Talk:Monowheel tractor

Grace's

@Andy Dingley: Could you please explain why you reverted this edit? Grace's is a reliable source; the previous source does not support the content given with it and has been tagged as unreliable for over a year. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Grace's is already cited. There is nothing in WP:RS that requires all sources to meet RS, only that contentious content has to rely on RS, rather than non-RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

We are allowed to cite sources more than once - Grace's already being cited is no impediment to citing it again. WP:V states that questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves. Further, the unreliable source does not support the detail given; per WP:BURDEN, you are responsible for providing a reliable source supporting content you restore. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: ^ . Would appreciate an explanation of why we should use a non-reliable source when a reliable one is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from using Grace's. What you're doing instead though is to remove an additional source. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: What I am doing is replacing a non-reliable source with a reliable one. The non-reliable source does not meet WP:V and so should not be retained. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not a requirement that it meets RS, as noted several comments ago. This is something of an obsession with you, yet it is still not policy to require all sources to meet RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Could you please explain why you feel a non-reliable source should be included in this article? "It isn't forbidden" isn't a reason to do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it is a useful source which contributes to the reader's overall understanding of the topic. This is an obscure topic, one in which the Tractors wikia specialises. There is no credible challenge to its accuracy, even though it is self [sic]-published. There are also resources available through this site, such as the primary document of the Opperman brochure, which would not otherwise be available for hosting here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It directly contradicts our article on points which are supported by sources here but not there - for example, the size of the engine. The brochure is claimed as fair use there; we could do the same if we so chose. But as it appears unlikely we will agree on this point, let's seek some additional opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no question over the size of the engine, you are simply failing to read carefully. The larger JAP was more powerful, but for some unknown reason the later production carts used a Douglas - I don't know why. Douglas didn't make any suitable engine in a larger size.

This is not about some noble goal to improve this article; this is just, as is seemingly every edit I notice from you, simply a personal WP:CRUSADE to remove every source that does not meet RS, no matter how it is used - and the Tractors wikia in particular. That is not our policy. You have done just the same thing over a period of some years at Lister Auto-Truck, removing ELs even when they're ELs not cited sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We have a guideline on external links which would also exclude this site on multiple points. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Should Tractors Wikia be included?

The consensus is that Tractors Wikia should not be included as a link or reference in the article. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Should a link or reference to Tractors Wikia be included in this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't think of any reason not to.----MichaelProcton (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• No. Not a reliable source, not something we want to present to readers as credible. Fails several points of the external links guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So you claim that it can't be linked under WP:ELNEVER §1 as it includes non-free content,

but simultaneously that instead we ought to host that same content here under fair-use? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The brochure isn't a problem - it's fair use there (although without adequate source details), it would be fair use here. The issue is rather using copyrighted images from third parties to advertise its sister sites, which is most definitely not fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment What content is the source being used to verify? Isn't this a question for WP:RSN? Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pincrete, the citation current appears after the sentence "The entire powertrain was carried on the wheel hub, including an 8 bhp JAP or 6½ bhp Douglas single cylinder petrol engine", although it only partially supports that content. We can certainly take it to RSN if, as appears likely, this discussion is inconclusive. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I was just giving general advice as how to best inform 'commenters', I don't feel equipped to judge this particular issue. Posting on relevant noticeboards might get input from more knowledgable editors. In general, few sources are wholly invalid, few are wholly RS.Pincrete (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted a notification there. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Changed to Remove as per Nikkimara Sources are required to be reliable and verifiable for the information they are referencing. A primary source is generally reliable for information on itself - in this case as I understand the argument, the information is held on Tractors Wikia which is sourced there to the brochure/manual. User-generated Wiki's are almost always never reliable due to being unable to verify the information they contain. Key word is almost. Here the information is clearly reliable as we can actually verify it *at the wikia* so frankly I see no need to not list Wikia as a source for this specific info. (This of course would be circumvented if someone uploaded the brochure to commons or hosted it here, then it could be referenced as a primary source and no need to link to the wikia.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Only in death, the information about the Douglas engine does not appear in the brochure, which leads me to believe that the wiki itself and not the brochure was the intended source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Then there is no indication the wiki is reliable for that particular fact and I have switched to remove accordingly. Although I am not against specialist wiki's being linked to from articles. If we (wikipedia) are not going to include all the info that a dedicated reader wants due to editorial decisions, I have never bought the argument we shouldnt link to other wiki's. Its not as if we dont have our own reliability issues on a regular basis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. I'm not taking a position on whether or not it's reliable (although I'd instinctively assume an editable wiki was a problem), but it's pretty useless in the context of the statement that we're using it to support. Also, we can also recover two of the sources used in the wiki (2 & 3, although only (2) seems useful to me); makes sense to use that to support the Douglas engine part, which is the only part the wiki supported. I'll have a stab at trying to find support for the rest. Add - the Black Country Bugle article referenced in the Wiki.[1] Bromley86 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• No I would not consider an open wiki as a WP:RS and would never use it as a reference. However, if the open wiki contains some information which is properly cited, I can always add the information to the Wikipedia article and add the actual citation as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not in main body I know nothing about tractors, but my interpretation of WP:SPS is that open wikis are never reliable sources for the main body. As far as an external link at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, I'm clearly missing the context on "using copyrighted images from third parties to advertise its sister sites", so I can't judge on that. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:52, 13 May 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.

Motocart sources

[2] Self-pub, but clearly an expert. Interesting point - the JAP engines are apparently far more common ("the major quantity", native French speaker writing in English), which casts the completeness of the Wikia source above into question (as it doesn't mention the JAP engine). Note that this might explain why Grace's only refers to the 8 bhp (which would be the 600cc JAP[3][4][5]) engine. Also (unreliable source, so circumstantially) confirmed by blueblackinc over on Honest John, whose family apparently made the Motocart and who mentions JAP, but not Douglas.[6] Bromley86 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a great source already in the article at the end of the para - a 1950 article, complete with scan.[7] I suspect (but don't know) that it may have originally been the basis for the entire para cite, and then someone added the others in, breaking attribution. Anyway, that's unimportant. What is important is that it appears to contradict all those anecdotal refs above when it says that the JAP engine was 872 cc in the text (it's not a machine read error, as the original article scan confirms). However, the tech specs on page 600 (AKA p.64) conform to all those refs, saying it's 588 cc. Given that the bhp of the 588 cc is listed there as 8 bhp, I'd assume that it's the 588/600 that Grace's is referring to. And yet this article mentions horsepower in the title as "8 h.p."; I'm not engine-literate, but broadly speaking I'd assume the 872 cc JAP engine would put out more horsepower than the 588 cc JAP engine?

Anyone able to square that circle? As 872 cc is mentioned just once, might it be a typo in the original? Bromley86 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)