Talk:Glossary of motorcycling terms

Rename?

In the deletion debate, the possibility of renaming this article was raised. Jargon#Examples might be a good place to look for ideas. I kind of like Motorcycling jargon. — Brianhe (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose something like Glossary of cycling, Glossary of motorcycling, would work. You put together every kind of motorcycling terminology, whether it's technical, racing jargon, club or 1%er, whatever, and put it all on one page. Alternatively, you could have a glossary at the end of each relevant article, e.g. Motorcycle training#Mnemonics In most cases, there won't be enough entries to justify a separate list of terms. The introduction should be phrased in a way that makes clear that these are distinct subcultures, and so the glossary is merging together the jargon of groups that don't necessarily overlap. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with that as this article works better as a list of terms used in motorcycling in general (Glossary of motorcycling terms) and keeping it to just MC terms isn't going to get anywhere. Donnie Park (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I take a different view - I suggest having a dedicated list of all motorcycle terms that then provides a link to a list of MC specific terms (i.e. this page). This will avoid any debate as to whether MC specific terms belong in a larger more "appropriate" and therefore, more G-rated version, glossary of motorcycling terms. Aleding (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What? If we have two lists, we're inviting a debate for each and every term, whether it belongs on one list or the other. And in almost all cases, we aren't going to find quality sources to justify even having the term at all, let alone quality sources that tell us whether it's a motorcycle club term or a motorcycling term. I notice you just added several more unsourced entries. I don't think that's helpful at all. When we know that the sourcing for a fact is weak to nonexistent, it's disingenuous to let it hang around hoping a good source will come along some time later. What happens on Wikipedia is that mere opinions, rumors, and outright falsehoods hang around for years, often causing Wikihoaxes to spread to other media.

It is not necessary. If someone wants to try their luck with a dubious, crowdsourced definition, Urban Dictionary is right there for them. Or Reddit. Or any number of other sources. It's not Wikipedia's job to be all things to all people, and when it comes to these slang terms, it's not a job for Wikipedia because the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy excludes all but maybe three of them.

Any objection to removing the unsourced or poorly sourced entries now? There's nothing keeping us from putting them back if sources are found, but every day they stay here another day of hoaxing defintions which we really don't know are correct or not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To each their own but your reasoning for not including terms such as those I added is not really valid when looking at several of the other terms that were there prior to my edits. So the first question that needs to be asked and answered is what is the purpose of such an article? To include only those terms that are sourced from some other place? If so, then NO MC terms belong here for there is no source for things like "cut", "colors", "riding bitch", "hang-around", "cager", etc. Those all originate and are used in the colloquial. I stand by my original suggestion because I feel there is value in Wikipedia - and all encyclopedias - in documenting colloquial terms. However because Wikipedia becomes a de facto bitch session about what does and does not belong, that is a good reason to break out the colloquial from the "bona fide".

As to your question to removing unsourced - YES - I OBJECT. Take a look at most of the terms there (i.e. NOT just those added by me) - most are unsourced. This is typical with most glossaries in the world - not just here. Aleding (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant to be diplomatic in asking for opinions on whether to immediately delete the unsourced material, hoping that you would realize there is no justification on Wikipedia for keeping unsourced facts. Or that if anyone really decided they cared, they would do the research and add the necessary citations.

It's really of no relevance whether other glossaries are unsourced. Generally, published books or dictionaries are credited to their author or publisher. Wikipedia is written anonymously, and rests entirely on its sources. Hence the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, which says under WP:BURDEN that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."

You could perhaps beg for more time to provide citations for some of the entries, but if your argument is that you're never going to cite it because it's not necessary, policy doesn't back you up. You could try to ignore Wikipedia policy, but most of the time, that fails spectacularly. "Policy" is another way of saying, "hundreds of thousands of editors agree". That's a lot of editors to contend with.

Keep in mind that there are many other places on the internet where people can find useful (but not very reliable) lists of motorcycling lingo. There is no compelling reasons why we must have these guesswork and speculative definitions, and regardless of how you or I feel about it, policy says delete it, either now, or soon. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I seriously have no idea what your hangup is with this whole thing. If you truly feel that righteous about your indignation, then why ask? What diplomacy are you seeking to achieve when you clearly have "policy" - errr...that is "hundreds of thousands of editors" to get your back? Seriously, quit making this more of an issue than it needs to be just delete it then. It is a little strange however that you didn't seem to have any issue about this until I added some terms despite the fact that many other terms predating me are equally unsourced. Either way, don't be lame about it - delete ALL of the colloquial terms - not just the ones I put there. Aleding (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

After more research, I am now forced to ask why this whole page isn't deleted? Doesn't it directly violate the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy? Aleding (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Before you say something like, "you didn't seem to have any issue about this until I added some terms", shouldn't you have taken the time to read the article history? I'm in there. Or read the link to the deletion discussion at the top of this talk page? I'm in there too. Before you jump to the conclusion that glossaries like this one, or the hundreds of others in Category:Glossaries violate the policy page you just linked to, shouldn't you read what that policy page says about glossaries?

Please do not accuse editors who want to remove unsourced material of having a "hangup" or being "righteous" or having "indignation" over it, or being "lame". Name calling and personal attacks are not acceptable, and if you continue you may be blocked from editing. You chose to re-start this discussion after it was idle or 10 months, and I treated you with basic respect, and engaged with you rather than simply nuking everything with a curt "see WP:V" edit summary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, to each their own - this is not the forum for back and forth of this nature. Like I said, either delete or don't - TOTALLY your call. If I have an issue with it, I will re-post and escalate. But at this point, you've said your piece - way more than needed - and with that I bid you adieu. Aleding (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)