Motorcycle tyre → Motorcycle tire – While I understand the whole not giving precedence to one flavor of English over another, there are many many articles about tires on Wikipedia, all but 1 or 2 that are not company or organization names use the spelling of tire over tyre, I beleive the consistency of the use of tire over tyre on such a wide number of pages directs us to a variety of reasons for the change, uniformity, consensus, and standardization of use are all reasonable and acceptable reasons. I believe it's one of the small things that can be done to improve acceptance and integrity of Wikipedia. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Aligning spelling with other articles like Tire is against policy, as explained in Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English: both variants "are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state)". Per WP:RETAIN, we want spelling to be consistent within articles, but we don't require it across multiple articles. Part of the reason for this policy is that debate over national varieties of English is a huge waste of time, and is considered lame. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Please read WP:ENGVAR (WP:TITLEVAR), specifically MOS:RETAIN. We don't cleanse legitimate usages from our pages. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which gives five characteristics for good article titles. Among them is consistency with similar article titles. Because of that, it's clear we should move this to "motorcycle tire" to match the parent article, tire. For those citing WP:RETAIN, the MOS is a style guide and not a policy while WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is policy. -- Calidum 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. This is an attempt to cleanse British spellings. It has been done plenty of times before. That's why we have WP:ENGVAR (a guideline, with no less gravitas). Consistency is a title criteria, but it is not a criteria that applies with regard to varieties of English, as "tire" and "tyre" mean the same thing and are pronounced the same. This article is already consistent with tire, for that reason. This article was written as "tyre" and it should stay "tyre". There is no reason for a change. The only possible motivation for such a change is to cleanse British spellings, and that's unacceptable. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, which is a policy, a controversial move of this sort cannot ever be justified. RGloucester — ☎ 05:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is an attempt for consistency across multiple articles that are all about the same thing, tires or tyres, if 45/50 articles about them were all in the format of tyre, then I would be making the same argument for the change to the use of tyre on the few that were not.74.104.150.176 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as above per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and this article would fall under WP:Summary_style where this is a subtopic that someone felt deserved a "fuller treatment" and therefore had a separate article created to give it that "fuller treatment", this is should maintain the same style as the original parent article. One could also say it would be in order to prevent a POV Fork per NPOV policy, alternate spellings could be considered a point of view, and remaining neutral and not putting a personal preference or personal spin would be to keep the use of the word across all articles of the same subject to use the same spelling of the word, with the only exception being if the article is a titles as a proper noun where the company uses an alternate spelling. Also, there was a considerable debate on the parent Tire article, and that was maintained as Tire, I submit that the authore who started the "motorcycle tyre" article "broke the rules" of Wikipedia by using the spelling of tyre in the first place, not just because of the parent "tire" article, but also the other tire articles he links on the page(and even in the summary section), he titles them in the text with "tyre" even thought the link is to articles with the use of "tire". 74.104.150.176 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to add that the talk page shows what is the more likely usage by people searching given that in all talk sections prior to the rename and move section used the spelling of "Tire" including the person who was the first actual editor of the article.74.104.150.176 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The naming policy we have both cited first says consistently is a general principle to follow, but then it goes on to carve out a specific exception for English variant spelling. If your argument were correct the whole paragraph mentioning "color" and "colour" could simply be deleted. That section exists because Engvar is a recognized exception to the policy of consistency. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:07,
17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support It has always struck me as strange that motorcyle's have the only rubberized wheel covering that isn't aligned with the same spelling as the others. Why shouldn't we be consistent, as opposed to further pushing wikipedia down by making it look haphazard. And, RGloucester, wikipedia is wrought with examples of commonwealth people constantly trying to cleanse the site of unsightly Americanisms, don't let that be your argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 17 March 2015
- Wikipedia isn't "consistent" in its use of varieties of English, and has never been. We have both honour and honor system, for example. That's how Wikipedia works. It is system that allows all varieties of English to get equal play, and ensures that no wrangling like this occurs. You can read either "tyre" or "tire", and there is absolutely no reason to overwrite the variety of English this article was written in. For the same reason, I don't ask that we rewrite "potato chip" or "flashlight". Allowing selective overwriting of the status quo is a slippery slope, and will leave to erosion of the system we have. That's why WP:TITLECHANGES is critical here. There is no reason to move from controversial title to another, from the British-style to the American-style. It will only cause a succession of similar discussions. As I said, the only potential motivation for a move is to cleanse a usage that one dislikes, and that's inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no problem with similar discussions, if the article were something completely independent then I would agree with your point, however the Original Author violated Wikipedia Summary Style Policy by not maintaining the original style when they created the sub topic in a new article.74.104.150.176 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to be absolutely clear here, so I'll cite our policy on article titles. It has convenient section on national varieties of English, called WP:TITLEVAR:
Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state). Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between UK fizzy drink, U.S. soda, U.S. and Canadian pop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names
- That should settle this matter. The article titles policy specifically advises against such a move as this, and invite Calidum to read it. He seems to have missed this part of the policy. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Advises against" is not the same as prohibits, and again, the original author violated the Summary Style Policy when they created the sub topic article in the first place.74.104.150.176 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I will quote AGAIN: "American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state)". This could not be more clear. RGloucester — ☎ 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's time to stop feeding the troll. No admin is going to violate policy in WP:ENGVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES for the sake of a tortured interpretation of the summary style guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate it if you would not violate Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable by issuing a personal attack and insulting me and my opinion. There is no reason to be uncivil just because someone disagrees with you. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're repeatedly given the precise policy, and you don't hear it. Told again and again that summary style is a guideline, not a policy, and you don't hear it. Either you lack the competence to participate in this type of decision, or you're here to disrupt Wikipedia with pointless debate, i.e., trolling. It doesn't matter which, it is what it looks like. By all means, go start a new debate in an appropriate forum if you think you're the victim of a personal attack. Useless debate is why you're here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I know exactly what you are saying, I hear it perfectly. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with", I disagree with your assertion of that policy given the context and to try to assert something as an absolute is ridiculous in the first place, there are no absolutes and policies do not, and cannot be completely universal, there are always exceptions and this is one of those cases.74.104.150.176 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a poor example to say that this is not legit since those two topics are not directly related in any way, one is not a sub-topic of the other that was spawned off another article due to it being deemed to be worthy of "fuller treatment", this has nothing to do with preference for one over another, it is about the look of consistency across multiple articles about the same thing and correcting the mistake of the original author when they spawned off the secondary article, they made a mistake by not properly following the Summary Style Policy when they did so. If someone makes a mistake, that mistake should be corrected to be in line which the Wikipedia Policy which was violated first, which is the Summary Style Policy. Since "Motorcycle" was a sub-section of the "Vehicle application" sub-section of the article which uses the spelling of "tire", when the "Motorcycle" subsection is split off into a separate, more descriptive article of it's own, it should have maintained the style of the original article, which includes the spelling of the word tire. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What "summary style policy" are you citing? You've provided no links, no quotes. This article has used "tyre" since the moment of its creation in 2008. We are discussing article titles, regardless, and not content. The article titles policy deals with article titles. There is no justification for changing the stable title, at all. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as stated above aligning spelling with other articles like Tire is against Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English In ictu oculi (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have to agree with the IP, the article was named incorrectly from the start. WP:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title offers 5 characteristics when naming an article when it is created. Both tyre and tire fulfill 3 of them, Recognizability, Precision, and Conciseness; however, when you look at the other 2 characteristics, Naturalness and Consistency, tyre does not match those, while tire does. That means tire has 5, tyre has 3, the one with the most characteristics should be the one that the article is named.
With Naturalness it says "editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles", since almost all other articles use tire instead of tire throughout them, and it is policy to use the same version throughout an entire article, it would be natural for the editor to link to an article titles "motorcycle tire" not "Motorcycle tyre" so as to be consistent with the version of English already being used.
When you look at consistency it states "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" and the pattern of the other similar articles(all about various types of tires), almost all articles related to tires are using the spelling of tire over tyre in their titles, the original author didn't follow the simplest, most basic rule for deciding on the title of this article.
I think that this trumps the Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English referenced by those who oppose. WildWikiGuy (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but the creator of an article is not obliged to write in a foreign variety of English. That is directly contrary to all our policies, and has zero basis in anything. "Tire" is not natural to a Briton, so naturalness is irrelevant. What's more, the AT specifically says that consistency DOES NOT APPLY to varieties of English. I will quote WP:TITLEVAR ONCE MORE:"American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state)". It is very simple. The creator of the article did absolutely nothing wrong at all. All he did was write in the variety of English most familiar to him, which is exactly what our policies facilitate. RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like you are arguing for the sake of arguing because you are feeling oppressed because of your preference for British English. Naturalness is not about naturalness to the person typing and what they consider natural in their own manner of speaking, the section clearly states that it should be what "editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles", do not yell at me for expressing my opinion, this is about discussion for the topic. If you want to talk about policy that American English should not be respelled to British English and vice versa, then I submit this is exactly what happened with the creation of this article, it is the author who created it respelling to the British from the English. Yes, I think color/colour is a perfectly good example that supports the change to Motorcycle tire. On the color page, you will notice that every single sub-section and link to full articles on that sub-section's topic all use the same English version for consistency and naturalness. color color constancy color theory color vision color blindness color term color wheel neutral color additive color color mapping Are you seeing a pattern here for consistency and naturalness with the color article and all related articles linked from it yet? I would also submit that the use of tire for article titles is more consistent because the entire category for tires if located at Category:Tires not Category:Tyres and therefore, in the name of consistency(unless it is a proper name) any article under that category with tire in the title should be tire, not tyre. I don't think you are hearing the other opinions here because you just want to get angry about the English Language version change, and are not understanding the purpose of that rule. This change doesn't appear to be requested simply because someone prefers tire over tyre which would be a change where WP:TITLEVAR would be applicable, instead it was requested for the purpose of consistency between the main article and all directly related sub-articles which would fall under WP:NAMINGCRITERIA which takes priority over WP:TITLEVAR. WildWikiGuy (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has no consistency with regard to varieties of English, which is apparent anywhere one looks, including in the policy. That's why we have honor system and honour, color gel and colour state, &c. You've clearly not read the WP:NATURALNESS criteria: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English". The "subject" is called different things in different varieties of English. A Briton is not likely to look for a "tire" of any variety, but for a "tyre". Naturalness is a failed criteria for either "tire" or "tyre", because there is no one natural name for this entity in the English language, unlike with "New York" or "Rome". Those articles are at those titles because the creators of those articles happened to be writing in American English, and because we don't arbitrarily change to them to suit our own ends. Likewise, we don't change this article either. The author did not "respell" anything. He wrote a new article from scratch, and used his native variety of English, as policy says to do. WP:TITLEVAR is not "taken priority over" by anything. It explicitly says the consistency IS NOT A CONCERN with regard to varieties of English, rendering this whole argument useless. RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- and you are ignoring the WP:NATURALNESS criteria more than me, I specifically addressed it in my response to you before. "and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." Naturally someone is going to link from one article to another using the same variation of English because the WP:ARTCON requires the same variation to be used within an article, therefore it is the natural title that should have been used in the creation of a new article based on a sub-section of another article, your use of colour state and color gel is a poor pair for comparison because neither of them links to the other, therefore they are independent and consistency and naturalness are irrelevant to their title name.WildWikiGuy (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not ignoring anything. Britons would never "naturally" type "tire", so what you're saying doesn't apply. It will always be "unnatural" for a large part of the readership, regardless of whether there is consistency in "tire" or "tyre" across sub-articles. That's exactly why WP:TITLEVAR tells us not to create an artificial consistency. WP:TITLEVAR is clear. It was drafted explicitly for this purpose. If you want to change the policy, go to that page and change. As it stands, a move is impossible. RGloucester — ☎ 23:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you keep referencing what someone would naturally type? That has nothing to do with the naturalness characteristic of article titles.WildWikiGuy (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That perception on your part confirms what I said before: you've not read the criteria. Please read WP:NATURALNESS. It says "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". That's the main part of the criteria. Something is "natural" if it is what one would naturally search for, what one would naturally type in the search bar. RGloucester — ☎ 00:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes that the main part over the second half of the same sentence? Are you claiming that because it comes first it takes precedent over anything else in the statement? You realize there is an AND in there right? Which means both or are you not aware of how the word AND works? Also, if you want to go with what is "likely" then the work tire should be used, 1/5 Editors of Wikipedia is located in the US, and the US is the single highest user base of English Wikipedia as well as the second highest in rankings of people using the internet, second to china. Also, if you do a google search for "Tire" you get 360 million results, if you search for "Tyre" you get 86 million, and the first few non-wikipedia results are all related to the city of Tyre, not the rubber encasement for wheels, so your justification about what is "likely to look or search for" fails as well. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage" under WP:TITLECHANGES in the naming policy. These words were put there for a reason, to explicitly make clear here and in WP:TITLEVAR, that we do not do the thing you're saying to do, make English spelling consistent outside the scope of a single article. Not in related articles, not in all articles in a category. The known harm in doing so is 1) Pointless discussion, and 2) Privileging American English and making editors who use variant English feel -- rightly -- that they are second-class editors. Nobody has cited any harm in leaving the title alone, other than the phantom fear of using a redirect.The established practice with "color" shows both spellings are accepted for related and unrelated articles: Color, Colour cast, Color commentator, Colour revolution, Colour fastness, SMPTE color bars, Political colour, National colours, --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it is not "required" doesn't mean it can't be done, there is no absolute rule saying that you can never change the title to a different variation, and yes, there are some reasons for inconsistencies in common usage, but there is no real good "reason" to not change it, just because "that's the way it's always been" isn't really a good reason, time, people, everything changes. There are many more reasons to change it than the one reason not to change it that you have all cited over and over again in your opposition. I honestly fail to see why this is such boogie man for you that has you coming out with the terribly cliche "slippery slope" reference. There's a reason that Wikipedia has the reputation it has for not being a reliable source, it's foolish arguments over minor things like this, with people who are willing to change so many other things, but not willing to make minor changes like this where it would make things more uniform within a given topic. Even in the article itself it links to pneumatic tires and yet changes the visible text to pneumatic tyres. The same with bicycle tires that should tell you something about the usage here on Wikipedia in general, but I am done with this, the level of stubborn shown here is exactly why I left for so long, and why this site has so many problems and so many people who could add good content don't, but go ahead, have the last word, I know you are just sitting there, hitting refresh over and over waiting for a response so you can repeat the same drivel over and over again because you are the one who doesn't seem to "get it" and fits WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT more than anyone else on this page.WildWikiGuy (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I come to this from the motorcycling project. To me, this article isn't so much a part of Category:Tires as Category:Motorcycle technology, where UK English is common, such as in Pillion and TT100 (motorcycle tyre) and many other motorcycle-related articles. You still haven't cited a reason for this change. What is the benefit? I'd support a change if we had something to gain from it. "Do it my way or I'll quit" is not a valid reason; it's blackmail, if childishly transparent blackmail. If you're so sure accommodating variant spelling is harming Wikipedia, you should take this to the policy level and propose changing the article naming rules. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my request, not theirs. Who said it had to be harmful? Why can't it just be a consistency issue? You came to this from the Category:Motorcycle technology section? Wouldn't you want consistency there are well? on that page there is Tire Mousse knobby tire, why not get them all the same? In looking things over, I actually have issues with the TT100 page use of (motorcycle tyre), along with the Dunlop Tyres page as well, it should be Dunlop Tires because the company is a Subsidiery of Goodyear Tire which uses Tire in it's name, as well as being headquartered in Buffalo NY, in the US, which means Tire should be used since that is their legal, proper name, even if distributed in other countries under the a different name. back to the point at hand, it's about consistency. Just because policy doesn't require something to be a certain way doesn't mean people shouldn't strive to do it. The fact this has drawn so much ire from you and mr fisherman is a bit asinine to be honest. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The implications of making all spelling within a category consistent are laughable. Think for one second what that would mean. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what it would mean, it would mean consistency and uniformity within a category. Logistically, it would mean editing and moving a bunch of articles, what's your point? 74.104.150.176 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we carried this out, there would be no non-US English left on Wikipedia. Most categories are mostly US English. The few that aren't have parent categories that are mostly US English. You're proposing to make US English the Wikipedia standard, which is not acceptable.
The part you don't get is that inconsistent spelling is not a problem. You claim to be solving something but what you're solving is one of Wikipedia's virtues. Inclusiveness is a strength, and it doesn't need fixing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I spied this move request over at Requests for page protection, and thought I'd have a look. I see no valid reason to make a change from "tyre" to "tire". There is nothing in the article that suggests strong ties to a particular variety of English which would necessitate a change to "tire". There are multiple intepretations of all the quoted policies above, and in respect of that, I think the strongest argument here is wp:retain. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The tie to one variety of english over the other isn't about the article itself, it's not even about prefering one over the other, it is only just about the title and how it deviated from the topics main article usage of tire. Go back and look at the very first edit and creation of the page, bias existed since the original creators username was "moto tyres" and then, even when they wrote the initial content, they used the "tire" form of the word for everything except the title of the article. The second edit was the same user adding a "reference link" at the bottom, which I am guessing was their attempt at using it as a marketing spam link. The initial creation of the article was wrong, as can be seen through the edit history. That's why it should be moved, not because of an english variation preference. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I lost interest in your argument as soon as you used the term "bias" and your claim that "The initial creation of the article was wrong". Your repetition of the claim that "it deviated from the topics main article usage of tire" despite having had WP:TITLEVAR explained to you several times just shows that you are not listening, ergo further clarification is probably wasted, yet will probably be necessary again at some point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (Additional) Incidentally, the reason "tire" seems to have been used in the actual article body is most likely because the original draft body text was copied from this page here.[27] I'm not sure you can use the claim that "tire" trumps "tyre" based on a 6 year old copyright violation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't think someone who's username has a specific spelling of tire/tyre doesn't make you think there's bias in their naming of the article? I think the copy and pasted copyright violation actually furthers my point that the original author incorrectly titled the article in the first place. As the wiki guy pointed out, it fails the naturalness aspect of title creation in regards to the content versus the title, as well as linking it from other articles. If you look at that users contribution history as well, their entire purpose was to spam their website, therefore I would deem that their motivation and actions while creating this page are invalid, and had the page been created by someone who was actually creating a sub topic article from the tire article then Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title would have been followed, and the article would be using the tire variation, not the tyre variation in order to maintain the consistency and natural flow from a parent article to child article as defined by the 5 characteristics of an article title. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TITLEVAR is part of our article titles policy. If you want to change it, go over there and change. As of now, your own interpretation is directly contrary to the policy. RGloucester — ☎ 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, the policy says it shouldn't be changed, it doesn't say it can't be changed. To clear it up for you, should is not an absolute, therefore it leaves the window open for changes when a situation arises that it is reasonable. Should: used to indicate what is probable. Probable: likely to be the case or to happen. Guess what? not everything is likely, there is no guarantee to anything, it is entirely possible that there could be a situation where the most reasonable and most common sense thing to do goes against what "should" be done.74.104.150.176 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. This isn't one of those cases. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? You have not given any reason beyond citing WP:TITLEVAR 74.104.150.176 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- TITLEVAR is the reason. It was explicitly included to prevent stuff like this from going through. That's because the basis of our ENGVAR compromise is that the original variety is retained in a given article, and that article titles should not go back and forth between varieties. Such a move as this would fly in the face of the ENGVAR compromise, reduce good will amongst speakers of non-American varieties of English, and cause a cascade of changes that are directly proscribed by the current policy. It is a pandora's box situation. Such a move, regardless, would not provide any benefit whatsoever to the readership, and would likely result in continued debate down through the ages. If you dislike the policy, you must change it. You cannot circumvent it without good reason, and no good reason has been provided to breakdown the existing system. RGloucester — ☎ 02:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you just said that there are situation where TITLEVAR and ENGVAR can be skipped and go against them, and yet when asked for a reason, you default back to the "reason" of TITLEVAR and ENGVAR without any actual discussion or debate, if there is anyone WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT then it's you, who is just repeating the same thing over and over again and not actually engaging in an actual discussion, you're like a 2 year old with his hands over his head, jumping up and down saying the same thing over and over again. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anything could be "skipped". You're the one that's come here to destroy Wikipedia policies. Perhaps you might contemplate the error of your ways. RGloucester — ☎ 05:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you did when you agreed above to my statement when you said "That's true", you agreed that there are times when you can go against the policies because the most reasonable and most common sense thing to do is to go against the policy. I asked then asked you why this is not one of those times, and you went back to your reference of TITLEVAR and ENGVAR with ZERO explanation beyond "because I said so", which isn't any kind of actual reason why the policy cannot be given a pass in this situation, this isn't just a battle about what version of english to use just for the sake of using a particular version because it is preferred by someone, it's about correcting a mistake that was made with a deviation from the first policy which should have been followed when the article was first titled because the commonly used term, that fits all 5 of the 5 characteristics was not used, instead the one that only fits 3 of the 5 was used. That is a mistake worth correcting, both here on this page, as well as on multiple other pages which are all child articles of the parent "tires" 74.104.150.176 (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears this is a subpage of tires, and thus would fall under the naming conventions of Summary Style WP:SS. In that case, following the guidlines of that policy, you would name it to be in line with the parent article (tires). Cheers. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_style ~~ip user
- Nonsense. Nowhere in the "summary style guideline" (not a policy) does it say anything about selecting a particular variety of English or style. More importantly, our article titles policy says not to change between varieties of English, and that inconsistency in variety is both normal and desirable. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- RGloucester, respectfully, it's not nonsense. The pertinent section would be "Naming conventions for subarticles: Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable."" Since the parent article (tire) jumps to the subarticle (motorcycle tyre) it would be within the style guidlines to name it 'motorcycle tire.' The original author, probably good naturedly and with the benefit of the community in mind (as they DID write the article), didn't follow the guideline. Thankfully, there is a simple solution to follow the guidelines. ~ip user
- and one of the WP:Five_pillars is WP:Ignore_all_rules, to further clarify my point, I shall quote WP:UCS for you "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." This is my problem with your constant chirping about rules and policies, you are not offering any insight or explanation to your stance other than just repeating "because it's the rule" "because it's policy" over and over again. You speak english, use your knowledge of english to actually write out a decent response that does more than just quote the rule over and over again because you are either ignoring what others have said or you WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and don't understand what others have said. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be trolling. The summary articles guideline says: "Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable". That has nothing to do with the variety of English, or the style of text used. It says nothing to the effect that a single variety of English is mandated across titles with the same word in the name, and in fact the WP:TITLEVAR policy directly contradicts this. Sorry, but RMs are based on policy, and so is consensus. If you want to ignore the policies, that's fine. However, on Wikipedia, policy is what determines how we title articles. That's why we have a policy. You are ignoring it. I will ignore people that choose to ignore the policy. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose of course per WP:ENGVAR. I do wish editors would stop claiming that the American spelling is the most common and the most natural. Do you know how many people in the Commonwealth speak English? Most of them use British spelling. "There are more people in America" is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. That's why we have WP:ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not why this move was requested, the move was requested based on style, consistency and continuity between parent and child articles. If a child article is spawned off a sub-section of a parent article, it is common practice to summarize the section on the parent and link to the new child article, and copy/paste the section into the new child article, which is why the Template:Copied exists and then expand that article appropriately from there. By following that process, the same variation of english should carry from one to the next otherwise you are in violation of WP:ENGVAR in the first place because you went through and changed the variation already in use in the content. This article was intially created with malice intent(spam) which led to the use that violated WP:ENGVAR in the first place, it should be fixed the way the article creation should have naturally happened in the evolution of a section into it's own child article. Both pages which could be considered the parent of this article tire and Motorcycle_components established the precedent for which version of tire/tyre should have been used, along with the category of Category:Tires in which this page resides. WP:ENGVAR is only applicable when the change is only for the sake of a preference for one variety of english over another based on personal preference, not when the change is a situation like this. While you are trying to apply the "letter of law" you and RGloucester, chaheel and Richard are completely missing the "spirit of the law" and it's intent. The change was requested for simple common sense, not because of a preference for a specific english variation. Can any of you come up with an reasonable explanation about why it shouldn't be changed without just saying "the policy of WP:ENGVAR says no"? and switching to a different policy is not a reasonable explanation. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fully aware of why the move was supposedly requested (note that at least one supporter of the move above did use as a rationale the supposed fact that the American spelling was more common!). However, we are not required to be consistent in article titles, as has already been pointed out several times. If we were then many articles would be moved from American spelling to British spelling too. I would then await the screams of anger from American editors and I would guarantee that the moves would be reversed in double-quick time using the policy were are quoting here as an argument... It really is better to maintain the status quo unless you want to open a massive can of worms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there is no requirement to be consistent, doesn't mean that we cannot try to be consistent. Can give me one good reason, that isn't related to the WP:ENGVAR or similar policy or the "can of worms" or "slippery slope"(neither of which are valid arguments on WP) as to why a child article which is a directly linked subsection of a parent article shouldn't have the same style as the parent when it comes to the article title?74.104.150.176 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TITLEVAR is always applicable. It is a policy. It does not say anything about "personal preference". It says DO NOT CHANGE the variety, and so we shan't change the variety. This article did not start as a copy-paste from the other article, so that whole comparison is moot. The way the "article creation should have naturally happened" is a bunch of counterfactual nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 16:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, the policy doesn't say anywhere in it "do not change", it uses the word should, which is not an absolute, therefore it means that the title can in fact be changed. There are no absolutes anywhere on Wikipedia, it is done that way on purpose, so your assertion that it can't be changed just because of a policy, which is not binding, absolute, nor universal is completely against the very essence of wikipedia. While the article did not start as a copy and paste from the tire article, it did start from a copy and paste from another source, which was a copyright violation, however, that original source that was copy and pasted to create this article used the tire version of the word, therefore the title was incorrectly created since it did not match WP:ENGVAR which requires a consistent usage of the same variety throughout the entire article, including title. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been invited to comment because I am a past contributor to the article. Because I am English, "tyre" looks more natural to me but it is not something I want to make a big fuss about. Where an article has mixed UK and US spellings I usually count the numbers and standardise/standardize on whichever is in the majority within the article. Biscuittin (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had been the person who spawned this child from a subsection of the articles tire and Motorcycle_components, if you had created this article, which version would you have used while creating the article itself, and linking it from either or both of those parent articles? 74.104.150.176 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Andy Dingley, and I would have used "tyre" anyway, so I suggest we leave it as it is. Biscuittin (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why didn't you use tire when you started adding content to the article at the time then?74.104.150.176 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another bit of WP guidelines that supports the change Creating a daughter article; and to quote this guide, which should have been followed when the article was created "Decide on the name for the new daughter article. Generally that's a variant of the title of the existing section. In this case, the title of the section is "List of schools". The daughter article will become List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District." and in this case, since it is the same as the existing sections in both parent articles; WP:ENGVAR should have been followed but wasn't, therefore should be corrected now. Based on the creators username and their history of editing actions, they were not acting in good faith with their creation of the article in the first place, thus a deviation from the very simplest of guidelines as they are explained to new users occurred, which is what has brought us here today, and should be corrected to better align the format of this article with it's parent articles.74.104.150.176 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They name they chose was perfectly consistent with Tire. They merely chose a variant spelling, which is emphatically acceptable, according to policy. You keep citing things that are inferior to policy. Policy explicitly says spelling variants are acceptable and should not be changed, especially (this is stated explicitly) if the spelling has been stable for a long time. The guidelines and help pages you're citing say nothing of regional English spelling variation, and even if they did they'd be trumped by policy. Which is why the guideline and help page writers are smart enough not to make assertions about variant spelling which are -- again -- explicitly against policy.
The honest thing to do, again, is to go and propose a policy change, to make categories determine regional English spelling, and to make parent articles determine English variant spelling of sub-articles. Policy now says we don't do that, and if you want that then policy is subject to change. Good luck. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like the definition of the word consistent? You don't seem to know what it means because using a variant spelling is actually the opposite of consistent. Guidelines are based on policy, the main problem that I think you seem to have, is that you and the others are strictly going by the straight exact policy as it is written versus understanding the spirit in which is was written. Also, for people who are talking about english language use, you sure have a problem reading, since you keep using the words "don't" and "can't" when none of that is ever stated in any policy. You also ignore one of the five pillars on which this entire site is built, rules, policies, etc are not absolute, they are malleable and they can be ignored or bypassed in some situations if a good, reasonable and logical argument can be made for it. Why can none of you have a discussion and put together a good, reasonable, logical counter to the points I have made? Why are you so against uniformity within a topic? Why do you not accept the fact that this is an instance when common sense, usability, uniformity and consistency all point to this change being something that can be done, along with the fact that it should have been done this way from the start since the guidelines noted are about initial creation, and should have been followed, so if something is done incorrectly in the first place, just because a "policy" says you shouldn't do it, you should let the initial error still exist? I think any logical person would say that if something is done incorrectly in the first place, that any policy that would affect the correction should be suspended until after the original mistake is corrected, then the policy would be enforced as intended.
- Think about it this way, if a company has a warehouse(wikipedia) and it has a wing of that warehouse labeled tires(tire article) and then in that room, it has a whole bunch of rooms for the various types of tires(this being one type), each with it's door labeled as motorcycle tires, bicycle tires, car tires, truck tires, snow tires, etc. Do you really think that company is going to randomly label 2 of those rooms studded tyres and moped tyres? No, they aren't because it flies in the face of all the things I have mentioned before. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You were given the reasons for this policy: 1) even debating spelling is a lame waste of time, 2) it worsens the false perception that Wikipedia is by and for Americans, alienating valuable readers and editors around the globe, 3) No actual harm as been cited by the use of "tyre" here. 4) In fact, Wikipedia has been a resounding success, becoming one of the post popular websites on Earth, all the while being vehemently agnostic on English spelling variation.
Where is your evidence that this affects usability? Where is your evidence making use of the redirect from Motorcycle tire causes harm in any way shape or form? Redirects exist for a purpose. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there is a problem here. This has been called Motorcycle tyre for over seven years. In seven years has this caused one iota of difficulty? You come along after this has been stable for all that time and claim that all of a sudden this terrible crime must be undone. Cite your evidence for that. On the other hand, if you want to take the WP:Ignore all rules tack, then you must admit that this flies in the face of policy. Nobody gets to argue on one hand that their wild proposal is within policy, and then do an about face and say, oh, yeah, by they way WP:IAR FTW!!!!. Nope. One or the other. And even then, IAR demands a reason. Cite evidence that 'motorcycle tyre' is a special case that cannot be handled by existing policy, because it's sooooo different than every other article on Wikipedia. Cite proof that 'tyre' "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Do that and you'd have yourself an IAR argument. I'd suggest dropping it and doing something productive. Worrying about spelling is what's preventing you from improving Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- and yet again, you prove that you have completely missed my point. To respond to your numbered points, 1) Why should we not have uniformity within directly related topics? if it's a lame waste of time, why have you spent so much time on this discussion? Clearly you think it's important, as do I. 2) It has nothing to so with any perception of who Wikipedia is for, if the main article for Tire was Tyre, and this one was motorcycle tire, then I would be making the same suggestion in reverse. 3) Why does there have to be harm? You realize something can be improved even if no harm exists, right? 4) Just because there are a lot of page views doesn't really make something successful, the fact this site is given zero integrity in terms of someone being able to use it for research purposes actually would tell me that regardless of how many page views it gets, regardless of how many people edit it, it is still failing to be what it wants to be and claims to be an "encyclopedia" because, unlike every other encyclopedia, it is not an accepted reference work by anyone, for any official purpose.
- Just because something has been stable for a long time, doesn't mean that it should never be changed, names are changed all the time, being the same for any length of time is meaningless, especially if a clear, reasonable, common sense purpose for the rename can be cited, which I have done multiple times. My point about WP:Ignore all rules was to point out that anyone on the other side hasn't been able to actually have a discussion about the change beyond just saying "no because X policy" when there are other policies that can be used to say it shouldn't have been done that way in the first place, if someone breaks a policy or guideline in the first place and it's missed or not paid attention to, why would you invoke a different policy to prevent that correction? That's the flaw in your responses to me that doesn't make sense.
- I can and have cited several reasons why the change makes sense that have nothing to do with any WP policy. I can and have cited several reasons why the change makes sense within policy and guidelines as well because you(and others) refused to discuss anything except policy. Honestly, in the real world, a policy or guideline that defines how an article should be named during the creation process has priority over any policy or guideline that covers changes after it has been created. Once the original policy or guideline error is corrected, then any following applicable policy and guidelines then falls into place appropriately and would be relevant.
- My reason is actually that the change of tyre, to tire in this instance is an improvement in and of itself, not because one variety of english is better or preferred to another, but because the use of this version, in this instance forms a greater uniformity, consistency, continuity and natural flow directly between related parent/child articles, regardless of whether it was initially written as a child or not. If this article were not an existing subsection of 2 parent articles, then I never would have brought this idea to the table. This is one way I am trying to improve Wikipedia, I can work on other things at the same time or later.74.104.150.176 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really suggesting that those opposed to the move are somehow in the wrong by wishing to adhere to a policy that was created for exactly this kind of situation? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been thousands of published criticisms in professional and academic media of Wikipedia's credibility. Has even one of them ever said the problem was the presence of non-US spelling? Has that ever been said, even once? And again, where is the evidence that this change would improve "flow" or "uniformity"? What, specifically, would happen? A y becomes an i. What precisely does that do to articles? What does the reader see or experience that's better? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Dennis Bratland, if it is just a "y" becoming an "i" what are you so against? It would add consistency to the whole of the topic, and be just as easy to read (as others have said) for those of us who speak commonwealth english, and those who prefer american spellings. I think on the whole it is a good thing, but what we're seeing here is a lot of nationalism from the same old parties, who would rather spout policy all day long than !GASP! see an American spelling. ~~ip user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the status quo were all one spelling, whether US or UK or whatever, I'd support that to avoid this kind of nonsense. Since the status quo is mixed spelling, I support that, to avoid this kind of nonsense. The compromise has worked well for 14 years and counting. You guys are free propose a policy change, but you have failed to demonstrate that this article should be an exception to policy, and failed to cite any tangible harm the title 'motorcycle tyre' has caused in the 7 years of its existence. I've seen the fact that the spelling compromise works on Wikipeda, but I've seen no facts that changing tyre to tire would do anything beneficial. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Spelling compromise barely works on Wikipedia, people fight about that all the time. I don't know why the original editor proposed this move, not being privy to their thoughts, but I do think the issue raised is a good point, this is a child article of a main topic (Tire) and thus should be the same spelling, as specified in the policy for child articles WP:SS. I wish to be shown this isn't a debate over British vs. Americans, and rather, over how something should be titled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So you say. If you ever do manage to scrape together any actual evidence that what you propose would solve a tangible problem then you'd have a remote chance of renaming articles like this one. It's clear your real beef is with the policy itself, and you're in the wrong venue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it need to be a tangible problem in order for the change to happen? Things can be changed when they are common sense and reasonable without it being a "problem". However, I have given you a very simple and clear tangible problem for a reason for the change, that problem is language continuity from a parent to a child article when the child article is a direct sub-section of the parent. Honestly, if the original creator was actually writing in his "natural" British English variety, then the article would have been named motorbike tyre, instead they were intentionally selective because of their desire to use wikipedia for spam purposes. Their use violated the guides for how to name an article that is a sub-topic of another article. Policy takes a lot longer to get changed, in the mean time, making this change is easy, simple and has more policies that support it than prevent it. Unless there is a list anywhere that says what policy has priority over another policy, the end result which can be supported by the most number of policies should really be the end result.74.104.150.176 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I proposed the move for exactly that reason, it's about how it should be titled in relation to the parent article(s)(and the article's main category:tires) for continuity and organization, it has nothing to do with choosing or preferring one version of english over another, I would make the same argument if the spellings were reversed and the main article was tyre, and this one tire.74.104.150.176 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary style says nothing about consistent spelling. Neither do category guidelines. You made that up. No actual guidelines, let alone policy, was violated. Which is moot anyway because policy says stability trumps weak (or made up!) guidelines. Now, please walk me through exactly how 'continuity' is a problem. What is broken? How is Wikipedia not working? Maybe I'm too dense to see it so can you tell me simply what the harm is? You keep repeating "continuity"-- so what? Describe step by step for stupid old me the use case where this causes a bad outcome. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad outcome? It's a visual thing for usability, when a list is created is is standard practice to use a uniform spelling, much for the same reason that the same spelling is used within a single article. It ruins the flow of reading, if a person is reading the page on Tires, and then gets to the sub-section and starts to read about motorcycle tires, and then clicks the link to the child article on motorcycle tires, then it should be using the same format because the readers eyes are already used to reading one form of the word. If the pages were not directly related, and it was not a name of an actual sub-section of the parent article, then this wouldn't be an issue, the face it's a child article with the parent articles sub-section title, that is where the problem with continuity comes into play. It's the way it was done on the color page and all of it's sub-section child article spin offs. And in the [article guidelines] - which is related to summary of style - it tells the user in step 2 that the article should be an extension of the parent, changing english variety would violate policy and then in step 6 to "cut" all the text from sub-section for the new article, so changing all the versions to the alternate version of english would again violate policy.74.104.150.176 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruins the flow of reading? Ruins it? Really? Someone coming from Tire to Motorcycle tyre is -- what? -- unable to continue reading? I picture them clutching at their pearls, speechless, having to go lie down before even considering reading on. Laughable. Explain to me what a "ruined" reading experience looks like. Because I think you're making it up. Once again I ask, of the thousands of articles, books, dissertations that have been written about what is wrong with Wikipedia, has even one of Wikipedia's critics ever once said that their reading experience was "ruined" because "color" became "colour" or "tire" became "tyre" when they followed a link from one article to another? If there were any evidence whatsoever that spelling changes ruined anybody's Wikipedia reading experience, we should standardize all spelling, of every article, right now. This "ruined" reading is merely your opinion, and no credible source has ever identified any evidence that any readers suffer from this phantom problem. Either cite evidence or admit you're making this up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making anything up, just because I can't cite some reference online for you doesn't mean it's not a problem and something to consider in the overall structure and format of the articles here. Why do we make all uses within a single article the same but not between a parent and a child article? The largest group of people this is a real problem for are those who suffer from dyslexia, whether mild or severe, the change can make it extremely difficult for the ease of reading because it screws with the flow and their most recent visual association between what they see and what they are able to process it to mean. Congrats, you don't understand it and you don't see it as a problem, but it makes you kind of a jerk to just dismiss it as if it means nothing. I am still curious why you think this is such an outrageous request beyond the narrow point of view of "we don't change it when it has worked for so long". Which is actually terrible reasoning. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't resort to name calling when you're asked for evidence to verify an assertion you made. I never said it had to be online. I can use a library. I can access offline journal articles, and if I can't, others at Wikipedia can. Can you cite anything, anywhere, that says it's a real problem for any Wikipedia readers? I'm willing to understand! Show me. This is the first I've heard that dyslexics have trouble reading Wikipedia because spelling switches from UK to US and back between articles. Has any expert on dyslexia ever published anything -- online or elsewhere -- verifying that this is in fact a problem? I'm want to learn, and if I have incorrect views I want to change them. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again, and I don't mind discarding erroneous beliefs. But I kind of suspect somebody here is overgeneralizing their own personal peeves. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's referred to as "the threshold for confusion", research and papers don't focus on the change in spelling from one variation of english to another because it's so rare to encounter it in everyday life. Even people without dyslexia deal with their own threshold of confusion, however someone with dyslexia can have a much lower threshold which is why it's a major problem. The threshold for confusion deals with changes in patterns as one aspect when it comes to reading, it deals with other real life things as well, like changes in sound volume, changes in smells, light levels, things being moved from one location to another within an environment.
- When it comes to reading, patterns are important, changes in font, print size, type styles, and spelling are all factors which can cause problems, which can cause a person to hit there threshold for confusion where they will continue reading, but they won't understand anything they are reading, and in extreme cases it can cause disorientation, and even physical maladies such as becoming dizzy or fits of rage due to frustration. I am not talking about those extreme cases, simply talking about the ability for people to understand when they read from one directly connected parent article to a child article and why the consistency and continuity for the flow of reading is something to be thought about.
- I am not, nor have I ever said that once a version is used once that it should be used everywhere on the entire site because not every article that has the same word is directly related, or part of a parent/child article dynamic. The parent/child and direct relationship of one article to another is the only reason why this was ever brought up for this article and will likely also go to a couple specific articles in regards to tire types, all terrain, rain, tubular and mud-terrain; although to be honest, all terrain and mud terrain are both articles that should be merged to sub-sections of the main tire article given their existing content, and tubular to a sub-section of bicycle tire but those are different discussions really.74.104.150.176 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely your opinion. You have no evidence that spelling changes from what you consider the parent of 'Motorcycle tyre' is an actual problem for anybody. You can spew out 5,000 word comments repeating the same point all day but you have no evidence. You are the only one saying readers have any difficulty. In seven years. You know what would improve comprehension of the motorcycle tyre topic? Writing well cited content. Please find a productive way to contribute to Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever done any work with dyslexic people? I didn't think so. If you had, you'd know this isn't just an opinion. The worst part of your point of view is the entire "NO WE NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING FOR ANY REASON BECAUSE ____ POLICY SAYS SO" when even WP policy states that no policies are absolute, and there are always exceptions, but no, "POLICY MUST BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY AS WRITTEN WITH NO DEVIATION EVER" even if there are conflicts between policies. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy can change and I would support changing it if I were shown evidence of harm. The fact that you can't cite any, and are reduced to bluffing about your own personal experience with dyslexics tells me that you're not to be believed. The alternative theory is that in the 14 years that articles have been read by billions of humans around the globe in en-US, en-UK, en-AU, etc, nobody on Earth, except you, and only you, now, all of a sudden, has discovered that this is harmful to dyslexics. Oh, and before you had nothing better to say than calling me a jerk, and now you're reduced shouting in ALL CAPS which makes me all the more convinced you're literally the only person on the planet who holds this theory. Nonetheless, my mind, and many other minds here, is open. The day you can cite evidence, you'll have a very compelling case. Today is not that day. Be patient, and when (if) you've got your evidence, come back and present it, and propose a major change. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah, woah woah - "instead they were intentionally selective because of their desire to use wikipedia for spam purposes" where do you get that nugget from? Whatever happened to assuming good faith? You lose credibility with a blanket statement such as that. Why not assume that being an enthusiast, they decided to create an article on a topic they saw was lacking, and decided to get off to a good start by taking an already published chunk of text - which happened to be American, hence the variation of spelling compared to their own preference? Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the claim that there's a preference for 'motorbike' over 'motorcycle' UK English is just false. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do I get that nugget from? Go back and look at the page history. The original creator kept adding spam links, which were removed and there was a minor edit war about those spam links over and over again, until the original author gave up getting the links to stay. They didn't even link where they copy and pasted the original page content from to create the page. If you go to that page that was posted as a "reference"[[28]] during page creation, there is a giant image right in the middle that says "Moto Tyres" which common sense tells me isn't a coincidence that was also the username of the original creator of this page. I am happy to assume good faith, until there is evidence strongly to the contrary, although it is annoying that I wasn't granted the same with respect to this proposal.74.104.150.176 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You have been granted good faith - you're just taking any opposition to your own point of view to be otherwise. If bad faith was assumed at least one of the many editors (7 at last count) opposed would have logged a disruptive or pointy edit accusation at you - none of which has happened. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except of course for the request for page protection of the talk page, but yeah, how could I ever take that as not assuming bad faith.74.104.150.176 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Consistency; the Tire article is spelled "tire", and not "tyre", so why does this article have to take the British spelling? If you want to keep this article where it is, why not move Tire to "Tyre" too? Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 22:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong American oppose - I bleed red white and blue, I consider the current spelling to be a ridiculous abomination, and I am 100% against the move. I would not want Armored car (military) moved just because armour uses the absurd extra-u spelling, and I extend the same courtesy to articles in Commonwealth English. Red Slash 22:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This would set an appalling precedent, and mean completely rewriting WP:ENGVAR. Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
