Talk:Triumph Owners Motor Cycle Club

Club or sport governing body?

Is TOMCC a motorcycle racing governing body like FIM or AMA? They seem to organize shows, meetings, and charity events, not races. So {{Infobox Sport governing body}} should be replaced with {{Infobox Organization}}, like Harley Owners Group or 59 Club. It doesn't make a huge difference other than country flags only belong on articles of nationalistic racing bodies, e.g. Polski Związek Motorowy, as per MOS:FLAG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I could not find an infobox for motorcycle clubs and so am trying to make one right now.

Please develop it if you know how ... Template:Infobox Motorcycle club. ––Bridge Boy (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Club Name

The OFFICIAL name of this Club is 'The Triumph Owners' Motor Cycle Club'. However when I made the change to add in the apostrophe, Biker Biker decided to remove it (despite it having an apostrophe on the Club's official website).— Preceding unsigned comment added by WyrmUK (talk • contribs) 08:36, 26 February 2013‎

Biker Biker is correct that they use it inconsistently. If they wanted an apostrophe, why did they leave it off their logo? Why didn't they use it on their about page? Seems like they don't care one way or the other. Also their Facebook page uses the apostrophe and their Twitter page doesn't. How are you so sure it's official? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WyrmUK revealed on my talk page that he/she is an official of the club. As there is clearly a conflict of interest I suggest we leave the article as-is until someone can provide a reputable (and consistent source) to demonstrate the correct use of the name. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not only is usage inconsistent on the club's website, its logo, and its handbook, but various branches of the club don't use it either e.g. Glasgow, Surrey, and Bedford to pick the first three examples that Google gave me. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Logo has an abbreviated form of the Club Name - it doesn't have Motor Cycle Club on it either! Branches are self supporting organisations which are part of the Club, but not run by the Club. The citation for the Club Name is the Club Rules available here: Rules. Rule 1 gives the Official name of the Club. Thanks for pointing out the About page, it's been changed. --WyrmUK (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just checking the Surrey Branch page - sorry but they do use it. They might call themselves Surrey Triumph Owners Motorcycle Club, but they specifically state on their About page that they are a branch of the Triumph Owners' Motor Cycle Club (with apostrophe). --WyrmUK (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at independent sources, such as Google Books, the vast majority omit the apostrophe. I found one book that uses it, but only inconsistently. Even among those who think the apostrophe is correct, there seems to be little evidence that anyone cares enough to observe correct usage every time. My opinion is that either version is acceptable, and so there's no reason for us to make an issue of it. If you had an independent source that stated it mattered, then you'd have a reason to at least mention it in the article, if not rename it.

But if the consensus is there, then I see no great harm in moving the page. You should do a Requested move, specifically you should follow the instructions at WP:RM/CM. If other editors support it, it will be moved (i.e. the page will be renamed Triumph Owners' Motor Cycle Club). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Triumph Owners Motor Cycle Club → Triumph Owners' Motor Cycle Club – The official name of the Club includes an apostrophe, as specified in the TOMCC Club Rules. The Club Rules are the only official declarations of the Club as they require a vote at the Club AGM to make a change to them, all other references should be treated as non-official (including the Handbook which has been created by one specific member of the Club). Using web pages of Branches of the Club as sources of inconsistency are not valid because the Branches are self-governing (as per Rule 3 in the Club Rules), can put up what they want to on their own websites, and should not be treated as knowlegeable representatives of the Club. The reason for the apostrophe is because the Triumph Owners' Motor Cycle Club is a Club which belongs to its members, the apostrophe indicating the possessive - rather than a Club that the members belong to. The logo has an abbreviated form of the Club name which omits the apostrophe and abbreviates Motor Cycle Club to M.C.C. and does not represent the official name of the Club. There are probably hundreds of links and references posted up on various sites without the apostrophe, but they should not be used to deprive the Club of being named in the manner its members have voted for it to be represented. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC) 77.102.232.32 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - no consistent use of the apostrophe in the club's website, its documents, or its subsidiary clubs. No compelling reason to change from the status quo just because an officer of the club throws a hissy fit. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per English grammar, per this being an encyclopedia. The argument between Official Club HQ and local grammar-free websites is secondary to the interests of the project as a whole being an encyclopedia. We are careful to get various People's and Peoples' Republics correct, the encyclopedia shouldn't be messed around in any article title because of what prevails in homemade html. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. One of the principles of an encyclopedia is to provide correct and accurate information. I do not expect everyone to remember to use the apostrophe everywhere, but it would be nice to use it in the title. Apteva (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Accuracy (both grammatical and nomenclature) is of prime importance. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose — Per WP:COMMONNAME. Note that Wikipedia does not "correct" the apostrophes in Hells Angels or Pagan's Motorcycle Club. Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Just add one sentence to the article saying officially the name uses an apostrophe, though nobody else does.

  If this apostrophe issue were coming from independent sources, it would be entirely different. Instead, it's one single individual who's evidence just happens to be the web site he is the web master of and whose content he writes. Purely WP:SPS. There are numerous books about Triumph motorcycles, and newspaper and magazine articles. They omit the apostrophe, with only one or two exceptions. Those that use it do so very inconsistently. Even the club's own logo, which takes pains to include the two periods in M.C.C., doesn't bother with it. Out of 40 TOMCC branches, only one uses the apostrophe.

  There is zero evidence of any confusion over the meaning of the name, because the apostrophe doesn't actually convey any information. There isn't a plausible alternative reading of the name without the apostrophe. Traditionalists may insist it is "correct" but that is only an opinion. The alternative view is to see English in terms of what works, and the name works fine without it.

  If we could find anybody outside the Wikipedia bubble who said this mattered, I'd go with those sources, but here we have Wikipedia editors saying they know best, and the rest of the world is wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Hells Angels do not have an apostrophe in their name (Citation) - and the Pagan's do, both being correct in their articles on Wikipedia which would make the TOMCC the odd one out by not having a correct title to the article. -- WyrmUK (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is that both names are punctuated incorrectly (in the opinion of traditional grammarians) but Wikipedia article names don't fix bad punctuation in names. So the argument that it must be punctuated "correctly" is irrelevant. Not because other stuff exists, but because of WP:COMMONNAME. We use common names, not "official" names. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We have a choice between official name and common name. We do not always choose one or the other. We get to decide by consensus which to choose. Apteva (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dennis Bratland. I'm not seeing any evidence that the proposed title is what's used in independent reliable sources. If the result is "not moved" or "no consensus", the proposed title should be created as a redirect though. Jenks24 (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Out of date

The article as it stands currently is out of date. Specifically the TOMCC are no longer affiliated to MAG and the membership figures have increased significantly since the article was edited to include the figure. It may be better to just remove the membership figures part as it's not going to be easy to verify or keep updating. Because of my involvement with the TOMCC I don't feel it is appropriate for me to update the article itself so I'm just marking it as out of date. Wyrm (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is still out of date. Though the affiliation to MAG was removed from the article, the TOMCC have re-affiliated to the Motorcycle Action Group and are now also a Premium Affiliated Club of the National Association for Bikers with a Disability. Not only have membership figures increased still but the Club has expanded internationally with branches in the USA and Italy - and has considerably more than 44 branches. Wyrm (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If "Membership: Circa 6,000 (2015)" is about right, that's good enough for me. Why do we care who they're affiliated with, or how many branches they have, can you remind me? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Surely Wikipedia is about accuracy? If something is stated that is incorrect then surely it should be removed or corrected - forgive me if that isn't the case and that Wikipedia should contain inaccurate information? "Membership: Circa 6,000 (2015)" is not correct (or even about right as in 2015 it was circa 7,000) as it has been taken from the main text (see first paragraph) with a citation dated 2006 - "Membership: Circa 6,000 (2006)" would be correct and about right. The first paragraph states that "Presently it has 44 regional branches..." but that is not correct either - and indeed we should not be using terms such as "presently" in wikipedia - you could say "As of 2006 it had 44 regional branches..." but then there is no citation. The first paragraph indicates who it is affiliated to but again that does not read like an encyclopedia as it implies it still is, instead it should read more historically. Wyrm (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have made appropriate changes to make it read more accurately (historically) given the citation and original wording. Hopefully that will be ok as I have not actually changed any numbers or facts. Wyrm (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)