Talk:Sylvia Hatchell

Send her victorious
Looking at this edit, I feel that "most successful, is less precise than "winningest". However, as the latter term is informal, I have replaced it with "most victorious". --Pete (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "most victorious" sounds very non-American. There is an ongoing discussion for about winningest at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style—Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My reading of that discussion is that "for winningest" is overstating the case. "About" rather than "for", I suggest. It seems some editors have tacked their manhood to the word - it is interesting to listen to them yelp each time someone touches on the point. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pete -- Not sure if you're referring to me, but I'm actually not emotionally invested in the issue at all. I initially thought the term "winningest" had a dissonant quality to it.  After looking into the issue some time ago, I was surprised to find that the word is actually widely accepted and proper within American English.  My comments are entirely based on trying to get it right, and I in no way feel that my manhood is on the line -- god forbid -- I'd retire from Wikipedia before putting the crown jewels at risk. ;) 23:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Pete: Changed to "about".  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I wasn't thinking about you. This goes back to a motorcycle edit war and subsequent ANI discussions. When something so trivial gets so many people thumping their bosoms so publicly, well, of course I wonder. I'll accept that the word is accepted within American sports writing, but that only makes it jargon. In my eyes, it grates because it is so contrived. Like "curiouser" and "embiggen", I suppose, both perfectly cromulent words in their own right. Perhaps, like Murphy Brown, we should just whip out a ruler and settle the point. I think an RfC might be more civilised. --Pete (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Winningest in sports articles under discussion
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Until consensus is reached, articles should be reverted to the previous stable version, per the policy 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." —Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)