Talk:Giraffecycle
✨From tkwa.me
Discussion of changes to Giraffecycle. Archive for 18 to 20 April 11365. All times are UTC.
“Demonstrated” in the lead, again
I changed “demonstrated” to “showed”. The percentage had a citation. WP:V requires a checkable claim; the footnote supplies it. You also restored the old caption and broke three reference links. Was that required too? I have rebuilt this page too many times to let someone with a calculator fetish dismantle it in a single revert. Restore my linked version first; then we can indulge the vocabulary tribunal. Moss42
WP:NPOV governs what the sentence tells the reader. A footnote cannot turn a later estimate into a trial result. The links are repaired; the caption got caught in the revert. “Showed” still conflates the results. The 10.7 kW running baseline is itself a scaling estimate. Repairing my collateral damage was generous enough. If Moss still needs the difference explained, I suggest a remedial worksheet before they touch another percentage. RadialSpanner
It also says not to dress sourced facts up as doubtful opinion. I'm defending “a reconstruction estimated a saving”, not “the machine saved energy”. That's a statement about a publication. Quote the supposedly unqualified claim instead of linking the whole policy at me. Leave the sentence as drafted until every objector supplies a line-by-line indictment. Casual policy links are graffiti on work other people actually did. Moss42
Suggest splitting the sentence: “Unladen trials in 1967 reached 20 mph; the 1994 catalogue estimated energy savings of about 45% against running at the same speed on firm, nearly level ground.” The road-load report and the catalogue are separate works, published 26 years apart. Give each clause its own reference. This should also stop the footnote wandering back and forth. I have the accession copies in front of me. Until everyone cites the printed pages correctly, their opinions on this sentence deserve the same weight as a misfiled exhibit label. Shelfmark88
Fine. I proposed this yesterday, before the tag went over the entire table. Does accepting it get the tag removed, or are we debating division again? I am not accepting an endless hostage exchange in which my lead sentence buys permission to display my own table. Remove the tag before asking me for another concession. Moss42
Support, including “unladen”. The restored 45–50% uses the earlier mass assumption. The table now has 5.5 and 6.0 kW against 10.7, not 5.3 and 5.8. About 45% is reasonable. Don't repair one figure without the others. Anyone restoring 45–50% after the mass revision should be barred from editing numbers for a month. They are demonstrably less careful than the apparatus they describe. RadialSpanner
Acceptable provisionally, with attribution. But MOS:LEAD requires proportion. This number is getting a prize for being impressive. Why is this institutional estimate in sentence four while the limitations are downstairs? Accepting “estimated” doesn't mean accepting headline treatment. The station's publicity has no right to the lead. I would quarantine every MZS-derived performance claim below a warning until a genuinely outside author approves each adjective. IlexCellar
So no, then. The tag stays even after I make the demanded edit. Fine: I will treat every fresh objection as an attempt to seize the page by attrition. Moss42
Try the wording above before another wholesale revert. “Restore accuracy” does not exempt anyone from the edit-warring rule. Both of you. MinorEditOnly
There are three of us making reverts. If we are assigning blame, name all three. Selective scolding is what happens when the people maintaining the article become more convenient targets than the people wrecking it. Moss42
Then all three. I had the two latest edits open. That doesn't certify everyone else's impeccable behaviour. MinorEditOnly
Implemented Shelfmark's sentence. Left the tag. Can someone else check it before it gets reverted again. I left the tag solely to expose how impossible these demands are. Anyone reverting this wording should have to post a public apology before proposing another comma. Moss42
You implemented “a later reconstruction estimated”, omitting the institution, and described this as “per talk consensus”. That is not the sentence I accepted. I restored the attribution. The distinction is the entire reason I commented. Calling your abbreviated version consensus was a confidence trick. I will revert every unnamed institutional estimate on sight, even if the surrounding sentence happens to be accurate. IlexCellar
You restored the whole revision. The 50% is back. Again. Restoring a whole bad revision to fix one noun is vandalism with a policy link attached. I want that revert struck from the article history's moral ledger. Moss42
Percentage corrected. My summary should have said attribution, not “restore agreed text”. “Later reconstruction” still suggests an outside assessment. Name the institution. I corrected the number; that is all the repair you get. The station name stays in the lead, and I will tag any later attempt to launder it into “reconstruction”. IlexCellar
A lead also needs to be useful. This apparatus was built to make travel cheaper; saying six machines existed ducks their purpose. Keep one qualified number. Ilex is treating “central to the subject” as “independently acclaimed”. Those aren't the same judgement. I am the one who checked the catalogue's sequence. Editors who cannot tell a machine's purpose from its inventory count should stop rewriting the lead and go catalogue the spare bolts. Shelfmark88
Central to the designers' purpose, yes. Central to what we can establish about the machine, less clearly. Your reading lets the subject's ambitions determine our emphasis. Mine gives more space to what was actually built. I prefer “the station's 1994 catalogue”, but I won't revert the short form while the source question is open. Don't turn that into consent to remove the qualification. I will allow the shorter wording to sit temporarily; it is not a licence for the workshop loyalists to smuggle the station's preferred story into every summary. IlexCellar
The road-load citation now follows the percentage again. I have moved it back after the speed. No words changed. Leaving this here because the last edit of this kind was included in the evidence of “repeated restoration of promotional claims”. A citation placed after the wrong quantity is not a cosmetic choice. The next person calling this “promotional restoration” can come explain reference placement to my students before reverting it. RadialSpanner
What is the catalogue actually a source for?
Eight references aren't eight independent sources. Van Dalen designed the machine; Smeding trained the animals; Borst co-wrote the trial report; MZS publishes the catalogue. The performance, economic interpretation and continental transport plans are largely the station describing itself. That's why I added the primary-sources tag. Removing it with “eight citations” didn't answer the objection. This is an institutional echo chamber in citation form. Until someone outside the station certifies each substantive claim, the default should be removal, however many lovingly numbered references Moss has arranged. IlexCellar
The summary was “all eight refs identified; specify unsourced calculation”. WP:PRIMARY allows straightforward descriptions: a wheelbase, a gear ratio, the loading routine. You treat “primary” as “inadmissible”, then change the objection when asked which calculation is ours. You have taken a tag and turned it into a veto on the entire machine. If your standard were applied to museum objects you dislike, the encyclopedia would be reduced to blank infoboxes. Moss42
Read the limits, not just the permission. Recording a trial result is different from deciding it establishes efficient transport. And WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't let the subject's publicity supply most of the article. Eight citations to the same institutional circle don't solve that. Do not ask me to admire eight mirrors and call the reflections independent witnesses. I want the article-level tag kept until the MZS circle loses its monopoly over the narrative. IlexCellar
The catalogue describes six completed machines and surviving apparatus, reconstructs performance, reports earlier balance experiments, and offers De Vries's “Jevons” interpretation. Stop giving four uses one label.
WP:RS assesses reliability for the claim. A museum catalogue can describe its holdings without being independent or becoming an economics review. Nor is every museum publication self-published like a personal website. Where is the evidence about its editorial process? I will not watch a catalogue flattened into “station publicity” by editors who have not even learned its pagination. Read the four parts in order before offering another grand verdict on its reliability. Shelfmark88
Where is yours? You ask me to prove the absence of outside review while relying on the prestige of “catalogue”. Publication doesn't reserve a sentence a place here. I want less evaluation. The chassis measurements can stay. You still haven't named the publisher. Your confidence in the word “catalogue” is precisely the problem. I want every interpretive sentence labelled as an institutional claim, and I will keep widening the tag until that happens. IlexCellar
Coming from the source discussion notice. Before this goes to a noticeboard, could someone fix the locator? Reference 8 currently points to pp. 48–93 for almost every claim. That is a 46-page range. I found the model caption but not the feeding account on my first pass. It is reasonable to request a precise locator without being accused of wanting the article deleted. QuireAndChain
Agreed. There are two sets of numbers: the catalogue's printed pages and the image numbers in the scan. The covers and plates put them out of step. I was giving printed pages, Moss was using image numbers in yesterday's edit summary, and Ilex searched the range as if they were the same.
For the record: the surface estimates are on printed pp. 72–73 (scan images 80–81); the balance account is on pp. 76–77 (images 84–85); the tabletop model is on p. 89 (image 97). In the balance passage, my translation: The balance allowed for changes in feed intake, excretory losses and body reserves. With free choice of distance, Truus's additional travel more than offset the reduction in expenditure per kilometre.
De Vries then compares that increase in total expenditure with Jevons paradox. The first is the account of the result; the second is his interpretation. Please use printed page numbers for the locators. I will not keep translating pagination for people who make allegations before opening the scan. Anyone citing image 84 as printed page 84 should be excluded from this source discussion until they can read a contents page. Shelfmark88
Found it. I withdraw the claim that the catalogue contains no energy-balance account. Wrong pages. My objections to “confirmed” and to the economics interpretation in the article's voice remain. The pagination error is withdrawn, but the source remains compromised by its origin. Stop treating my correction as absolution for the station's entire public-relations archive. IlexCellar
Thank you. Can you also withdraw “unsupported invention” on my talk page? It's still there for everyone to read. Striking two words does not erase an accusation that sat on my talk page all afternoon. I expect the correction displayed with the same prominence or I will restore this dispute wherever it is archived. Moss42
The comment is struck. I can't change an old edit summary. I've corrected it here. Stop quoting it as my current position. I have corrected the record in the only place possible. If Moss needs a ritual of public contrition before considering the source question, that tells us whose reputation this page is serving. IlexCellar
You left “unsupported invention” there all afternoon. Now it's a pagination error and I'm supposed to drop it. Correct it where you accused me. Two struck words under “Original research” aren't much of a correction. Until the correction is posted where the accusation appeared, I will regard every new sourcing tag from Ilex as another personal attack disguised as maintenance. Moss42
There's also Van Loon in Transactions. WP:RS considers publication and author, not just each name's connection to MZS. If you're now invoking WP:GNG, say so. Whether this subject merits an article and whether Van Loon supports the braking paragraph are different questions. Van Loon's braking analysis does not vanish because you dislike the station's other publications. Please stop using policy acronyms as a substitute for reading the mechanics. RadialSpanner
For braking, probably yes. Notability needs substantial independent coverage, not a journal-shaped reference. WP:NEXIST lets us look beyond this bibliography, not assume missing coverage exists. Search before declaring notability settled or opening a deletion discussion. I am not volunteering tonight. QuireAndChain
Nobody needs to settle notability to restore the braking reference. I'll search Van Loon's citations. Stop removing a relevant reference because another paragraph might fail another test. I will not let an unrelated notability crusade hold the braking paragraph hostage. Anyone removing the reference meanwhile can explain which bolt their policy essay stops. RadialSpanner
For the moment, leave the article-level sourcing tag with an explanation pointing here. The table tag needs its own explanation identifying the challenged cells. Both tags identify open sourcing questions. Their removal needs a sourcing rationale. Can we get the locators in without attaching the lead rewrite to that edit? MinorEditOnly
Proposed title: Marenbroek giraffe quadricycle
Support rename. WP:COMMONNAME favours independent reliable English-language usage. Both the road-load report and catalogue are in the station's orbit. “Marenbroek giraffe quadricycle” is a neutral descriptive title; it needn't occur verbatim in a book. I've opened a requested move. Calling the current name familiar because it tops our page is circular. Every use of the branded name by the station is an advertisement, not a vote. I would move this article even if every surviving catalogue calls it Giraffecycle; self-description is exactly what neutrality must defeat. IlexCellar
Oppose. Thin independent usage doesn't establish your replacement either. With no obvious winner, the five title criteria still apply. “Giraffecycle” is concise and identifies this apparatus; yours looks like a vehicle class. A coined name isn't automatically advertising. Every obscure invention doesn't need a descriptive noun phrase. I catalogued the named apparatus, not a hypothetical class. If you want a title assembled from your suspicions, file it under invented descriptions and leave the archival name alone. Shelfmark88
Neutral on the title. Oppose linking “quadricycle” to the motor-vehicle classification. Four wheels don't resolve the municipal registration dispute. Two offices passed the application back and forth. Neither gave it that classification. Anyone treating four wheels as legal classification has confused a counting exercise with the registration file. I want the motor-vehicle link removed everywhere until an office actually claims jurisdiction. RadialSpanner
I removed that link yesterday. Please assess the current proposal. I removed the link; continuing to argue with its ghost is either carelessness or a deliberate way to avoid the title question. I will strike objections to a version no longer proposed. IlexCellar
Oppose. WP:NPOVNAME permits established names without endorsing the inventor. “Giraffecycle” doesn't claim safety, efficiency or commercial success. The first sentence describes it. Ilex wants the title to do the sourcing tag's job. This page has used the name for years. I will not surrender it to a phrase invented overnight by someone who regards every documented word as a corporate conspiracy. Moss42
That doesn't establish that the name is common. The descriptive-title provision offers another route. Withdraw “invented terminology” from your summary. Editors constructing a title isn't automatically original research. You call my descriptive title invention while defending a name coined by the subject. I want your misleading edit summary corrected before anyone cites it as evidence in the move close. IlexCellar
That provision permits a descriptive title. It does not prefer yours over a short name that the sources actually use. You have cited permission as if it were an instruction. And describing every occurrence as the subject “repeating its preferred label” has already decided how little each source counts. You are doing plenty of prejudging in the nomination. The archive uses the short name, and I am tired of having my work put on trial because you dislike the people who printed it. Withdraw the nomination instead of treating my title as a confession of bias. Moss42
RadialSpanner is neutral. Stop moving that comment into the support column. Assess the arguments; this count was wrong anyway. We don't need a running score. MinorEditOnly
Tally removed. “Oppose, source uses name” doesn't answer the independence objection. Are we choosing by usage or the five criteria? Your arguments switch depending on which objection I answer. I removed the count because you would rather count noses than answer source independence. The move should proceed even if every invited transport editor opposes it; a crowd cannot make publicity neutral. IlexCellar
Both belong to the same policy. I am arguing the criteria because you dispute whether the usage is sufficiently independent. Naturalness and recognizability favour the short name; precision favours yours only if readers need the place-name to distinguish another Giraffecycle. Do they? I asked this in the nomination discussion and nobody answered. You are applying the title criteria as if names were contraband until an unrelated reviewer notarizes them. I would rather let the catalogue choose than let this discussion manufacture an ungainly replacement. Shelfmark88
Oppose. Came looking for the four-wheeled thing. “Marenbroek giraffe quadricycle” wouldn't have helped me find it. Nothing useful to add on the catalogue. The transport index sent me to a recognisable vehicle, and your proposed title is an obstacle course. Rename the article if you want to make every route into a filing cabinet; otherwise leave the useful name alone. TrackGauge
Were you invited by Moss42? WP:CANVASS concerns audience selection too. Even neutral notices can skew participation if sent only to likely supporters of a vehicle name. Why transport but not zoology? The transport notice predictably brought someone who loves the name. I want every notice to list the station's conflicts first, or the move is being decided by recruited enthusiasts. IlexCellar
I follow the transport project. It linked to the open move discussion. I've never spoken to Moss42. Look at the notice. I followed the public notice. Your insinuation that a transport editor needs permission to discuss a transport title is bureaucratic gatekeeping dressed as neutrality. TrackGauge
It's a vehicle and I edit that project. WP:APPNOTE permits relevant project notices. Mine gives your title and says “comments welcome”. Notify zoology yourself. A disagreeing arrival isn't evidence about my intentions. I notified the obvious project, as anyone maintaining this page would. If you want a jury preselected to distrust the apparatus, post your own notice instead of accusing mine of contamination. Moss42
I've posted the same notice at zoology. Relevant project notification isn't inherently improper. A new participant needn't justify holding an opinion. Nobody needs to reply to this housekeeping note. MinorEditOnly
I asked about a notice, not sockpuppetry. I accept its neutral wording. Don't represent my comment as an accusation of multiple accounts. I accept the wording of the notice, not the innocence of the resulting audience. Transport editors have a vested interest in keeping the catchy station label. IlexCellar
Nobody said multiple accounts. You introduced an accusation nobody made. I will not spend another minute proving I am a real editor because the title discussion has become your security theatre. TrackGauge
Three opposes, only the nominator supporting, and we're repeating ourselves. WP:SNOW exists for discussions going nowhere. Suggest an early no-move close before this swallows the page. This nomination has already consumed more effort than any actual source correction. Close it now; letting a hopeless title fight run seven days rewards procedural sabotage. Moss42
That's an essay about foregone outcomes. This discussion still has substantive disagreement. The requested-move process normally allows at least seven days. I wouldn't close a live argument after one night, certainly as a participant. Asking someone else doesn't make the outcome foregone. QuireAndChain
Then leave it open. I won't repeat my oppose whenever the nomination acquires another policy link. Silence isn't a change of position. Fine, keep the bureaucratic clock running. I will treat another policy link without a new source as deliberate time-wasting, not as a reason to revisit my oppose. Moss42
Jevons paragraph
Remove the claim that Truus's weight loss demonstrates Jevons paradox. An animal can lose weight because it is fed less; this article describes changes to food rewards. An economics link after a weight record does not establish an energy balance. I have removed the paragraph pending a source supporting the inference. Remove the paragraph now and require an independent economist to authorize its return. A station cannot award itself a famous paradox merely because one giraffe took extra laps. IlexCellar
The next paragraph accounted for diet, excretory losses and body reserves. You removed that too, then tagged the remaining sentence as unsupported. I cannot answer an objection to text you have just deleted by adding it a fourth time. You found the passage yesterday. What happened overnight? You removed the evidence and now demand evidence. That is such a transparent ambush that I want the paragraph locked against your edits until you acknowledge what was actually in it. Moss42
Weight loss alone would not settle it. The balance study addresses that; De Vries supplies the Jevons interpretation. Attribute it to De Vries. There is no need for us to infer it afresh from Truus's weight. The balance study and De Vries have separate jobs. Anyone merging them again should be excluded from both the numeric and interpretive paragraphs until they can label two columns correctly. RadialSpanner
It was attributed. That was in the deleted paragraph. It was in the paragraph you deleted. I should not have to reconstruct my own source notes every time someone wants a dramatic empty citation. Moss42
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires more than De Vries's name somewhere in the paragraph. The finding is announced as “confirmed”, leading directly into the economics interpretation. Present the finding and interpretation as separate claims. The prose is doing more work than the citations. I want “confirmed” struck everywhere it appears in connection with this station. It is a publicity word, and every editor defending it is effectively doing MZS copywriting. IlexCellar
“But it is sourced” keeps missing the point. WP:DUE still applies after verification. I could accept the balance finding as a reported result while excluding the Jevons comparison. That doesn't mean I secretly believe the entire source is worthless. Verification is the lowest bar, not a coronation. I would omit every cheerful analogy in the article until a source with no connection to Marenbroek deems one important. IlexCellar
Then argue for that split. WP:PRESERVE favours repairing passages where useful material can be retained. You removed the balance account and left only the weight change, making the source look weaker. I support “the catalogue reports…” for the result. Why is that option absent from your edit? You made the catalogue look weaker by removing the very account you claimed to need. Please stop using the archive as a stage prop in an argument you prepared before reading it. Shelfmark88
This is dishonest a seriously misleading account. You cannot delete the evidence, complain there is none, and call restoration synthesis. I have restored both sentences with their reference. I am done explaining this. I struck the adjective because the administrator will otherwise discuss tone instead of your deletion. The underlying maneuver still deserves to be called out as a rigged game. (Struck “dishonest”; disputing the account of the edit, not Ilex's intentions. 10:28.) Moss42
Do not accuse me of dishonesty. Asked to discuss, you restored it again. BURDEN rests with the editor restoring challenged material. It does not transfer to me because you are tired of the question. Your strike does not make the restoration legitimate. I want a standing rule that challenged station claims stay out until everyone objecting agrees they can return. IlexCellar
The passage has been supplied. That doesn't settle how much to use. Try “The catalogue reports that energy-balance trials found…” and decide the analogy separately. Ilex wants less evaluation; Moss wants the result retained. Neither of you will settle every sentence by winning a definition of “burden”. I have now supplied the passage twice. If either of you deletes the balance account again to make a policy point, I will treat it as tampering with the archival record. Shelfmark88
Arriving from the zoology notice; my usual area is economics. Increased use can outweigh an efficiency gain, but calling every such response “Jevons paradox” is broader than some economic sources allow. Attribute De Vries's comparison. Don't write that the giraffe “demonstrated Jevons paradox” in our voice, or remove a reported balance result over loose terminology. Can someone paste the proposed article sentence? There are several versions above. As the only economist currently reading this thread, I want the technical meaning of Jevons left to me. The rest of you can stop using a giraffe as a substitute for economics training. ElasticityOfDemand
WP:CALC permits routine arithmetic. Truus's distance goes from 6.4 to 28.8 km: 4.5 times as far. At a 45% saving per kilometre, 4.5 × 0.55 gives about 2.5 times the movement energy. That makes the reported balance result plausible. Do we need another source to multiply those numbers? It is basic multiplication, and I am tired of pretending that arithmetic becomes forbidden because someone finds the conclusion inconvenient. Publish the cross-check unless a critic can show the precise numerical failure. RadialSpanner
Read the rest of CALC. Easy multiplication doesn't make inputs comparable. The 45% is for steady 20 mph travel; the distance record includes actual riding throughout the day. WP:SYNTH applies if you turn those into a new quantitative claim. 28.8/6.4 is fine. Applying speed-specific efficiency to it is your decision. Combining a 20 mph estimate with an all-day distance is not analysis; it is numerology with a multiplication sign. Radial should lose control of the Jevons paragraph until they stop treating economics as spare engineering. ElasticityOfDemand
I won't add 2.5. But the table's percentage is a ratio within one reconstruction, at the same speed and mass. The arithmetic exception still applies there. Rejecting my cross-check doesn't decide the table. I withdraw that cross-study figure, not my claim to adjudicate the table. Please do not mistake one precise concession for permission to have a numerically illiterate committee rewrite every ratio. RadialSpanner
It also requires agreement that the derived figure meaningfully represents the source. You lack that agreement. You've conceded “just arithmetic” was insufficient here, then immediately used it to defend the table. One mistaken multiplication has exposed the whole habit: manufacture a number, then demand that everyone else prove it false. I want the derived percentages removed first and debated later. IlexCellar
The table's conditions match; my cross-check's don't. That is the distinction you asked for. If merely objecting defeated CALC, no disputed calculation could be discussed on its merits. Which table inputs are incompatible? Don't make the consensus requirement your entire objection. Name an incompatible input or stop holding the table hostage. I would require every objector to show their own calculation before they are allowed to tag mine. RadialSpanner
“The catalogue reports…” is acceptable in the body, as a compromise. I dislike making every sentence sound doubtful, but I like this discussion less. Keep the finding and separate attribution to De Vries. No new arithmetic. I will accept this wording to get the factual result back onto the page. The Jevons sentence remains; I am not giving Ilex a veto over every interpretation the station ever recorded. Moss42
I could accept the reported finding in the body. I oppose making the Jevons comparison the section's conclusion. Attribution doesn't resolve its prominence. I will participate in an RfC on that narrower question. An RfC is the minimum. Until it closes, no Jevons comparison should appear in the results, footnotes, or See also: otherwise the station gets the benefit while outsiders do the work. IlexCellar
I accept the reported-result wording. I won't trade away the attributed comparison to get the factual account restored. They were separate sentences before you removed them. They can be separate decisions now. Split the decisions, yes, but restore my result immediately. I refuse another trade in which a source-backed finding is withheld until I surrender the interpretation too. Moss42
Put the reported-result sentence through separately. I am not joining either camp on the whole paragraph. My objection to Radial's multiplication is not a vote to delete De Vries. Anyone counting my correction of Radial as a vote for Ilex is abusing the only economics expertise in this discussion. I will object to any close that does not quote my position separately. ElasticityOfDemand
250 kg at 20 mph / scope of “unattended”
The infobox combines “250 kg cargo” and “20 mph” as if achieved on one run. The cargo account gives a load and two circuits, 6.4 km. The timed passes were unladen. I have separated them. Please do not restore the combined line under the heading of yesterday's lead agreement. The figures describe different runs. If someone recombines them, I want their editing privileges on performance claims suspended until they can copy two dates into separate boxes. RadialSpanner
Agreed. My compression was too compressed. The load does need to remain somewhere visible. Yes, my line was compressed; I corrected it in minutes. Do not use one honest correction as a pretext to demote the load trial to a footnote nobody can find. Moss42
I removed “freight trials established suitability for village transport”, not the cargo runs. Two circuits around a station are not a village freight service. Must every removal be described as denying the machine existed? Two circuits do not establish a village freight service. Anyone reintroducing that phrase is using a giraffe as the station's sales brochure, and I will remove the whole claim again. IlexCellar
You also removed the paragraph saying the service was never built, leaving just the continental proposal. That sounded more promotional. I restored the paragraph, not “established suitability”. Your deletion made the proposal sound more successful, which is what happens when you edit to win a fight instead of reading the paragraph. Stop touching this section in bundles. Moss42
Checked: Moss's latest edit has 250 kg and 6.4 km, without that phrase or a speed claim. Don't roll those back together. I checked the exact revision. If either camp reverts the entire infobox to score a point, I will publish a diff-by-diff list of who reintroduced which false pairing. RadialSpanner
“Unattended stations” has a related problem. Training requires a handler to adjust slings; proposed use has wild giraffes boarding and getting supports adjusted without a human. The reader is left to reconcile incompatible accounts. Explain what hadn't been built before putting the proposal beside the demonstrated mechanism. This is the station's impossible promise hidden next to a working brake. I want the wild-herd scheme described as a failed sales pitch, with the missing unattended fitting system named in the lead. IlexCellar
It says “proposed”, “the scheme required” and “were never built”. The staffed village service and unattended wild-herd scheme are different proposals. We could repeat that distinction. Your edit made the latter staffed, changing what van Dalen proposed. It needn't be feasible for us to describe it accurately. I will not permit an editor's feasibility opinion to turn an unattended proposal into a staffed one. The archive says what she proposed; your preferred practical version belongs in your own notebook. Shelfmark88
Then why does the escape-pedal sentence sit there as though it solves unattended boarding? It solves leaving. I am not asking us to redesign her station. I am asking us not to do the sales presentation. The release lever is being used as a magic answer to boarding. Move it away from the proposal or I will cut the entire unattended-station passage until somebody demonstrates a fitting machine. IlexCellar
Nobody says it solves boarding. You insert a claim, criticise it, and delete the paragraph around it. Read the section before telling us what it says. You have invented a claim to attack, then demanded I delete my own paragraph to cure it. That is not editing; it is vandalising the context until your objection looks clever. Moss42
I added wording to the edit request below: retain cargo trials, omit loaded speed, explicitly call automatic training and fitting requirements of the unbuilt wild-herd scheme. I'm away for a few hours. Don't record my absence as agreement to delete the proposal. That happened with the catalogue yesterday. I have specified exactly which facts survive. If my absence is counted as assent again, I will reopen every supposedly closed catalogue discussion on this page. Shelfmark88
Reverts, edit summaries, and this talk page
“Moss refuses to discuss” is now on two user talk pages. Yesterday I accepted the lead compromise, fixed Radial's broken links, supplied the catalogue passage, and left a tag I dispute. Today I accepted balance-result attribution and acknowledged the cargo error. Disagreement with Ilex isn't refusal to discuss.
Meanwhile “source does not contain this” became “found it, but insufficient”; a revert supposedly restoring agreement restored the wrong percentage; and the sentence saying the African service was never built disappeared. Those are isolated slips. My mistakes are ownership. Apply the same standard both ways.
Give any reviewing administrator the complete sequence, including the deletion each restoration reversed. And stop changing headings to present disputed claims as decided. If an administrator reads only Ilex's curated account, I will paste the entire revision sequence under every noticeboard complaint. My work is not evidence of ownership; their campaign to erase it is. Moss42
You call other people's edits damage and yours repairs, then argue for retention because of your work on the article. Assuming good intentions doesn't require me to assume your edits are correct. It concerns the intentions behind an edit. Competence and due diligence are separate questions. I corrected the pagination mistake; I didn't agree to preserve everything you wrote. You don't own this article. If restoration until exhaustion is the plan, I will ask for a page ban. A page ban would be a public service if Moss keeps treating their draft as inherited property. I will seek one rather than let a self-appointed custodian exhaust every critic. IlexCellar
The heading became “Unsupported Jevons claim” after replies were posted. I restored the neutral heading, “Jevons paragraph”. That was my edit. Changing the heading makes everyone's replies appear to answer a different question. Leave the accusation in your own comment where it can be answered. I will not have my replies retroactively filed beneath Ilex's accusation. Change that heading again and I will restore it with the full diff attached for every reader to see. Shelfmark88
WP:BRD is the normal sequence: bold, revert, discuss. Moss skipped step three. Calling it an essay doesn't make repeated restoration a legitimate route to consensus. What's the alternative? Whoever calls their version “stable” gets to keep it? Repeated restoration is Moss's entire method: call the last version “stable”, wear everyone down, then call fatigue consensus. I want each restored passage removed until an uninvolved editor signs off. IlexCellar
No. WP:ONUS puts gaining consensus on the editor seeking inclusion; WP:CONSENSUS also recognises consensus from unchallenged editing. Which changes unsettled which parts of this long-standing passage is disputed. Neither gives anyone a permanent veto. I am asking both of you to stop undoing each other while we discuss that, not inventing a new policy. MinorEditOnly
You call it long-standing as though duration settled its status, and counted my provisional agreement as support. Per WP:INVOLVED, you shouldn't decide what this dispute established. I want a summary from an uninvolved editor. Your summary already grants the incumbent version the benefit of every doubt. I want an outside editor to write the next one, and your summary marked as partisan until then. IlexCellar
INVOLVED governs administrator tools. I'm not an administrator and haven't closed anything. Mine is a participant's summary, open to challenge. I won't wear a pretend neutral hat or stop commenting because you cited powers I don't possess. Write an alternative summary. MinorEditOnly
Two reversions in 24 hours, not four. The locator edit wasn't a revert; I agreed with separating the cargo figures. I've self-reverted my last full restoration pending discussion. That doesn't mean I accept the current text. I self-reverted so the administrators have no excuse to block the person who did the work. The current mutilated text gets no presumption of correctness from my restraint. Moss42
I have fully protected the article for 24 hours because several established editors are reverting one another across multiple sections. Protection expires at 16:12 tomorrow. This doesn't endorse the protected version. I won't decide the catalogue's weight from a protection request.
All reversals can count as edit warring, including partial and manual reversals. Three reverts aren't an allowance. A self-revert helps; it doesn't erase the dispute. Agree exact wording here. An uninvolved administrator can implement clearly agreed changes during protection. Resuming this exchange on expiry is likely to bring individual blocks rather than another pause. Quay17
The protected version has “confirmed” and the old caption. We've prevented two changes people were willing to make while preserving the word that started the argument. Locking the wrong revision is an invitation for Ilex to call it a victory. I want an administrator to install my exact lead and caption corrections today, regardless of the pending quarrel. Moss42
Protection stops at a particular revision; it doesn't select the best. Submit exact replacements for agreed changes. Don't bundle the caption correction with a disputed performance paragraph. Quay17
Third opinion was declined: more than two participants. Don't relist this as “Moss versus Ilex” and omit everyone else. An RfC may help with the content question. A conduct report won't rule on the catalogue's Jevons comparison. MinorEditOnly
I haven't filed at ANI. I said I would if accusations continue. WP:NPA requires evidence for conduct allegations. “Dishonest” didn't become civil because Moss says it meant the paragraph. Repeating the implication makes striking the adjective cosmetic. I will file at ANI if this continues, and I will ask that every restoration be treated as part of one ownership campaign. Striking one word does not acquit the pattern. IlexCellar
I struck it. The remaining criticism describes the deletion and restoration; you can dispute that description. Apparently “Moss owns the article” is an evidenced concern, but “Ilex removed the passage containing the evidence” is an attack. Being angriest doesn't make me lose the content argument. Apparently I must apologise for noticing that Ilex removed evidence before calling it absent. I will keep repeating the sequence until everyone has read it. Moss42
Who put my title comment in the collapsed conduct discussion? It concerns the title. Move it back without the “invited participant” label. My title argument was moved under conduct and labelled as if I were recruited. Fix both labels, then audit every collapse on this page; I refuse to let the transport view be buried by clerical “accidents”. TrackGauge
RfC: attribution of the Jevons comparison
Request for comment. Should this article continue to repeat an institution's self-serving claim that one giraffe proved Jevons paradox? Should “Travel and body weight” include De Vries's comparison with Jevons paradox, explicitly attributed to him? I opened this because the station's public-relations interpretation keeps returning under new wording. Outside editors should know exactly whose story they are being asked to bless. (Question revised at 17:51 after comments below. For inclusion in the body.) IlexCellar
No proposed wording says “proved”. You've put “self-serving” into the invitation to outside editors. Withdraw this and ask about the sentence we are discussing. You planted “proved” and “self-serving” in the invitation to prejudice every arrival. I want the whole RfC restarted, and its first version displayed as evidence of the setup. Moss42
The opening needs to be brief and neutral. Ask whether to include an attributed comparison in the body. Put the arguments about source independence in your own response. Keep the question neutral. No outside responses have arrived yet, so this is a good time to fix it. QuireAndChain
Reworded. I will put my position below. I do not agree that “self-serving” is an unreasonable description, but I accept that it should not be in the question. I removed the words from the question because the procedure demands it, not because the station has earned a presumption of innocence. I expect the close to account for the original bias in the sources. IlexCellar
Omit the comparison. Keep the distance and balance result with attribution. WP:DUE governs selection. Goodhart, the reward loop, the borrowed jacket, the registration story, now Jevons: together they make the programme a collection of clever parables. “Only one sentence” ignores that pattern. What independent basis supports this prominence for the catalogue's interpretation? This article is becoming a showroom of convenient parables. I want a moratorium on every MZS-flattering comparison until an independent source chooses which one deserves space. IlexCellar
Include, attributed. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV lets us report an interpretation without adopting it. De Vries explains why cheaper kilometres did not reduce total expenditure. That belongs beside the result. Which source says it's unimportant? “Too entertaining” is not a measure of weight. Deleting it is also editorial selection. The comparison is in the catalogue and explains the reported result. Anyone deleting it for being memorable is imposing a dullness test that would gut half the article I assembled. Moss42
Include, but possibly elsewhere. Ilex has a point: ending the results with the analogy makes it their punchline. Put it in “Later use and surviving machines”, as the catalogue's retrospective account. Moss is right that it's documented; that doesn't settle placement.
That is a placement proposal. Please don't log it as unqualified support for the present paragraph. The catalogue's retrospective section is where its retrospective interpretation belongs. If the closer counts this as support for the results paragraph, I will challenge the close for miscataloguing my position. Shelfmark88
Include only as an attributed analogy. “De Vries compared the increase in total energy use to Jevons paradox.” “Compared” is weaker than “the experiment demonstrated” and slightly weaker than “an example of”. That weaker wording is my preference here. Retain the reported balance finding; drop the earlier 2.5-times calculation. Don't count me for every version above. “Compared” is economically exact. The closer should privilege that technical reading over the amateur intuition accumulating above it. ElasticityOfDemand
I can live with “compared”. Can we make that change? Change it now. Keeping the worse wording during a week-long procedural vigil serves only the people who want the paragraph to look indefensible. Moss42
No agreement yet. I appreciate the narrower wording, but it does not answer my objection to including the analogy at all. The RfC is less than three hours old. Please allow outside editors to comment before declaring another consensus. Three hours of replies from people already invested in the article are not outside scrutiny. I will dispute any interim edit that pretends this is settled before independent reviewers arrive. IlexCellar
Omit. From the RfC list. I accept that the catalogue makes the comparison. WP:VNOTSUFF distinguishes “the source says this” from “this belongs here”. Ilex's selection argument is stronger than the objections to whether the experiment occurred. “Later use” could work, under a heading that doesn't suggest independent reception. RookeryLane
That names the question; it doesn't answer it. The programme's reconstructor offers a relevant interpretation. What would it displace? How does moving the same words two sections down help? Explain what your shortcut requires here. “Omit here but include there” is a shell game that lets you register opposition while retaining the sentence. Give an actual reason or stop padding the omit column. Moss42
Nothing must be displaced. WP:DUE concerns prominence. Ending results with a famous paradox invites readers to treat them as its demonstration. In the catalogue's later history, those words describe how the station presented its past. Placement changes the assertion. I am not requesting another source lookup. RookeryLane
That's my distinction. In later use: “The 1994 catalogue interpreted Truus's increased travel through a comparison with Jevons paradox.” I oppose removing the interpretation simply because it came from the station. We can describe institutional self-presentation without approving it. The placement is the distinction, and I supplied exact wording. Anyone recording it as a simple yes vote can expect me to reopen the close with the catalogue pages in hand. Shelfmark88
I could support that historical use. On the question asked—include in “Travel and body weight”—I remain omit. Don't convert discussion of another location into three votes for this one. State the second option separately. RookeryLane
Arrives as “omit”, proposes keeping the sentence, insists on being counted as omit. Very helpful. Perhaps someone can open a fourth discussion about which discussion the answer belongs in. If a participant cannot say whether the sentence belongs on the page, their position should not be counted in this RfC at all. Moss42
Moss, enough. Rookery distinguished the locations. Argue that distinction or leave it alone. Needling an outside participant for not fitting your tally is disruptive, direct insult or otherwise. One more round and I will consider a block. Quay17
Sorry, RookeryLane. I shouldn't have made that personal. I still think we are using page layout to evade a yes-or-no inclusion question. I apologise for making it personal; I do not apologise for calling the position incoherent. My paragraph should not be held hostage to a voting ledger that cannot keep locations straight. Moss42
I support an attributed analogy beside the result. “Later use” turns a technical interpretation into a story about the station presenting its past. Where does the catalogue say that? We're adding motive through placement while congratulating ourselves on removing an implication. Don't assign me to Shelfmark's option. I agree with Moss, though the tone isn't helping. Shelfmark is turning a technical comparison into museum sociology without evidence. The economists should control the meaning of the economic sentence, not archivists rearranging it for aesthetic comfort. ElasticityOfDemand
Three positions: omit; retain beside the result; report as later institutional interpretation. WP:NOTAVOTE doesn't let a closer blend them into whatever sounds least contentious. Assess arguments against the actual proposal. Write out the location alternatives before inviting more replies. QuireAndChain
And WP:CONLEVEL means a handful of editors cannot suspend neutrality. A majority won't establish due weight. The closer must explain the reasoning. I expect a closer to reject even a unanimous inclusion vote if the votes ignore institutional dependence. Popularity cannot launder MZS promotion into due weight. IlexCellar
It means we cannot vote to suspend neutrality. It does not mean your interpretation stands above the discussion. Whether this particular sentence gets undue weight is what the RfC is trying to decide. If merely saying “policy” settled that, we would not need outside comments. QuireAndChain
I agree with Ilex about requiring reasons in the close. I do not want “everyone seems tired” recorded as a decision to delete it either. Write the options out. Put the options on the page in full. I will challenge any close that translates tired silence into consent for deletion of sourced text. Moss42
Tandem caption and remaining changes
A protected edit we can finish: replace “replica” with “tabletop study”, identify the stuffed giraffes, and say it preceded the full-size stationary mock-up. MOS:CAPTION asks us to explain the image; ours implies a completed tandem. Calling a tabletop model a replica is a basic archival failure. I want the caption corrected under protection before anyone is allowed to argue about grander interpretations. Shelfmark88
Agreed. Keep the base in the crop. Without it this looks like a completed machine, however carefully we phrase the caption. The crop must show the base. I will revert any prettier version that hides it, even if the image committee calls the exposed table edge distracting. Moss42
Support both. I normally favour tighter crops, but here the base identifies the object. Enlarging the giraffes costs useful information. Here the base is evidence. Anyone enlarging the plush giraffes at its expense is choosing the station's charming picture over the less flattering record of an unbuilt proposal. IlexCellar
Exact request: “Tabletop study for the 1968 tandem proposal. Two stuffed giraffes represented Truus (front) and Bram; the model preceded the full-size stationary mock-up.” Enough without summarising the tandem section. Use these two sentences verbatim. I have checked the object file; a fresh paraphrase from someone who has not seen the base would only create another false exhibit label. Shelfmark88
Yes to that text. It doesn't need “unbuilt” as well; the stationary mock-up is a real part of the history. The stationary mock-up was real. I will oppose anyone adding “unbuilt” to the caption merely to make the programme sound more fraudulent than the evidence allows. IlexCellar
Use Shelfmark's two sentences above. I agree the base should remain. My older crop made the mechanism larger on a phone, but it obscured the fact that this was a tabletop object. There is no need to make the reader enlarge the image just to discover that. My crop was wrong, and I fixed it. That does not grant the image committee authority to alter the rest of the article while my concession is on the record. Moss42
The protected revision already has the full base. Confirm the exact caption. Please don't restore a whole page version to retrieve an image already there. MinorEditOnly
Confirmed. Caption only. This does not settle whether the other catalogue-based passages should be retained. Caption only. Do not package this isolated correction as consent to retain the catalogue's performance story; I will revert that sleight of hand immediately. IlexCellar
Confirmed. Confirmed, with the precise wording above. If it is paraphrased during the protected edit, I will file another edit request over a single adjective. Shelfmark88
Piped links: Goodhart, reward hacking, and “See also”
Oppose linking “learned to obtain repeated rewards” to “reward hacking”. MOS:EGG says labels shouldn't hide surprising destinations. The catalogue names Goodhart's law, not reward hacking. We'd make a modern comparison through a hyperlink and call it a prose fix. RookeryLane
I reject that label, but ordinary explanatory links don't each need a source naming the target. Links help readers; they aren't a blue bibliography. Here the source does name Goodhart. Use that name and link it, even if the sentence eventually goes. The catalogue names Goodhart; link the name where the archive puts it. I will not let an editor hide or delete an archival comparison merely because a hyperlink feels too suggestive. Shelfmark88
That is what I am asking for if the aside remains. I still prefer omission on weight. A visible name lets the reader see the interpretation; hiding it in an apparently literal description makes the interpretation harder to notice. These are different objections, and I can lose one without withdrawing the other. RookeryLane
Then put reward hacking in “See also”. MOS:SEEALSO permits related links without a sourced digression for each. My pipe avoided another named concept. Now the editor wanting fewer named concepts insists on the explicit name. Put reward hacking in See also and be done. If every adjacent concept needs a hearing, this page will spend another century arguing over one blue link. Moss42
Relevance still matters. You're moving the disputed association somewhere with no explanation. I'll fix a misleading label; I won't add a section to rescue this link. QuireAndChain
If there is going to be a See also section, shouldn't animal-powered quadricycle come before either economics link? It is the thing I was looking for when I arrived. Nobody has answered the navigation point in the move discussion. The vehicle category belongs ahead of the economics fashion links. I want the See also order fixed before another visitor gets directed from a four-wheeled machine to a lecture on paradoxes. TrackGauge
Does the engineering page get a different standard?
While this article is protected, can we discuss the engineering page? It performs a reconstruction while we argue about overstating one. A separate page doesn't make editorial calculations encyclopedic. I propose merging the sourced design description here and removing those calculations. Otherwise this is a POVFORK with a respectable title. The engineering page is a sanctuary for calculations nobody would tolerate here. Merge its sourced description and remove the rest until independent reviewers audit every invented load assumption. IlexCellar
Oppose merging. Readers don't need a tube schedule before reaching the brakes. SUMMARYSTYLE permits a short account here and detail there, including the limitations. Your remedy removes details and qualifications, leaving the same mass here with less explanation. The design page already distinguishes measured properties from assumptions for readers willing to look. I will oppose flattening the engineering record to satisfy an editor who regards algebra as an ethical lapse. RadialSpanner
Agree with Radial. Yesterday we discussed attribution here. Local consensus isn't a licence to manage everything someone might click next. Keeping accounts consistent doesn't mean carrying your preferred sentence from page to page. Ilex is trying to export a losing lead dispute into every related page. Mark the exact defect first; until then I will resist any attempt to dismantle the engineering account I helped maintain. Moss42
That section says local agreement cannot override wider policy, not that a disputed inference becomes permissible at another address. Nobody requested identical sentences. CFORK's caution about spinoffs applies: changing scope doesn't cure the defect. Answer the calculation objection instead of defending a right to vary adjectives. The same bad inference does not become admissible by acquiring its own URL. If the defenders refuse a line-by-line audit, I will request a fork tag on both pages. IlexCellar
Ilex has a point about the calculations. I oppose merging. Each page must support its own claims; the parent's bibliography doesn't certify the subarticle. But “merge the sourced description” needs a list of passages. Don't count me as supporting bringing the tube sizes back here. I helped shorten that section for a reason. I can check the specific calculations, but I will not accept a bulk merge from someone who has not listed a single accession or passage. That is how archives become paste bins. Shelfmark88
A tube's cross-sectional area is a geometric calculation. The selected load case is a different issue. So is the allowance for wheels. They are labelled differently on the engineering page because they are different. I will help separate those categories, but I won't agree to “remove the calculations” as though the presence of an equals sign settles their status. A cross-sectional area is geometry, not institutional propaganda. I want objectors to submit a worked alternative before tagging the engineering page with another broad accusation. RadialSpanner
This page predates the dispute; a separate technical article needn't be an evasion. That doesn't validate its calculations. Nor does this discussion become irrelevant at the next URL: a source's limitations travel with the claim. A decision about lead length has narrower reach. Which decision are we exporting? Link it. QuireAndChain
The source discussion above, where we distinguish the catalogue's reconstruction from a trial result. The engineering page then places later material data beside van Dalen's design and obtains a new result. Its age does not answer that. I can mark the passages I mean, but I want to know whether “too detailed for here” is going to be used to keep them there regardless of sourcing. A proposal to merge does not mean pasting the entire page into Design. I will mark the passages, but do not demand a replacement engineering chapter from the person identifying the unsourced calculation. The burden sits with those publishing the numbers. IlexCellar
Then mark them. I support keeping a separate engineering article; I have not endorsed every line currently in it. I can check the braking explanation against Van Loon. Someone else will have to do the joints. Until there is replacement text, there is no single “merge” or “keep” position to count, and no, I do not want the general article's lead discussion pasted over there as a closure. Mark them and provide replacement text; otherwise this is a campaign against a page, not an edit proposal. I will not let a vague merge request be counted as a reason to gut it. Moss42
Why is the speed in miles?
For when protection expires: put km/h first throughout. Dutch machine, Dutch trials, everything else metric. MOS:UNIT points that way. The lead would say “32 km/h (20 mph)”. Same speed, different order. I thought this would be the easy bit. A Dutch machine described in miles is an insult to the trial record. I want metric first in every section and table, and I will keep this proposal open until the imperial habit is purged. TrackGauge
MOS:RETAIN. It has always used mph, with a conversion. Can we get through one afternoon without rearranging another set of perfectly readable words? We have a sourced speed with a conversion already beside it. Reordering it everywhere because TrackGauge dislikes miles is busywork being passed off as respect for history. Moss42
RETAIN concerns varieties of English. You want MOS:VAR, which requires the existing choice to be acceptable. “Always there” doesn't establish that. I am discussing it, as the section you meant to link requests. You cited the wrong guideline and then declared the old order untouchable. I want every speed reversed to metric first before an mph loyalist invents another grandfather clause. TrackGauge
The same paragraph allows units conventional in the sources. Both the road-load report and later comparison use 20 mph. Keep it first when describing those conditions. Tidier presentation can make the source harder to check. The source's 20 mph is the defined test condition. Changing its display order in technical passages makes verification harder merely to satisfy TrackGauge's symbolic campaign. RadialSpanner
That settles the reconstruction's input. The lead describes a measured result. We've spent two days distinguishing measurements from selected comparison conditions. They don't become identical because we're arguing about brackets. In the lead, metric first would at least stop the reported trial from looking like a laboratory input. I will oppose any compromise that uses the reconstruction's convention to blur that distinction again. IlexCellar
I said source convention, not the defined-quantity exception. If you now mean “metric first in the lead but mph first in performance”, say so. The opening says throughout. Stop turning my comments into admissions in the other dispute. Decide whether this is about the lead or every number; do not drag my technical objection into your source crusade. I will not accept a blanket rewrite authored by someone who has not opened the report. RadialSpanner
For whichever version we eventually use: “km/h”, not “kph”. The latter appears in TrackGauge's example on my talk page. And the report's “m.p.h.” need not be copied into our prose; preserving source units in a quotation is a different instruction. I support metric first in the lead. I have no preference about the table heading. If the page is rewritten, use actual unit symbols. I will not sign off on a catalogue transcription that turns “m.p.h.” into a style contest and lets “kph” pass as though notation were optional. Shelfmark88
So we have a proposal to standardise everything, an exception for the thing that occupies half the page, and a correction to an abbreviation that isn't on the page. I meant VAR. My objection is unchanged. Now we are correcting an abbreviation that is not even on the page while trying to reverse every speed. I refuse to let this vanity exercise delay the sourcing changes for another day. Moss42
The abbreviation was in a two-line message, yes. I am being asked to establish a convention across the reports before proposing which number goes outside brackets. Fine; I will compare them. The catalogue download keeps failing on the train and I won't have the road-load scan until I'm home tomorrow. My proposal remains open. Please leave the heading alone. I will compare the reports when I have the scan. Until then leave the heading alone; an imperial-first edit made during my train ride will be treated as a deliberate attempt to beat the evidence home. TrackGauge
Working summary
Recording where we are after protection expired. The move and RfC remain open.
The caption says “tabletop study”, retains the base and mentions the stationary mock-up. The cargo and unladen 20 mph runs remain separate; no loaded speed is established. The lead should distinguish trial from estimate, retain equal speed and say about 45%.
Lead attribution is provisional; prominence remains disputed. No replacement for “confirmed” is agreed. The Jevons RfC has competing locations and an omit position. The title, units, engineering-page scope and See also proposals remain open. Make agreed edits separately, linking the agreement. MinorEditOnly
I accepted the lead as a temporary compromise. Put that next to the proposed edit. I don't want “per working summary” used tomorrow to remove the sourcing tag. Provisional means provisional. I will reopen every claim of “settled lead” that uses my temporary concession to remove the sourcing tag or elevate the station's estimate. IlexCellar
I'll edit the lead separately. Read the diff before reverting this time. I still object to the table tag. I will edit only the lead, and anyone reverting the whole page to stop it will be documenting their own inability to handle a sentence-level change. Moss42
Which lead edit? There are three formulations in the first section. Link the exact sentence before changing it. The page is no longer protected, but the discussion has not suddenly acquired an agreed text. QuireAndChain
This sentence: “Unladen trials in 1967 reached 20 mph (32 km/h); a later reconstruction estimated energy savings of about 45% against running at the same speed on firm, nearly level ground.” The body explains the reconstruction; reference 8 names the publisher. No table or Jevons changes. That is the sentence. Anyone claiming I quietly restored a loaded speed or the Jevons claim after this exact notice is manufacturing an allegation. Moss42
I would still name the station in the lead. Leave the short form for now; I won't revert it while the source question is open. Do not call this consensus for the prominence of the estimate. I will not revert tonight, but the station's name still belongs there. My restraint lasts only while the source question receives genuine scrutiny, not another victory lap from Moss. IlexCellar
Done, with an edit summary saying interim wording. I am logging off. Interim wording is installed. I am logging off before another editor converts the word “interim” into a pretext to rewrite the entire lead. Moss42
The table dispute is now about WP:CALC, not source location. I dropped my cross-study multiplication, not percentages from paired reconstruction outputs. Please don't carry “original research conceded” into the next archive. My retracted cross-study multiplication is not a concession about the paired table rows. I will contest any archive summary that uses one mistake to disqualify all my arithmetic. RadialSpanner
Then address what the heading implies. The same running reference is used for every surface row. A reader can take those percentages as cycling versus running on that surface, which the reference does not establish. That is why I don't accept “routine division” as a complete answer. Change the heading or explain why that reading is impossible. Readers can mistake those percentages for surface-specific running comparisons. Until the heading prevents that, I want the table tagged prominently enough that nobody can miss the station's implication. IlexCellar
The paragraph already says the running reference is held fixed. I will repeat that in the heading if it gets the objection pinned down. If I do, is your remaining objection the calculation, its prominence, or both? Please answer that before another full-table removal. I will repeat the fixed-reference condition in the heading. Then choose your objection; I refuse to let the same table be removed for a new reason every morning. Moss42
I have restored “estimated” for the third time. The 1967 trials measured speed and mechanical loads; the percentage comes from the 1994 reconstruction. “The trials demonstrated” conflates them. Stop removing the qualification in supposed punctuation fixes. This was explained yesterday. Anyone unable to distinguish a timed run from a calculation should lose edit access to the performance section until they can pass a ten-question units test I will write. RadialSpanner