Talk:Honda Super Cub

August 2005

This page needs some serious editing to remove all the redundant statements. Also, it needs to be linked or merged with Honda Cub C100 entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadillac11:23, 8 August 2005‎ (talk • contribs)

page needs references

There are many uncited and biased statements in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agonotheta (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 September 2006‎

"Like" vs "such as"

This is not an argument of "succinct" vs "wordy" usage, but one of correct usage. Even if it were, the use of "such as" is hardly wordy in the context.

To say "...models like the CB750" is not inclusive, and can mean that it was models similar to the CB750 that led to the decline, but not the CB750 itself, whereas "...models such as the CB750" is inclusive and specifies that it was the CB750 that had influence over the decline. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Like" does not mean the same thing. It means similar - possibly very similar, but not the same. So that means something similar to the CB750, but not the CB750 itself.

I know that "such as" is not singular, and I don't know where you get that implication. The fact it is not singular makes it a perfect replacement for "like". I make no claim that the CB750 was singularly responsible for the decline of the british motorbike industry, just that it was one of the motorbikes that was - rather than the wording before which said that it was bikes similar to the CB750 that contributed to the decline.

If you think that the CB750 was not influential for the decline, then change the bike to one that was, but please source it at the same time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The CB750 was one of several lines that undermined large British bikes. The Kawasaki triples were another. The meaning of 'such as' and like is equivalent. See [23]. The only difference is that 'such as' is more formal, i.e., more words, same meaning. Formality is pompous wordyness, trying to appear smarter with stilted language. It's bad writing.

Please revert your edit warring and wait for other editors to weigh in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think your example link there actually supports the use of "such as" over "like":

"We can use such as to introduce an example or examples of something we mention"

and

"Such as is similar to like for introducing examples, but it is more formal, and is used more in writing than like:" - my emphasis.

Also, please point out the edit warring I need to revert? I see none. Either that, or retract the accusation, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought your revert of your talk page was another revert of Honda Super Cub.

Again, it's the same thing, but more formal. What does it need to be more formal? Like conveys the meaning correctly, but without the useless, wordy formality. I don't see any dictionary sources that say using like this way is slang, merely less formal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Being less formal does not automatically equate to slang. I don't see anywhere that I claim such a thing. Accusations of editwarring, that I claim the term to be singular, the implication that I consider "like" to be slang... Where are these thoughts coming from?

I have no bones with the term "like" when it is used to mean "things similar to, but not the same as", but not when it is used to mean "the exact thing I'm about to describe"

It is not the case that the term needs to be more formal, but that it needs to be correct. It just so happens that in this instance, the correct term - one that implies inclusion, rather than comparison and similarity - is considered more formal.

Here is a link provided by an editor that states that "Such as is similar to like for introducing examples," - it does not support the claim that "like" is the same as "such as".

Here is another example that support the difference, and that "such as" implies inclusion, which "like" does not. And here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

Ok, here's a different slant on it. Do you believe that use of the term "such as" is incorrect use of language, and wrong? I'm not asking if you think it's wordy or formal, but rather if you think the term is being used incorrectly, and puts forward an incorrect statement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if an editor doesn't respond in 2 weeks - even taking into account Christmas - it can be reasonably assumed that they've backed off from the topic. So without further dissent I've changed it to the term "such as", and as a show of good faith, and acknowledgement that the term is not singular, included the Kwak Z as well, which was equally influential. I threw in a source too, liberally lifted from the Z1 article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed Flying Pigeon note

In the second graph, the statement "the Super Cub is the most produced motor vehicle in history" had an asterisks for a note stating that the Flying Pigeon is the most manufactured vehicle in history. I'm not disputing that, but it seemed strange to put this as a note here. The original statement is not misleading at all; the distinction rendered by preceding "vehicle" by "motor" is clear. 211.23.25.61 (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The asterisk is there to flesh out the superlative most produced motor vehicle, by explaining that if you remove the qualifier "motor", the Super Cub is in second place behind the Flying Pigeon. I would actually improve this note by adding that if you keep the qualifier 'motor vehicle', and narrow it to cars, then the Toyota Corolla is in the #1 spot. This paints a complete picture: Flying Pigeon is the #1 vehicle; the Super Cub is the #1 motor vehicle; and the Corolla is the #1 car in history.

In any event, you don't have a problem with any of the facts here. Your sole reason for the deletion is "it seemed strange". All I can say is that it doesn't seem strange to me, and it didn't seem strange to the editors who carefully reviewed this article to promote it to Good Article status. The little footnote isn't hurting anything; it merely adds some detail and it does so unobtrusively. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I won't redelete the note, but I want to reemphasize that the meaning of "motor" in the sentence is obvious and clear. There is no way to misread the text that could lead you to think the statement extends to nonmotorized vehicles. "The fastest land animal is the cheetah." Should this also have a note pointing out that if you remove the modifier "land," the cheetah is in second place behind the peregrine falcon? 211.23.25.61 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could worry that readers are too sloppy to notice words but that's rather condescending. Without any evidence to the contrary I think we should assume they're smart enough to see the words in front of their eyes, and to notice why there is a difference between 500 million bicycles and 60 million motorcycles. If it turns out people are confused I guess we could add some redundancy to beat the point home and avoid confusion, but it's been like this for 3 years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Huh? It sounds like you're making my point. The use of the note implies that readers are too sloppy to notice words (i.e., "motor"). I removed the note because I didn't think that the article should condescend to readers by worrying that they might mistake "motor vehicle" to mean "all vehicles, motorized or not." 211.23.25.61 (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't help you. Maybe somebody else can understand what your concern is and can help address it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm baffled that you don't understand. My point is that the note is unnecessary. The sentence clearly states "motor vehicle." There is no ambiguity -- but the note suggests that there is ambiguity, as if clarification is necessary. But as you said, there is no reason to assume that readers don't notice words; they will notice the word "motor," so they will know that the statement is regarding motorized vehicles, a category to which bicycles do not belong. Thus, there is no ambiguity and no need for the note.211.23.25.61 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The footnote contains information that is not in the lead. It tells you how many Flying Pigeons were made, and that it is the top vehicle ever. You don't want say that in the lead because this is not an article about Flying Pigeon bicycles. But it's still relevant in understanding the context of the Super Cub's record. You want to have it there for those seeking detail, but you want it out of the main text. What to do? Hey, well, someone has invented a thing called a footnote and the problem is solved. There's a second footnote saying that Herb Uhl had a more famous son, also not really about Super Cubs but some people care so, again, footnote to the rescue. It works. Everything is fine here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I am arguing that readers don't need to know about the Flying Pigeon record to understand the Super Cub record. The Super Cub record is that it is the top-selling motor vehicle ever. Everything that you need to understand this record is contained within the preceding sentence. You don't need to know that the peregrine falcon is the fastest animal to understand that the cheetah is the world's fastest land animal.211.23.25.61 (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)