Talk:Emma-Jayne Wilson

Encyclopaedic language

As per WP:FORMAL etc. I have changed the word "winningest" in the phrase "Canada's all-time most victorious female jockey, a distinction that Villeneuve had held for over 10 years." on the grounds that informal language is deprecated here. "Winningest" may be a term in common use, but it remains informal sports jargon. --Pete (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

As a participant at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles, you are aware that the use of winningest is being discussed. Why did you revert back to your preferred version to remove winningest when consensus is pending at MOS. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Is there a reason me to not make my own bold edit to restore winningest if you choose not to self-revert? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Skyring: - As you know, there is an ongoing discussion (in which you are a participant) about the use of this word. You had previously agreed to stop removing the word from articles until after that discussion has reached consensus. Given your prior commitment to allowing the status quo to stand pending the outcome of your decision, I assume your 2nd revert of this article was inadvertent, and I have accordingly reverted back to the status quo ante. If I am incorrect, and you have now consciously decided to continue making these changes in spite of your prior commitment, please explain. Cbl62 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS is policy, and these mass-edits and mass reverts serve only to antagonize other editors. We all know that this is going to be wound down peacefully according to the standard process, and then a community consensus will be established. The policy says leave it the way it was before the fight started, and wait for the discussion to end. Can we all now just follow policy and respect the status quo? This is not time-sensitive. I've invited editors from all 139 articles to join the discussion, so we can expect a broad sample of editors to weigh in. More reverts will not help, as Skyring himself has already agreed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Most victorious" is ambiguous... it could mean purse money, number of wins or even moral "victory". I commented at the MOS discussion and I really don't see "most victorious" as suitable in this context at all. If someone wanted to say "won the most races" or something, that's fine, but not some vague-but-grandiose-sounding phrase like that one. Also, per Dennis Bratland and Cbl62, doing this as a mass edit and then edit-warring when you know there is a MOS discussion going on is really in poor form. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Amusing to see other editors busily changing things to their preference. Looking at this article, I restored the status quo prior to my being informed of the discussion. Is there a problem with this? --Pete (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is also a BLP problem, in that the material is unsupported. Do we have a source for this at all? --Pete (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wilson is listed w/ 1,307 wins[1] and Villeneuve is listed w/ 1000 wins [2]. A 2012 article described Villeneuve as "the winningest female Canadian jockey of all time".[3] Horse racing is not my thing, so maybe I'm reading the stats tables wrong. This claim at least seems possible, unless one wants to argue WP:OR or WP:UNDUE about overblowing the significance of most wins by a female.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You have the stats right, Bagumba and a 300-win difference is significant. Wilson is the most successful Canadian woman in horse racing. Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma-Jayne Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QbgJfaHx?url=http://www.caaws.ca/influentialwomen/e/index.htm to http://www.caaws.ca/influentialwomen/e/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)