Talk:Sturmey-Archer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cycling Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Blanking talk pages

It seems to me to be odd to blank a talk page (this dif) that is both reasonably relevant and that one has contributed to, so I have reinstated it. The Sturmey Archer hub gearbox and the feelings it provokes (provoked) have a social relevance. Social relevance has a place in the encyclopaedia, whether on a talk page or in the article. A talk page can be used in many ways, one of which is to flesh out ideas and concepts for current or other articles. Fiddle Faddle 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do see, possibly why you blanked it. The pronoun "you" has a different significance in the UK, where it often refers to the speaker or writer. I suspect you (US usage) though that this was directed at you (US usage) not at me. Fiddle Faddle 12:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No such confusion on the usage of "you", which is not different in US vs. UK English as you state. It's used in both varieties of English as a sort of common pronoun referring to anybody and nobody in particular, sort of along the lines of "one", but not quite the same. No, the reason I deleted the "Hub of Disappointment" chatter was because it was not in compliance with the very first provision on WP:Talk (emphasis per original)

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to  
its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors   
as platforms for their personal views.

and the second talk page guideline on the same page:

Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic 
of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

Your opinion of what it is (or was) like to own a bicycle equipped with the type of gearhub described by this article doesn't fall within those guidelines, and your book project, which I'm certain has its own merits, likewise is not within the purview of this article. For that reason, I have removed it from the talk page. Thanks for understanding. --Scheinwerfermann 14:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You know "Thanks for understanding" is patronising in the extreme. It's all very well quoting rules and regulations, and doing the mini-lawyer thing that so many WP editors seem to love, but the social aspects of various bicycle components ranging from toeclips all the way through gear systems to suspension and handlebar types are topics which concern, or should concern, an encyclopaedia. I'm not going to bother to revert your re-removal because I no longer care enough. I'll let anyone else who actually cares deal with it. The small discussion, in which I am sure I have no need to remind you, you posted an opinion yourself, has the ability to spark a whole series of well researched articles. How fortunate, then, that the deleted text remains in the edit history for others to look at if and when they choose. Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rules-lawyering has become rather prevalent in the past year or so. WP rules are meant to make Wikipedia better. If they don't make Wikipedia better, they should be ignored. There's actually an official Wikipedia rule that says this, but I'm not a rule-lawyer so I can't find the link off the top of my head. I would say that blanking a talk page without adding any content of your own makes Wikipedia worse, not better. If this was a big, lively talk page then it might make sense to delete conversation that wasn't strictly and directly related to improving the article. However, any reasonable person will recognize that *something* relating to the article is better than absolutely nothing at all. Wikipedia operates on the concept of people contributing something--ANYTHING--and slowly making that contribution better. Rules-lawyers have nothing to contribute; they seek only to make Wikipedia less-good by removing information and contributing none to replace it.

It's slightly confusing to see that Scheinwerfermann's comments are nearly half of it--isn't that a little hypocritical? Makes it look like he deleted the page in order to win the argument. For what it's worth, Sturmey-Archer has 8-speed hubs now--I would've added this info myself, but I can't get the details or model number as their website is down. 305% gear ratio. Actually, I'm gettin' one on my new foldable and no, I don't think it's going to make me feel dorky at all :-p. The only reason you'll not see them in the Tour de France, IIRC, is because you're not supposed to shift while pedalling hard. --Lode Runner 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)