Talk:Rain tyre

Motorsport High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automobiles

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Comments[edit]

This entry should be combined into a more comprehensive article on race car tires as should a number of other articles related to tires.GeorgeTheCar 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American/British English[edit]

If the tire article uses American English, shouldn't this one, as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMPowerade (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the precedent is in this special case. I'd agree that it should be the tire spelling since this article is like a sub-article of that one. This article's spelling should be consistent with that of its "parent" article. Dwr12 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the 15th to the 17th centuries the spellings tire and tyre were used without distinction;^[1] but by 1700 tyre had become obsolete and tire remained as the settled spelling.^[1] In the UK, the spelling tyre was revived in the 19th century for pneumatic tires, though many continued to use tire for the iron variety. The Times newspaper in Britain was still using tire as late as 1905.^[2] The 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica states that "[t]he spelling 'tyre' is not now accepted by the best English authorities, and is unrecognized in the US",^[3] while Fowler's Modern English Usage of 1926 says that "there is nothing to be said for 'tyre', which is etymologically wrong, as well as needlessly divergent from our own [sc. British] older & the present American usage".^[1]

So ... I'm changing it. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the move was rightly opposed, per WP:ENGVAR. The argument above ignores the fact that whatever pundits like Fowler said 80 years ago, "tyre" is still the uncontested spelling in British English & other varieties. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it User:Fuhghettaboutit, but my suggestion and that of DMPowerade, Dwr12 were not red herrings because they weren't intended to mislead or distract but rather were done in good faith. We weren't asking to throw out good policies but just were not aware of WP:ENGVAR and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as the one who introduced the term to the discussion, I don't think I agree with the OED that a red herring is always introduced with intent, and I wasn't suggesting that you had intended to mislead or distract, just that you had done so. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just learned something. I use the phrase "red herring" fairly often both in real life and on Wikipedia but I was not aware of the connotation that the thing it applied to be intentional, just that it be something that "distracts attention from the real issue". That more neutral usage is actually not uncommon in definitions of the term (One Look). I will be more circumspect in its use in the future, and obviously since I'm stating this, used it below without intending to imply there was intent to deceive (nor do I believe there was).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast! Apparently "or unintentionally" was removed from the OED quote in Feb, so we were both right on that. [1] Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I care very much about not miscommunicating and if a word or phrse can be taken in more than one way thus unintentionally implying something I do not mean, I'm glad to know that so I can modify the way I use it accordingly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Fowler, H. W. (2009). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage: The Classic First Edition. Oxford University Press. p. 655. ISBN 978-0-19-953534-7. Retrieved 2010-10-23. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Peters, Pam (2004). The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge University Press. p. 553. ISBN 978-0-521-62181-6.
^ Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 26. Encyclopædia Britannica. p. 1007.

Move?[edit]

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 not moved per WP:ENGVAR. The archaic spelling issue is shown to be a red herring. It is true that there is a lack of spelling consistency between this and another article but it is well taken that if that was a convincing argument for some change, it lends no support for why this would be made consistent with the other spelling and not the other way around. More to the point, ENGVAR is a specific policy crafted to address the very situation presented—it is exactly on point here and against the move—while consistency is a general consideration in article naming conventions that would eviscerate the specific policy every time the general goal came into play. We strive for consistency where possible, but not at the expense of the other considerations listed at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, nor when application of consistency would require us to throw directly germane policies out the window, such as ENGVAR, common names and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rain tyre → Rain tire –

archaic spelling not in consonance with main tire article. Also some etymology discussion on the talk page. Cannot move myself because the Rain tire is a redirect with a 2-line history. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Tyre is not an "archaic spelling" at all, it is the common and correct spelling in British English and several other varieties. See WP:ENGVAR. Note also that just because a "main" article is at one variety of English, does not mean sub-articles must be at the same type, see for example color and orange (colour), and yogurt and strained yoghurt. Jenks24 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The examples Jenks24 provides are abominations and make us look amateurish, just like windshield and windscreen wiper (and I never can remember which is which in that pair). Powers ^T 19:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the Loot is striving for a comic effect here? Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The what now? Powers ^T 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nom has been told this is no "archaic" spelling, but a clear WP:ENGVAR situation. There is no reason different articles (or categories) have to use consistent spelling; this is a well-established principle. The "etymology" argument is pure red herring, as stated above. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a possible move to "wet tyre" rather than rain tyre might be ok, but yes, engvar. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As others have pointed out, the premise of this move request is inaccurate: it's a WP:ENGVAR variant, not an archaic spelling. In a case like China, we should prefer consistency and have Flag of China rather than Flag of the People's Republic of China. However, it's not clear whether this principle extends to mere spelling variations; a variant spelling of a name can still be thought of as the same name. I'm not convinced that this move is called for, unless some policy page says otherwise. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not archaic; it's the standard spelling used in Britain and in certain other places. If the motivation is actually a desire for consistency of spelling between the titles of different articles, why move to "tire" rather than "tyre"? (I'm not fond of artificially imposing consistency among article titles when real-world usage is mixed). bobrayner (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per WP:RETAIN. 'Tyre' is not archaic, it's English. Also, the spelling of the tire article is irrelevant. Zarcadia (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Non-motorsports[edit]

There should be a hatnote to whatever article deals with tyres built for road cars that are specialized for large amounts of water. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[fowler-1] Fowler, H. W. (2009). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage: The Classic First Edition. Oxford University Press. p. 655. ISBN 978-0-19-953534-7. Retrieved 2010-10-23. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[2] Peters, Pam (2004). The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge University Press. p. 553. ISBN 978-0-521-62181-6.

[eb-3] Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 26. Encyclopædia Britannica. p. 1007.

[1]

[2]

[3]