Talk:Bicycle/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Replace See also section

The See also section is a very broad selection of Wikilinks, many redundant with the article text, straying way beyond what the Manual of Style#See also section recommends. It looks more like an Outline, but we already have that, at Outline of cycling. Outlines don't go at the bottom of articles. It also looks a lot like a navbox, but we already have that, {{Cycling}} and those do go at the bottom of articles. Any reason not to delete most or all of the See also section and rely on {{Cycling}} at the bottom of the article? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

When I have a bit of free time I will often surf Wikipedia to learn something new. To do this I will often go to the bottom of an article I enjoyed in the past and check out the "see also" section to find some interesting further reading. For this reason, I would be sad to see the "see also" section disappear from this article entirely. Also, it might be interesting to note that the Wikipedia app that I use to access Wikipedia on my smartphone does not include the navbox at the bottom (which might explain why I rely on the "see also" section so much). I realize that my feeling here is not an official Wikipedia style guideline, but I am sharing it anyway. That said, I would agree that the list as it currently stands is pretty cumbersome. My vote is to keep a "see also" list in some shorter form. If we can agree on that, then further discussion might be most productive to suggest which links to remove or which to keep. Lexandalf (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Bicycle is a really big topic, with a large body of related articles under it. Similarly broad topics with FA status are Atheism, Greek mythology, Association football and William Shakespeare. Greek Mythology has no See also section at all; William Shakespeare only lists two items. The others go a little further; Atheism has a kind of redundant and excessive see also section, I think. By and large, the Wikipedia standard is to rely on a stack of navboxes at the bottom of the article to navigate to related issues. Association Football has six navboxes, William Shakespeare has four.

The central idea is that if a link is truly related to an article, then why isn't it mentioned anywhere in the body text? And if it is, then why link to it again? Especially when it's linked yet again in the navbox?

Right now there are four links to Cycling, for example. Bicycle commuting linked twice in the text, a third time in the See also section, and a fourth time in the cycling infobox. Bicycle lighting is linked once in the text, again in the see also, and a third time in {{Bike equipment}}. So at the very least we can delete the redundant ones.

As far as mobile displays, to me that seems like a flaw in the app, not a reason to deviate from the MOS. A link to Outline of cycling is an effective workaround for mobile users, and most of the links are already there in the article body as well. Oh, and let's not forget the link to Portal:Cycling. Navboxes, an outline, and a portal. And on top of those three the See also section doesn't need to link to the whole suite of cycling articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So maybe an effective solution would be to reduce the "see also" section to contain only the Outline of cycling and then everything else goes in the Navbox... That might be what you were saying in your previous post... If that is the case then I say lets do it! I also respect Wikipedias standards and would not object if you (and/or others) think that it would be most appropriate to remove the "see also" section entirely. Lexandalf (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that just a link to the outline would probably do the trick, and might even drive traffic to the outline, which might help getting it filled out, but I would draw the line at removing the "see also" section entirely. I also find it useful and interesting to browse the links in a see also section, without having to wade through the entire article to find them, and chafe at attempts to minimize them, which seem to be completely counter to wp:notpaper. I get that this isn't exactly the forum for that discussion, but wp:seealso specifically leaves the inclusion of any link up to the discretion of the article contributors, and my attempts to get the guideline softened or broadened get hung up on that point. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER is about the unlimited quantity of content, but the issue here is the limitation of viewing a given page on a screen, and limited reader attention. Computer screens are not infinite, and trying to stuff too much onto one screen at a time is a classic web design blunder. There's a limit to how far a reader should be scrolling. Hence the consensus against Wikilink redundancy.

The other problem is the redundant navigation tools: do you browse the see also section, the navboxes, the portal, the outline, or Category:Cycling? Nobody really wants links to 100 pages thrown at them at once. They're looking for guidance and organization. What are the main topics? Lead me there first, then let me drill down.

Linking to Cycling four times, and then tossing in random obscure topics like Hash House Bikers at the top of the see also section is not helpful. Why, exactly, does Bicycle lighting need a third link in the see also section?

We should make exceptions for exceptional cases. After a good housecleaning, removing the redundant links, and removing altogether the thoroughly obscure topics, it's worth discussing exceptions on a case by case basis. But this really isn't the forum to discuss throwing the the see also guidelines out the window and making the section a recapitulation of the outline and the portal and the navboxes.

Finally, adding links for the purpose of driving traffic to any page treats readers as a means to an end. The see also section is not to be used as a means of article promotion. The first priority to serve the readers' needs, not the desire to advertise an unknown topic. The outline is a better list of links than the see also section, and readers should be sent there, but promoting anything else is not a good idea. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh never mind. What's the use? -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to add that the Types section's first paragraph is essentially a collection of links, yet another topic outline, which is found in at least two other places in this article. The Uses section is yet another topic outline, also repeated elsewhere. The use of {{Main}} also adds another layer of redundancy which I hadn't counted previously. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I created Talk:Bicycle/Workpage to have a point of discussion for these issues. Here is my first attempt at pruning back the redundant links -- though in some cases I added links, or moved them out of the See also section into the article (e.g. Bicycle law). The Types and Uses sections, with their outlines of Wikilinks, still need to be rethought, and probably merged into a more unified outline. At some point we have to have a little faith that readers know enough about Wikipedia to know that you go to the bottom of the article and navigate with {{Sister project links}}, {{Commons category}}, {{Human-powered vehicles}}, {{Cycling}}, and {{Bike equipment}}. If not, why not create a sidebar navbox for the top of the cycling articles? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I just went over all of the edits you did on the workpage and they seem to be pretty good. There are a few that I would like to make the case to add two back in:

Cycling: I would like to see this Wikilink added back because of my experience reading the bicycle article. I remember coming across the "Cycling" link and wondering what in the world an article about cycling would be about. When I followed the link I was pleased to find a rich article that delved deeply into the uses of bicycles, which was actually what I was really interested in and the reason that I came to the bicycle page in the first place. I would have never dreamed that I should have searched Wikipedia for cycling to find what I wanted. I realize that their is a giant box at the bottom that is labeled "cycling" and has all the links I would want, but I likely wouldn't have gotten down there as I looked over this article. I felt like having the link in the body allowed me to encounter a rich article that I would otherwise have missed. I don't think there is doctrine to support my case on this one, just my testamonial

Safety Bicycle: I saw that there was a link to this article, but it was under the wording of "upright bicycle." As a reader, I might have skimmed right over a link for "upright bicycle" thinking I know all about it only to later be a bit confused when the term "safety bicycle" starts cropping up with no Wikilink. I realize that it is explained pretty well in the text, but as a curtsy to the reader who wishes to know more about the term I suggest that we allow for a redundancy in this particular link. I suggest we keep "upright bicycle" linking to the safety bicycle, and then add a wikilink to the first use of the term "safety bicycle."

Those are my two thoughts. Good work and thanks Dennis Bratland for doing the grunt work on this. Lexandalf (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"La Gaulois"

"La Gaulois" does not mean anything in French : it is le Gaulois (male) or la Gauloise (female). It is le Gaulois because it is le journal "the newspaper". The oldest newspaper le Gaulois is French not Belgian. The Belgian newspaper fr:le Gaulois (Belgique) was only published from 1944 to 1955.Nortmannus (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The quotation in the citation of Peter Oliver (1995). Bicycling Touring and Mountain Bike Basics the footnote says it was coined by Le Gaulois in the 1890s, but the OED and other word origins references say it was in the Daily News in 1868, and much earlier in French, as far a back as 1847. The Oliver source probably isn't reliable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not trust the two sources and it is not logical. Bicyclette cannot be an adjective, it is a diminutive form of bicycle, a noun really mentioned in French in 1870[1] and in 1868 in English to mean a French machine. In fact, this word is probably a creation by Michaud after "tricycle"[2], an older creation of the early XIXth century. Bicyclette derives of Bicycle and is only attested by 1880[3] in French, that is to say later than bicycle.Nortmannus (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Feminism as "female emancipation"

In response to HiLo48's comment in the 09:19 16 June 2013 reversion, I argue that this is nonsense considering that "emancipation of women", as it is currently linked, redirects to "feminism". There is no reason to call this by anything other than what it is. Furthermore "emancipation", a word usually associated with (and only really necessary when referring to) the freeing of slaves is clearly loaded when compared to "feminism", which refers to a sociopolitical movement for which there is no other term. As to whether "emancipation" is "a more accurate description of what was happening in those times", the New Woman, mentioned in the section as an example of the bicycle's influence, is described in the first sentence of its article as "a feminist ideal". The whole section as it stands talks constantly about feminism while refusing to actually use the term. I will therefore return my edit if not refuted. Birdman-Toronto (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm older than you. Maybe I've just read and heard a lot more about the suffragette movement. But emancipation was definitely a word used by them in those times. (Here is a page that demonstrates the link.) Nothing to do with slaves. (Unless those women felt like slaves.) The word feminism only became popular from around 1970 onwards, so it wouldn't have been used by early female cyclists. So, there's the background to my comment. I know it makes sense. But I won't fight over it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was emancipation. Calling it an -ism implies that whether you think women were empowered by bicycles or not depends on your ideology.

On the most literal level, bicycles emancipated women from dependence on men for mobility. They were no longer home-bound, confined to a local area. On a more figurative and symbolic level, bicycles changed acceptable women's clothing styles to less constricting forms, and learning to ride represented a new level of empowerment. Of course almost everyone who took up bicycling in this period emphasized that it gave them freedom -- and gaining freedom is emancipation. The same is said by many sources to describe what happened when they learned to cycle as children -- the bicycle represented freedom, i.e. emancipation.

Calling it feminism implies that you have to be a feminist to believe in the bicycle's effect on women's lives. You don't have to be an adherent to feminist ideology to observe the undeniable facts that more women were able to leave their homes, go farther and faster from A to B, and generally expand their personal spheres. The fact that women wore bloomers was true whether you believed in feminism or not. Women were emancipated by bicycles, and if you were a feminist you thought that was a good thing, and if you were not a feminist, perhaps you were chagrined.

Emanicpation is used in many contexts, as much with women's rights as with slavery, and also to refer to teen children gaining independence from their parents. In fact, the OED says that the origin of the word is "Roman Law. The action or process of setting children free from the patria potestas." Besides freedom from slavery, the word is also defined as "Setting free, delivering from intellectual, moral, or spiritual fetters." That covers a lot of ground. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That the bicycle has a Unicode icon is noteworthy?

Ivanvector (talk · contribs) said "That the bicycle has a Unicode icon is noteworthy".

I can see how if you were a specialist in document creation, web design or Unicode technology you would want to know that the bike has a unicdode symbol, but that is not what "noteworthy" means in terms of Wikipedia content. Does this mean that Door or Rocket or Shower also need a ==Unicode== section added to tell us the hex code to produce these symbols? Isn't it sufficient to locate this information in List of Unicode characters, Template:Unicode chart Transport and Map Symbols, and other appropriate reference articles?

Can we see any examples of mainstream sources who tell us that it's notable I'm willing to believe it's notable that there's a Unicode bike symbol, provided I can see some evidence of this notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context of an article on bicycles, the fact that there is a unicode character to represent them is trivia at best. While it may be worth including a sentence somewhere to mention that that a unicode character exists (the last sentence of the In daily life section looks like a suitable place), giving it a separate section is undue weight. WaggersTALK 10:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's probably not notable, certainly not enough to warrant its own section, and it certainly qualifies as trivia. I misused "noteworthy" when really what I meant was "neat", but that's a matter of my own opinion. Since I'm really just passing through here, I'll leave it to you folks to decide whether to include this somewhere more appropriate in the article or just delete it outright. And thanks for the discussion! Ivanvector (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014

Bicycles were introduced in the 19th century by a European named Baron von Drais. As of 2014, the number of bicycles have gradually grown 1.5% from its suggested one billion, in 2003. This is twice as many automobiles in the world. Bicycles are the principal means of transportation in many regions. Bicycles provide a popular form of recreation, and have been adapted for the use children, general fitness, military, police, courier services, and racing events. Bicycles carry humans threw Cities, States and Countries by their own power. Irmcc2380 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Group of bicycles of various types and sizes image

The second image in the lead is good in principle, in that it attempts to show a variety of different bicycles. But in spite of the caption, "Group of bicycles of various types and sizes", I see maybe two types of bicycles, at most, and only one basic size. There's no children's bikes, no 20" BMX race or stunt bikes, no mountain bikes, no road bikes, no race bikes or track bikes, no Dutch bikes or cargo bikes, no fixies, no 29ers, no recumbents, and no trikes. All of them are steel framed (no aluminum, no crabon), city cruisers. The only variation is some are men's and some are women's. So a much better image of this kind ought to be possible, one that really does have at least 5 if not 10 distinct types and sizes of bicycles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School announcement

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Review within the Wikipedia Primary School project

Hi all. As anticipated, some weeks ago Dr.Evan Friss (James Madison University) agreed to review this article within the scope of the project linked above. You can find his notes in the PDF I just uploaded to Commons. We'd like to thank Dr. Friss for his work and for his helpful notes. We invite everybody to feel free to reuse the review to improve the article and/or to comment it here. Best, --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Inline citation without reference in Environmental Impact - Ballantine, 1972

...oil consumption.(Ballantine, 1972) The bicycle...

I suspect that the reference intended was Richard's Bicycle Book

Yes it was there in References in the first version. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Diagram of a bicycle

Why use an image of a (mountain)bike without mudguards/fenders ? Sclaes (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Why use an image with them? Many MTB riders don't bother with them. Do you have a better image in mind that we could use? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Step-through frames

"Because of its persistent image as a "women's" bicycle, step-through frames are not common for larger frames."

That´s complete and utter bullshit, written probably by someone from a country where cycling is regarded solely as sports activity. Bicycles for daily use are very often of this type, and produced and sold today in great numbers. Bicycles for older people, the majority of E-Bikes, rental bikes (the ones you order via mobile and can pick up and leave at any corner in the city), cycles for anyone who does not want a racer, for old-fashioned women, etc. etc. --129.13.72.198 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Find a source, otherwise your observations are no better than the current text, fix the article, and then you can stop complaining about it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Per http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederland/article/detail/4229137/2016/01/21/Herenfiets-verdwijnt-uit-het-straatbeeld.dhtml only ¼ of new bikes sold in the Netherlands are diamond-frame. With a slight majority of women cycling in NL, this suggests the use of a step-through frame as the default "unisex" model. 2001:8B0:FAC2:450C:5103:7220:E81E:1575 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bicycle. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130115214146/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/ to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110153856/http://dare.co.in:80/opportunities/manufacturing/the-business-of-bicycles.htm to http://www.dare.co.in/opportunities/manufacturing/the-business-of-bicycles.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

First pedals

I think Philipp Moritz Fischer could have been the first to construct a pedal driven bicycle: https://www.schweinfurtfuehrer.de/pers%C3%B6nlichkeiten/pers%C3%B6nlichkeiten-der-stadt-schweinfurt-ab-1802/philipp-moritz-fischer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malzkorn (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Macmillan built his in 1839, Fischer not before 1843. Fischer may have been the first to use crank pedals, rather than Macmillan's swinging levers, but they're still pedals. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bicycle. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20101226075146/http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/_images/pdfs/tsunami_measurement.pdf to http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/_images/pdfs/tsunami_measurement.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dare.co.in/opportunities/manufacturing/the-business-of-bicycles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of produced bicycles isn't supported by source link.

"Bicycles were introduced in the 19th century in Europe and as of 2003, more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide, twice as many as the number of automobiles that have been produced."

Source Link: http://www.worldometers.info/bicycles/

This data is not only out of date but these "facts" are also wrongly displayed on the wikipedia page. They only refer to the 1 bn number here:

"It is estimated that more than a billion bicycles are present in the world, with nearly half of them in China."

A billion bicycles present doesn't mean only a billion have been produced in history. A quick look at the annual production numbers on the same page show that the worldwide production output of bicycles has been around 100 million per year over the last 30 years, so the total number should be way more than that. The "twice as many as the number of automobiles that have been produced" claim is also directly at odds with the "car" wikipedia page where it claims that there are currently more than a billion cars on earth.

87.166.150.79 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say "only a billion have been produced in history". It says "more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide". If you have a more specific statistic you can cite, one that is more recent, that would be most welcome. Please cite it. Based on what we have now, it's safest to say that there more than one billion have been made.

The other statements about 500 million in China are based on the other source cited, so that should be footnoted with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never edited a Wikipedia article so please excuse that I don't know how any of this works, I just noticed that odd line in the article and wanted to make someone aware. That said I still think that line is wrong, to me at least "more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide" doesn't mean "there are 1 billion bicycles that have been produced and are still around" either. And as the wikipedia page is using the past progressive "have been produced" I would assume that indicates ALL bicycles that have been produced at some point prior to 2003. Like if I said "up to this date 500 million iPhones have been produced" would you assume that only includes all the iPhones that are still used today? The source Link simply says, in 2003 at least, there were "more than a billion bicycles present in the world", why not just use that expression? 87.166.150.79 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I backed up the claim with additional sources, The Economist and others. It's pretty uncontroversial that the number of bicycles is over the 1 billion mark, even if nobody has any way of getting an accurate count. There's no point in quibbling over the precision of the ~500 million estimate for the Flying Pigeon model, because it's obviously nearly 10 times as many as the next closest model of vehicle, the Honda Super Cub, and 15 times as many Toyota Corollas. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other here. I don't have a problem with the sources, I just think the expression "more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide" on the wiki article misrepresents those facts cited in the sources. Just like the "worldometers" site, the Economist article only says "There are more than a billion bicycles in the world", it doesn't say anything about production, it just says 'there are currently X number of bicycles in the world" which I don't doubt. Of course common sense tells you that that if there are currently more than a billion bicycles present in the world, the total number of bicycles produced must be way higher because not all of the bicycles produced are still around. 87.166.191.52 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, common sense. I hope you don't think we are going to pretend we don't have common sense.

Saying more than 1B were made is a weaker (more cautious, more conservative) statement than 1B+ are in service. Multiple sources verify that at some point in time, at least a billion were made. They don't all agree or give a date on when that number was reached, but we can be sure that by 'now', a least 1B were made. Some sources say that many are still in use, but again, the dates differ and it's unclear how the arrived at that estimate. Records exist at bicycle factories, but it's only guesswork when a bicycle is retired. It's too strong an assertion given all the sources.

The weaker claim is copiously sourced and doesn't offend common sense. Further sophistry can safely be ignored. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

To me, as an average reader, the phrasing "Bicycles were introduced in the late 19th century in Europe, and by the early 21st century, more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide", especially with the time frame, sounds like that according to some estimate sometime around the start of the 21th century the one billionth bicycle was produced. Of course "more than 1 billion can technically mean any number higher than one billion, but generally I would expect that number to be somewhat close to one billion. Looking at the graph on the "worldometers" source link, we can see that bicycle production in the 1950s was about 10 million per year and then climbed to about 100 million in the 80s where about it has remained until today. Roughly tallying up these numbers tells me that the total production just since the 50s is closer to 5 billion bicycles which is a lot more than 1 billion. If you want to use a weaker, more cautious statement, why not just use the even weaker statement that's actually in the sources and just say "by the early 21st century, there were more than 1 billion bicycles worldwide"? 87.166.191.52 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bicycle. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070125080218/http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/who/1893/shop.cfm to http://www.nasm.si.edu/Wrightbrothers/who/1893/shop.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources / References

I have a problem with updating the reference Ida Husted Harpers' work, cited in the section on bikes and female emancipation. I would love to update the link so that it directs the reader toward the openly accessible archive (linked below) instead of the google page. The address is: https://archive.org/stream/storyevolutions00harpgoog?ui=embed Can anybody help with this technical challenge? Thanks! --Kasimir Katowitsch (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done, you can see how I did it here. This is a list-defined reference, so the code for the reference itself is actually in the references section of the article, and the other inline references have a pointer to that code (where you see <ref name=HustedHarper1898 /> instead of a fully defined reference). Thanks for the suggestion! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellente! Thank you for the quick response! I wasn't aware that such a list of defined references exists in some articles. Life long learning :-). --Kasimir Katowitsch (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

German maker Möve introduces a new pedal mechanism called Cyfly.

Some of you fanatics better google bicycle "cyfly" and add a paragraph about it. According to Der Spiegel, it allows even inexperienced cyclists to drive faster without any problems - by as much as 20%, without electric assistance. An assembly of eccentrically swivelling rods surrounds the central pedal bearing.

Hmmm, wouldn't even a 1% advantage dominate subsequent Tours de France, unless the rules forbade it? And if protected by patent, what would limit its price in racing configuration? Layzeeboi (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm indeed. "The system is 1x only," "requires a custom frame," and "current adds about 2kg to the weight of the bike," so not a clear winner yet. I believe the appropriate response of an encyclopedia is to wait and see if anything comes of it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, we should resist any mention of rumored or proposed products or technology. WP:CRYSTAL: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." We almost always end up having to go back and delete it later when it doesn't pan out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Another objection would be that, even if true, it would a tiny detail of racing, and better handled in Mechanical doping. However, I assume the more substantial objection against hypothetical technology would still apply there. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit request from unregistered user

add Bicycle-sharing system & List of bicycle-sharing systems to "see also" — Preceding text originally posted on User talk:66.27.70.108 (diff) by 66.27.70.108 (talk⋅contribs) 03:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

On what page? — Preceding text originally posted on User talk:66.27.70.108 (diff) by Anon126 (talk⋅contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

on the bicycle page. It's semi-protected. Thanks :) — Preceding text originally posted on User talk:Anon126 (diff) by 66.27.70.108 (talk⋅contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added the first but not the second suggested link. The List of.. article is linked already from its parent and there's no need for it here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

History of the Bicycle

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58444/58444-h/58444-h.htm a good book on the history of the bicycle, many copyright free images 194.207.86.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2019

I would like to submit that a bicycle can not be defined as motor-powered without specifying that the bicycle has been mated with a motor. Motorcycle, motorized bicycle, or e-bike are examples of appropriate names for a motor-powered bicycle; I am hoping you remove "motor-powered form this definition. I would also like to point out that calling a bicycle a bike is a common abbreviation, however the term bike relates to motorcycles as well a can be construed either way when used; for that reason I would recommend removing that term as an absolute and either removing the idea, or changing the wording to show that it is an abbreviation.

Thank you KRL1995 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, motorized bicycles and motorcycles are different. AdA&D ★ 23:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: [[motorized bicycle]s exist. With regard to "bike", the article very clearly states the bike is used as another word for bicycle. NiciVampireHeart 15:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

sorry Dunlop, it wasn't you

this article is wrongerz, American inventor Thomas B. Jeffery invented the first practical pneumatic tire by inventing the "bead" for a clincher rim in 1882 when Dunlop was making beadless tires that fell off. I've no doubt that every time this actual historical fact gets added, Dunlop marketing scrubs it back out again. (In addition to Rambler bicycles, he also started Rambler (automobile)) 66.65.103.242 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Add picture

Railbike draisine

to "Uses" part as example for bicycles as transport on rails. Mark König (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: By virtue of the fact that it has three wheels, it is not a bicycle. NiciVampireHeart 22:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Types of bikes

This article lacks any proper description of types of bicycle, such as track bicycle, road bicycle, hybrid, racing bicycle, etc, together with a scientific analysis of efficiency and function.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.212.245 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 July 2015‎

Strandbeest bicycle (a "walking"/robotic bicycle), Twicycle (dual cycling), elliptical bicycle, halfbike, stringbike... Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

gravel bike v cyclocross bike v mtb bike 95.178.222.9 (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

varibike fr3 (dual cycling), halbrad halfbike - handlebars are behind, not in front of the body, hubless bike (Sadabike) 95.178.143.119 (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hydrofoil bikes

like Manta5. Maybe an introductory segment could be put in this article ? It's just a question of whether or not similarities outweight differences. 95.178.143.119 (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Aaravrajbalar (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

hi i have limited information of bicycles in which i would like to edit so people around the world can learn about bicycles in a different perspective view this is what wikipedia is for right? so people can learn from millions of different perspective view and i deserve to to heard.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

your definition of bicycle is incorrect. every definition thet i found on a reputable dictionary says a bicycle is propelled by using pedals. if it has a motor, then it is a motorcycle, not a bicycle Scottossington (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Injuries on Bike

I think that there should be a new heading on injuries of a bicycle, for example, it can have a picture, a subheading of minor and major injuries, minor being cuts while major being accidents with a car, if someone agrees or disagrees with me, let me know! Sportsfangnome (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

mc2 bike

I was thinking of putting it in penny farthing article, as a new approach to that type and essentially a foldable penny farthing but then I saw it has 8 modes and one is recumbent mode. It's World's first "Multi-Configuration Cycle" or Transforming bike. It seems that it can be bought, not a prototype. So what to do with that. It seems that it's too little content for it's own article. 95.178.222.9 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I have more information on this please? I think that from this information, it should be conjoined with the Types of bikes. Sportsfangnome (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)