have this wrapped up, according to the instructions at Wikipedia:Closing discussions, which says "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." So you might get a result based not on counting votes, but on facts, many, many facts. The discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Supports and opposes of consensus points seems to be unanimous that "There is no consensus against using winningest for North American sports contexts". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if that is the result at the MOS decision, that would not preclude consensus here from agreeing to not use that wording on this article. Jeh (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Consensus is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns". So if a bunch of editors decide they don't like the word "moist" or "cat", that doesn't mean those mere opinions are legitimate concerns. I have no idea how the closer will think, but I've always said the policy on opinion vs reliable sources is pretty clear. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110730122427/http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/asp/classics/bike.asp?id=50 to http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/asp/classics/bike.asp?id=50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110730122307/http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/asp/classics/bike.asp?id=46 to http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/asp/classics/bike.asp?id=46

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Inofobox problem

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)

Picture

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)