| Revision as of 17:53, 18 July 2011 editDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 edits →Winningest?: citations in support of keeping "winningest"← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:09, 18 July 2011 edit undoDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 editsm →Winningest?: spNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| :*] | :*] | ||
| :*] | :*] | ||
| :Winningest is either , or at worst, , 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 ] of neutrality between American and British variants, generally conforming to the article subject's associated region, if any.<P>Winningest is also , not only American. says winningest is "without stylistic taint." Fowler cites several similar examples from Shakespeare, Tennyson, Carlyle and George Eloit: easliest, freelier, darklier, proudliest, neatliest. There is no Misplaced Pages policy against informal English, if winningest even is truly informal, and there is in fact a ] 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, |
:Winningest is either , or at worst, , 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 ] of neutrality between American and British variants, generally conforming to the article subject's associated region, if any.<P>Winningest is also , not only American. says winningest is "without stylistic taint." Fowler cites several similar examples from Shakespeare, Tennyson, Carlyle and George Eloit: easliest, freelier, darklier, proudliest, neatliest. There is no Misplaced Pages policy against informal English, if winningest even is truly informal, and there is in fact a ] 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.<P>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.<P>'''Cited''' facts and policies against using winningest would be persuasive, but I don't think there are any. --] (]) 17:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:09, 18 July 2011
 | Motorcycling Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Motorcycle racing | |||
| ||||
 | A fact from Harley-Davidson XR-750 appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 July 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Retail price US$ 3,200 in 1970
WP:NOPRICES and WP:MC-MOS discourages listing retail prices unless there is a cited reason the price is notable. I've included the price of the XR-750 sold to the public in this article. The cost of a first class professional racing machine that anyone can buy is inherently notable, and beyond that, the existence of this bike was determined by economic forces. As explained in the article, one of the reasons Class C rules' outdated OHV/sidevalve split finally had to go was because it was economically unviable for the British marques to attempt to sell 200 homologated copies a year of a 500 cc OHV bike.
For the kind of money they needed to ask for these homologation specials -- something like $20k in today's money -- you wouldn't buy a bike that had only two thirds the displacement of a mainstream non-race bike. I think this is currently explained sufficiently, but source material exists to go into greater detail. The article Homologation (motorsport) could also benefit from an expanded discussion of the economics of motorsport, and how money, sales, and profits determines racing rules, and helps to create racing dynasties like the H-D KR and XR bikes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Winningest?
Not really formal enough usage for encyclopedic use. Suggest "The XR-750 went on to become the winningest race bike in the history of.." is replaced with "The XR-750 went on to be the bike which won the most races in the history of ..."(Rolanbek (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC))
- According to what Misplaced Pages policy? There is none that I'm aware of that requires all words in the encyclopedia be "formal". This issue came up in the DYK hook, and nobody cited anything other than they didn't like it. The following articles have undergone extensive scruitny by Misplaced Pages editors, and the use of winningest was deemed acceptable:
- Featured Articles
- Featured Lists
- Good Articles
- Winningest is either standard American English, or at worst, informal American English, and we have no cited policy against informal English. Winningest has appeared in the linguistically conservative New York Times at least 2,000 times. We have a Misplaced Pages guideline of neutrality between American and British variants, generally conforming to the article subject's associated region, if any.
Winningest is also Australian English, not only American. H.W. Fowler says winningest is "without stylistic taint." Fowler cites several similar examples from Shakespeare, Tennyson, Carlyle and George Eloit: easliest, freelier, darklier, proudliest, neatliest. There is no Misplaced Pages policy against informal English, if winningest even is truly informal, and there is in fact a guideline of neutrality between regional variants, conforming to the regional English associated with the article subject, if any. The only argument against it is that the English of the British Isles gets veto over American, Australian an other widely used language, which is silly.
If any regionalisms should be removed, we should look at petrol, lorry, loo, and so on, since their meaning is not obvious if you've never been given the definition, while with winningest, the meaning is clear on sight, even if it's new to you.
Cited facts and policies against using winningest would be persuasive, but I don't think there are any. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)