Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 6

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Biker Biker in topic Hero Honda Split needs rename
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

AfD nomination of Cossack motorcycle

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cossack motorcycle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cossack motorcycle. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

  • I guess Article Alert Bot is not coming back? Is there some other way to keep track of this sort of thing? Dbratland (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Spam / COI links

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not at all happy about Motorrad-67 (talk · contribs) constantly adding links (see above) to his own website. It is a clear conflict of interest for someone to add links to his own website. I really don't like them being added as references anyway because as a fan site they are hardly a reliable source - especially when there are so many other good BMW related resources. I'd appreciate members of this project taking a look at some of the articles that feature his link to see if you think they should be deleted and replaced as appropriate. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I swear this has come up before, but it must have been with the previous domain name (hosted on an ISP). I don't have time to dig around for it now, I'll comment further once I've found it. tedder (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's the discussion: User talk:TimTay/Archive 2#Please_do_not_add_personal_websites_onto_Wikipedia
And it's clear that Motorrad-67 (talk · contribs) is/was also R69S (talk · contribs) based on interests (cameras, old BMW bikes) and modus operandi (uploading images, organizing userspace). WP:DUCK to Jeff dean (talk · contribs) and 5033R5995 (talk · contribs). The sockpuppet issue makes the spam issue even worse. tedder (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Those are the ones. Glad you agree it's an issue. I have stopped short of crying sockpuppet but I think you are right. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Bmwdean.com is similar to http://www.suzukicycles.org/: a very nice web site, and no doubt the sort of thing many enthusiasts easily find via the major search engines. No doubt there is a lot of valuable information there. But the author is not a recognized authority.

It also has too much unauthorized copyrighted material, such as BMW-published photos and copies of entire Cycle World articles re-used without permission. Ironically, Jeff Dean, Tim Stafford and others are at pains to put copyright notices on their own photos, but don't seem to mind appropriating the intellectual property of others. In any event, Wikipedia policy says we can't link to sites that host unauthorized copies of copyrighted material -- see WP:COPYLINK. --Dbratland (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the author is more of an authority than zero: Jeff Dean has been published in the US MCN. The copyvio is the ultimate issue, though, and means there is no real reason to discuss the merits of the site otherwise. tedder (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
See SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff_dean tedder (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I see the personal attacks have started over there. Good work you two; thanks for taking care of this. --Dbratland (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed/spamified all of the links except the most recent domain (bmwdean.com). I'll get those in a bit if nobody else has. tedder (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Its happening more and more across all of Wikipedia, but I don't know why as they are all no follow links, so its just a traffic play. The way to address it on high-traffic/spam link pages is to insert a link to the appropriate page at the Open Directory Project, aka dmoz. Then if its a legitimate website, its gets added with a full follow link. External links are there to add information over the article, not provide traffic to your website! Persistent spammers should get the appropriate warning, which now gets them banned from adding links for a period. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Descendants Motorcycle Club

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Descendants Motorcycle Club, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Descendants Motorcycle Club. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dbratland (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

US motorcycle rallies navbox

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Per offline discussion, a navbox for large (100,000+) US rallies is under development. Template:US motorcycle rallies/workpage — Brianhe (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

good start. i say go for ti and insert into the articles. --Found5dollar (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I will create it as shown below. Cheers — Brianhe (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Test:

To be honest it's hardly worth doing for just 4 entries. Why not lower the bar to perhaps 5,000 confirmed attendees so that a larger number of articles would be included. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Biker Biker but if we take a worldview rather than a US-centric one, how many entries would there likely be? If it is not too many, say less than 50, then expand it. ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I had added a "see also" section, to three of the four rallies included in this navbox, but it was removed. that is where the idea for this came from. If the consensus is that there are two few for a navbox, then would have the see also section made more sense?--Found5dollar (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Helmet Law Defense League

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Helmet Law Defense League is being turned into a soapbox for rants and press releases. Any help would be appreciated. --Dbratland (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

For once I will decline. I want absolutely nothing to do with the HLDL flat earthers. By campaigning against helmet laws they are, in my opinion, indirectly responsible for the deaths of many motorcyclist whose lives would have been saved were they wearing a helmet. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on it now. And now that I'm not working for a motorcycle safety school partially sponsored by the ABATE knuckledraggers, adding that one to my watchlist too. tedder (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete and salt Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman)

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman) has been reposted for at least the third time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcyclist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman). I believe it has also been speedily deleted under various alternate titles at least once before; I'm not sure how to search the logs properly. Can we salt this? It's a tiresome discussion to repeat. --Dbratland (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so hell bent on deleting the article time and time again? Maybe because it does exists. It really gets tired when some editor has it out for an article and uses the speedy delete for his on personal vendetta. --IronWolve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.100.148 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You ask why? No one is hell bent on deleting the article, it is simply because it does not pass the threshold for notability. ww2censor (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is sources. As he is anon/persona-no-grata, its difficult to find any sources to his existence, except one 2002 DVD on Amazon. Secondly, he didn't get out of Stockholm much, let alone Sweden, so the WP:RS if they exist are in Swedish (we are the English language Wikipedia). The only practical way we could address the need for an article is if one existed on Wikipedia Scandinavia. Until that point, we are going to keep debating and deleting here on a lack of WP:RS. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Sent to Afd for a third time, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghost_Rider_(motorcycle_stuntman)_(3rd_nomination) Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I am going to research and create a decent article on this topic. I believe that it does warrant coverage but only with good references. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

More power to you. You might find some material you can lift from my hooliganism sketch: User talk:Dbratland/Motorcycle hooliganism. So far I haven't been able how to figure out how to turn it into a proper article without original research and synthesis. --Dbratland (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of motorcycle helmets

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Motorcycle helmets.

In a moment of boredom (actually sheltering from the rather hot and very rare UK sun which makes it way too sweaty for bike leathers) I decided to identify as many pictures of motorcycle helmets as I could on Wikimedia Commons. If you click the link on the right you will see that I have added a few pics I found on Flickr, and have created a number of subcategories for Arai, Schuberth, AGV, Suomy, Shoe etc. In these I have placed a mixture of helmet-only photos and photos of racers wearing specific brands of helmet. From a biking perspective I find the photos fascinating - looking at how they have evolved over the years and identifying helmets I have owned myself or would love to own. From a Wikipedia perspective the pics could (should?) be added to their respective articles, which are mostly pretty sorry stubs with little or no content or colour. If you are interested, fill your boots... --Biker Biker (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Peckhammer TV

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Peckhammer TV is up for speedy deletion. Previously deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peckhammer.blip.tv discussion. I can't find any independent mention, but if the show survivies it might be worth re-creating the article some day. I saved a copy at User talk:Dbratland/Peckhammer TV. Speak up if you know of any thing that meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) --Dbratland (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to speedy delete that article. I removed the tag. If anyone wants it deleting they will have to go through the AfD route and I for one will contest it. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The article citations appear to include one mention in third party publications, the Sound Rider online magazine. The rest are about the subjects of the interviews, not the show itself. Borderline. — Brianhe (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bike colours

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Does anyone else here give a flying fig about bike colours? I have seen too many articles where it states model x in year y was available in colour z - but these are rarely if ever sourced. Just as Wikipedia states no prices I think we should have no colours. Typically each market has different colours - just as the prices and warranty vary from market to market. I'd like to propose that we actively discourage model year colour availability unless a) it is properly sourced and b) it shows what colours are available in different markets. No sources or only one market then we should remove the information. What do others think? --Biker Biker (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. As with prices, it should be included if there is media commentary. The recent use of acid yellow by BMW was either loved or hated by many in the media, as was the copper/silver 1999 Hayabusa. Most other colors of of no consequence.

I would be just as happy to delete frame numbers and engine numbers; this is trivia of keen interest only to the collector's market. The key is whether or not independent sources had something to say about the color/price/frame number. The raw data alone is not of interest.

The possible exception I would make on price is very old historic models, where adjusting the price for inflation helps the modern reader understand where this bike fit in the big picture: economical commuter, something only for the very rich, or in between. --Dbratland (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the question is, is the colour scheme notable? The classic Yamaha black/white stripe on yellow would be, alongside something more street like the "Urban Tiger" scheme of the Foxeye Fireblade: no one searches for a 1994-96 Fireblade! Honda and Yamaha have brought both colour schemes back in the last few years as retro premium on their ranges. Other wise, I could have agreement with your proposal: if its just an annual colour change, then a picture would suffice, no need for the commentary. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I created the Yamaha RD500LC article and included the two colour options in the specs table (I missed out two more but had no refs). Probably comes under the 'historic' category now but it's interesting stuff (to me anyway). Modern bike colours might be less interesting but in 25 years time the next generation of wikipedian bikers (biker wikipedians?) might be trying to find out what colour a Hayabusa came in back in 2010. Manufacturer's price (RRP), if available and verifiable, should be included in the infobox, it's standard practice in the aviation project, again it is an interesting fact. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE more or less addresses this, along with WP:CRYSTAL and, more generally, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There are many bits of data that someone in the future might want. But WP policy doesn't take that into account; rather the only goal is to create a good encyclopedia right now. The mere fact that WP deletes some information doesn't mean it will be lost to future generations. WP is only one web site; it is not the whole Internet. Many other sites are devoted to recording minutiae like color schemes and serial numbers, and the Internet never forgets.

Both the Classic Japanese Motorcycle Guide and The Ultimate History of Fast Motorcycles devote two or three pages to the RD500LC, but only Rod Ker's book mentions the blue and white color scheme, in passing, and gives no commentary on the subject other than that. If a source did have something to say about a bike's colors, you could easily cite it and justify inclusion of the colors. But if the sources don't find it interesting, and an editor does think it's interesting, the sources win. --Dbratland (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Types of motorcycles navbox

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Created Template:Types of motorcycles this evening and started applying it to the linked articles. — Brianhe (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Very nice! --Biker Biker (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I think there will be debates over taxonomy, but that goes with the territory. --Dbratland (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought about that and decided to expand a bit beyond on what's at Types of motorcycles. Category:Motorcycle classifications served as a guide as well. Of course it's not mine and I look forward to discussion. — Brianhe (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No 2010 Suzukis in the US?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is the best sourcing I have found on it, but apparently Suzuki skipped the 2010 model year in the US, due to the backlog of unsold 2009 bikes. For street bikes, or sport bikes, at least. This has led to confusion that some models had been discontinued altogether, such as the SV650. The gap in US models does not mean a worldwide discontinuity.

Does anyone have a more definite reference on which models were skipped for 2010? --Dbratland (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Honda VFR750R (RC30)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The official Honda site quotes the power output of the Honda RC30 as 77PS @9,000 rpm. The European versions are quoted as either 112bhp or 118bhp for power output. Is there a definitive power output for standard European or US models ? Agljones (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Emilio Scotto

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looks like someone is scrubbing negative info and maintenance tags from Emilio Scotto again, claiming POV. Need 3rd opinion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alejandrochiffi/Archive. --Dbratland (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

List cruft at V-twin engine

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone take a look at V-twin engine and please sort out the list cruft that is building up thanks to the unwelcome efforts of {{User:Sandersjoshua]] (a member of this project) e.g. this edit. I don't want to get into trouble for 3RR but I feel strongly that we shouldn't list engines or manufacturers that have no articles on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTDIR. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycling destinations

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Rock Store was recently expanded, and I created a Category:Motorcycling destinations and Commons Category:Motorcycling destinations to try to bring together some of these notable hangouts, including The Ace Cafe, Alice's Restaurant (the one in California, named after the song, not the original in Massachusetts), Newcomb's Ranch, and so on. There are a number of photos available on Commons, and I believe sufficient sources for at least a few new articles.

You might want to suggest a better name for the category. You could also rethink how this is organized and classify these differently, but it depends on which articles are written and what the source material covers.

I lumped together restaurants with routes, so Hawk's Nest, New York is included, along with Deals Gap, North Carolina. There was a Hawk's Nest Cafe in New York, but it burned down. There is a Deals Gap Motorcycle Resort attached to the route, which can be referred to as "The Tail of the Dragon" and (partially) U.S. Route 129. I think a single article suffices for Deals Gap, Tail of the Dragon, Deals Gap Motorcycle Resort, and the portion of US Route 129 that is included. Maryhill Loops Road is closed to the public but it is used for several not-quite-notable private events.

It's clear that there is a symbiosis between a popular motorcycling route and the establishments that pop up to serve the crowds, so you could make the article be about either the restaurant/resort, or the route, or both.

Related but separate categories are race destinations that have gatherings associated with them, like Daytona, the Isle of Man TT, and Hollister, California. Then there are pure gatherings where neither a route nor a race are the focus, like Sturgis and Black Bike Week. There are also numerous motorcycling-themed restaurants that don't have a riding destination tied to them, and in most cases fail notability. --Dbratland (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I thought of Alice's, Rock Store, Newcomb's, and you are right on Ace. I'm wondering if they warrant a page or a template? I don't really know how to handle the WP:N problem, though- certainly some establishments qualify. tedder (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Free Flickr images

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Flickr user has many motorcycle and motorcycle-related images licenced under a free Creative Commons licence, several taken in museums though the bikes are not well identified, so if you find anything useful you can upload it to the commons using the Flickr upload bot. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycling articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Motorcycling articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New study: African-American motorcyclists more likely to die, in spite of helmets.

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Press release from Johns Hopkins. Full study (behind paywall). --Dbratland (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

French motorcycling portal

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Found this   on the French Wikepedia Motorcycle Portal any thoughts on how we could use it? Thruxton (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is no Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling.

To create one, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|motorcycling|Motorcycling}}

Then press Save page and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40#What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?

Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.

The Transhumanist    20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  Done ...well it's a start and we can all have a go at developing it see Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling Thruxton (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Flash Gordon proposed deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Flash Gordon (physician), columnist for Motorcycle Consumer News, has been proposed for deletion as failing WP:BIO. Is there anything we can do to beef up the article — especially to show that he is an important contributor to motorcycling medicine? — Brianhe (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes it definately meets criteria for notability so I've expanded it a bit and put a Keep on the talk page. Have a look wyham and if you agree you could remove the proposed deletion banner. I assumed that Flash Gordon is a pseudonym but I can't find his real name - if he has one? Thruxton (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Honda RC series

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Honda RC series has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Opening statement "Although there is, strictly speaking, no Honda RC Series" makes it unlikely the term could ever meet WP:N or WP:V. A search for references found web hits, but no published (gBooks) that meetWP:RS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD Motorcycle shelter

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Motorcycle shelter for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorcycle shelter). It is badly written and reflects poorly on this project. Save it or bin it - your choice. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please help rescue Wasp Motorcycles

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article Wasp Motorcycles has just been listed for deletion. Wasp Motorcycles are one of the last remaining UK manufacturers and are definately notable, as they feature in the title of Don Moreley's book Classic British scramblers: all post-war two-stroke and four-stroke scrambles motorcycles, AJS to Wasp so any help in improving it or positive comments on the deletion discussion would be very welcome! Thanks Thruxton (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bedtime for me, but if anyone is interested in having a go, here are some nice references - this, this, this and finally this. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Nomination now withdrawn. Result! --Biker Biker (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

COI / Edit warring at Patriot Guard Riders

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A director of Patriot Guard Riders is currently engaging in edit warring on the article over whether it is a motorcycle club or not. I had thought this was resolved a long time ago at Talk:Motorcycle club, but clearly this editor thinks differently. Some other opinions would be useful as I'm backing off so I don't fall foul of 3RR. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD Neco Scooters

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neco Scooters - I have nominated Neco Scooters for deletion. It is a cheap Chinese clone manufacturer, one of hundreds, and is entirely non-notable. You of course may have different opinions which is why I invite you to look at the article, decide for yourself, then comment on the AfD. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD Tor Sagen

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tor Sagen nominated for deletion. --Dbratland (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing specifications in infobox

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Any suggestions on a clean, common style to source specifications in the motorcycle infobox? I'd like to update Honda Dio but am not sure what's the best way to cite the Honda specs. — Brianhe (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but we would need to modify {{Infobox motorcycle}}. Take a look at {{Infobox settlement}} as used in Exeter. Look at the population section and you will see an embedded reference, which is done using a parameter |population_footnotes=. All we would need to do is create a specifications section in the infobox and do the same thing - using, for example, |spec_footnotes=. Really easy. I'd be happy to have a go at it. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Might also be worth having a look at {{Infobox racing car}} - sample usage at McLaren MP4-25. DH85868993 (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. Is the point to have the infobox's footnotes inside the infobox? Neither McLaren MP4-25 nor Exeter do that. Also what happens if you have a lead infobox, then some text with footnotes, then another infobox with footnotes, then more text, then a references section. As in Suzuki Hayabusa and Kawasaki Ninja 250R? --Dbratland (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't you see the little [1] inside the infoboxes? --Biker Biker (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, so it's so you can have a footnote attached to an infobox section header. That seems fine although not terribly necessary -- the sourcing for uncontroversial statistics like tire size or number of cylinders can go just about anywhere without doing any harm. To me the tricky part is how and where you cite controversial and contradictory statistics like weight, power and performance. --Dbratland (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(moving left) I really think sources should be attached to the line of the infobox they source, not to a general footnote section. Keeping information directly attached makes it easier to spot dubious additions and information. tedder (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Super Single for deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Super Single is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Single until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dbratland (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Temple Riders for deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Riders - I voted for deletion, but would happily change my vote and contribute to a rescue effort if anyone fancies having a go and can find references that do prove notability. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Honda RS250R - needs love or deletion?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello all,

I was working through the wikify backlog when I found the article Honda RS250R. I will admit I know nothing at all about motorcycles, so I'm not in a position to assess the notability of that model and therefore whether it is appropriate to have an article on it. Therefore I thought I'd come and ask here. Does this meet the GNG, and, if so, will anyone here step up and give this article some TLC?

Jake the Editor Man (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

bikez.com - spam / unreliable reference

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Click the "en" link above and you will see that the bikez.com website is "spammed" across a lot of our articles. If you look at some of the individual pages you will see that they are anything but a reliable source, and are instead a vehicle for driving traffic to "our partners" i.e. to raise money. If you look at the site's disclaimer it specifically states that its articles cannot be considered to be 100% accurate as they contain user-contributed material - just as Wikipedia articles (or its mirrors) can never be used as references within other Wikipedia articles. I would like to propose that we have a bit of an joint anti-spam effort and get rid of this site from our articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since open wikis can not be cited under the self published sources guideline I have no problem nuking such from WPMoto articles. — Brianhe (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Bikez.com is now history! --Biker Biker (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Intercontinental motorcycle touring - cleanup anyone?

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Intercontinental motorcycle touring is a bloody awful article. I have just deleted some entire sections of how-to material but it really needs a good sort out and I would appreciate some help editing and back-up in case we get any negative reaction or ownership issues. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Equally flawed is the related List of intercontinental motorcycle riders --Biker Biker (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Gecch, completely unsourced OR, needs to be moved to Wikibooks or something. — Brianhe (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Which one? Or do you mean both? --Biker Biker (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The first. List of intercontinental motorcycle riders at least has a single reference. — Brianhe (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I have taken a good look at what is left of Intercontinental motorcycle touring and I am minded to blank it and redirect to Long distance riding (which itself is no shining example of a Wikipedia article). I can't personally see any content in this article worth saving, but it will at least be there in the article's history. Does anyone object to me doing this? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, original research is not permitted at Wikibooks (see Wikiversity where it's encouraged for that). Wikibooks takes a lenient view that content does not require sources to be seen as acceptable content, but sources will be needed to keep content if there is a dispute where claims of original research are put forth. I'll import Intercontinental motorcycle touring but only the removed content will be kept at Wikibooks to avoid redundancy. Adrignola (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please encourage your participants to upload free images to Commons. I've got to do transfers for pretty much every image present in the version that remains at Wikibooks. Adrignola (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you import the whole article? Once you do that we can blank it and redirect (as indicated above). --Biker Biker (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


Wikibooks doesn't have Wikipedia's restriction against how-to advice -- so while sourcing is still required, the how-to portion can be moved there, provided the results were favorable to Wikibooks and not just dumping. Or it could be saved outside the article namespace -- it kind of looks like reasonably good quality material and potentially sourcable. There are many books on motorcycle touring, though I've read none of them personally. And never ridden more than 300 miles from home, unfortunately. (: --Dbratland (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for our worst article?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

We have some shockingly bad articles in our project. Thankfully most are one line stubs and virtually orphans so few people if any get to see them. But I just came across Malaguti and it must win some sort of (booby) prize for its quality. Any fancy a go at cleaning it up? --Biker Biker (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I can do better (worse): Panther motorcycle. BTW I twiddled Malaguti a little. — Brianhe (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply to self -- Looks like Rich Farmbrough already started stubs from the page above. We can either clean up or more likely nom for deletion as non-notable: Panther motorcycle (North America), Panther motorcycle (China), Panther motorcycle (Philippines). I made Panther motorcycle a dabpage. — Brianhe (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK here's a new candidate for the Hall of Shame: Spagthorpe. Is the article a hoax, or just a poorly explained article about an Internet hoax? — Brianhe (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Charitably, that's a fiction that needs to be rewritten from WP:INUNIVERSE style. But it would still fail Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Less charitably, it's a hoax. Either way, it should be deleted. --Dbratland (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Aw, I'll miss that article. I had to read it in the deleted history to make sure, but it was accurate. Spagthorpe may even predate the DoD (denizens of doom, keepers of rec.motorcycles, creators of the Squid Purity Test (I know at least 6 of the quiz creators)). tedder (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Early motorcycles synchronization

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Coverage of primordial motorcycles has increased with the creation of Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede, Roper steam velocipede, Sylvester H. Roper, Daimler Reitwagen and Template:Early motorcycles. This presents contradiction problems for a number of articles, the crux of which is detailed in Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede#First motorcycle?. The articles affected, so far, are:

With the longer articles it's not so bad: you can try to mention each source as the Michaux-Perraux article does, but with the timelines it's harder to squeeze the conflicting evidence into succinct bullet form. I suppose the best approach is to be bold, and make changes to the above articles as you deem best and then see who objects, and why. Then discuss and proceed from there. Please review the articles listed above and edit as needed. --Dbratland (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Motorcycling destinations

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Motorcycling destinations up for deletion. --Dbratland (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Outlaws MC and negative claims about living person

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment --Dbratland (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Stressed member

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

No, not me, I mean the principle of motorcycle construction that uses the engine as a structural component e.g. the BMW R1150GS (and most of the rest of the modern R series) in which the headstock and front suspension are mounted on the front of the engine, the rear suspension onto the gearbox, and the rear subframe (which carries the seats) onto the rear of the engine. I can't find any article to cover "stressed member". Subframe touches on it. Backbone chassis is sort of along the same line. Surprisingly no mention at all is made in Motorcycle frame. So is there anyone here care to write it up in an article, or as part of an existing article? --Biker Biker (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I added a section to Motorcycle frame. Probably could be better but I think it's an improvement. --Dbratland (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox comments please

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am seeking clarification on how the "Related" parameter should be used in {{Infobox Motorcycle}}. See this. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrongly titled/linked Wiki page

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_WR250F

The content of this page, including the characteristics and photos is relevant and accurate to the Yamaha WR250R. That particular bike is completely unrelated to the Yamaha WR250F. The Yamaha WR250F has completely different specs and appearance. Comparing the two motorcycles on Yamaha's official website should clear up any question about this.

Logically, the simplest fix is to correct the title of this page from "Yamaha WR250F" to "Yamaha WR250R". Otherwise, it would seem that you would have to create a "Yamaha WR250R" wiki page, copy and paste the current contents of the "Yamaha WR250F" page over, and then strip the current content for the WR250F wiki page out as it is not accurate for that particular bike. Presumably, somebody would then repopulate the WR250F page with the correct information for that motorcycle.

Jäger Moderator, WR250R Forum 173.180.28.128 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Back when I created the page, it was meant to be the WR250F. I think my mistake was using the photo of the WR250R, since that's all I had, and relying on the caption to explain that it was a different model. Later someone changed it to WR250R, and later on someone else changed practically everything to refer to the R. Currently, Yamaha WR250R does not exist, and we lack a licensed photo of the WR250F. --Dbratland (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Motus MST

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I started an article on the Motus MST in my userspace, members of this WikiProject are encouraged to contribute to it. As the first gasoline direct injection motorcycle, it already has some historical significance. Maybe a DYK?— Brianhe (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved to article space today: Motus MST. - Brianhe (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On merging or splitting with historical models of the same name or different name but similar bike

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The question of whether or not give the 2011 CBR250R its own page or to expand Honda CBR250 provides a good test case for other articles. In the case of the Honda CB900F, I favored merging the pages for the both because the 1979-1983 and the 2002-2007 generations had much common: the were both marketed as large standards using inline transverse fours tuned for streetability, rather than high-strung race replica peak horsepower. Though the later version was more technically advanced they both still used moderate-cost componentry, like steel frames, aiming for practicality.

The sixteen valve race replica 250s made almost exclusively for the Japanese home market were narrowly tailored for Japan's graduated licensing scheme at the time whose 250cc and 40PS limits created a healthy demand for these specialized bikes. Few ordinary motorcyclists could pass the difficult test that would allow them to ride 750cc and over bikes, and so they could spend a lot for the best bike they were legally allowed to ride. As soon as the regulations changed in the mid 90s to make this niche a little less attractive, all of the bikes in this class disappeared. These bikes were in a very high state of tune and difficult to ride, with a narrow powerband, and easy to stall at low RPM. They had more trick suspensions, needed a lot of maintenance and were expensive to buy.

The new CBR250R has nothing in common with those bikes except for the nominal engine displacement and that some of the earlier bikes went by the code "CBR250R". The new bike is vastly less expensive, and though it is high tech like the prior bikes, the technological wizardry is aimed at low maintenance (16,000 mile valve adjustment interval for example) and the ability to manufactured worldwide. Where the old CBR250R was hard to ride, the new one is notably easy, with good low end torque and offering combined ABS to help beginners. The racer types who liked the old bike would dislike linked brakes and the slightly greater potential braking distance that the mechanical ABS delivers. The new CBR250R is meant to sell worldwide, complying with EURO3 emissions, and being produced in Thailand and India to keep production costs low enough to sell in both poor and rich countries.

A tougher case might be the Honda VTR250, whose two generations have less technically in common than the CB900F generations. Merges, and/or splits, along with Honda VT250 and Honda VT250F, might be in order. I would argue that target market and target buyer should be the deciding factors, with differences in features or component types being considered but not given prime importance.

And the final, most critical arbiter should be whether or not the ordinary reader benefits more from seeing the two or more generations together or separately, where they are less likely to read both pages. --Dbratland (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Want!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

--Dbratland (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Photoshoppped backgrouds in images.

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

WP:CARPIX only says that backgrounds should be simple and not distracting, but I think trying to photoshop backgrounds white, such as in File:T110 1961 bathtub wiki.jpg and File:Suzuki Katana GSX100 wiki.jpg, and some others I've seen around, is not helpful. The effect is surreal, at best, and distracting. In many cases the quality is poor, leaving weird marks floating in the background, as in these two examples. Removing all context, such as scale, does nothing to give readers a realistic idea of the subject either. If such photos are all we have, fine, but if alternatives exist we should avoid them. --Dbratland (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. It makes the edges look strange, the lighting is never right, etc. I'd prefer a noisy background to a 'shopped background. tedder (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Also agree. Weird and odd. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up Category:British motorcycles

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Category:British motorcycles needs 160+ pages diffused. See WP:DIFFUSE and Category talk:British motorcycles#May 2008 --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done! I only left the single-bike manufacturers in the main category, everthing else diffused. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Amazing; that would have taken me hours. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ThermaHelm AfD

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I hate spam. I hate spammers. I hate single purpose accounts that think Wikipedia is somewhere they can post articles that are only intended to promote a product. In my opinion a good case in point is ThermaHelm, which I have just nominated for deletion. See both the article and the talk page before forming your own opinion on whether to keep or delete - your choice. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

List of intercontinental motorcycle riders

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The article List of intercontinental motorcycle riders had a number of non-notable entries so I chose to set basic inclusion criteria of already having an article, and thus deleted any entry that did not already have an article. This raises two issues/actions for this project. Firstly do you agree with the criteria I chose - if you do or don't then please comment at Talk:List of intercontinental motorcycle riders. Secondly, I suspect the list is short of a few notable riders so perhaps we could put our collective heads together and think of some riders who could have articles created. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor is now edit warring so I have backed off the removal. I would therefore appreciate the attention of some of this project's members. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A list criteria that allows redlinks as long as it includes a solid footnote seems reasonable, although many list criteria work best when they only list articles. This one would be a lot better if the route and comments columns weren't so overstuffed with words. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Tedder has made the same comments about the route column. I will endeavour to sort it, although your assistance would be very welcome! --Biker Biker (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Unless well known people with WP:RS redlinks should not be used in such lists. If they are not notable enough for their own article yet, then there should not be a redlink. If and when an article is created, a link can of course be added. List of climbers, alpinists and mountaineers had the same issue and was littered with redlinks that were all removed. FYI, in the lede of WP:REDLINK it states: rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. Also see WP:WTAF. ww2censor (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle Exhibition

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Category:Motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle Exhibition nominated for deletion here. --Dbratland (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus reached for deletion, so the category lives to fight another day. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this should be removed. Art has a useful place elsewhere. Krontach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Dull picture removed from Indian (motorcycle)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just removed a picture from Indian (motorcycle), which showed a deserted dealership. I think it is a really dull picture that adds no value to the article, but I'm just one member of this project and I don't own any articles. Input from other project members would be welcome at Talk:Indian (motorcycle), where the image is displayed. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox suggestions - power/torque

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

{{Infobox motorcycle}} is one of the key tools at this project's disposal. I have been pondering how we might improve the way that power (and perhaps torque) figures are presented. Most bikes will have two sets of power figures. The first is what the manufacturer states (or claims depending on your p.o.v.) in the brochure. The second is what independent testers measure at the rear wheel. I think that both are equally valid if they can be presented in a way that distinguishes between them. Manufacturers power figures are a useful comparison when looking at different models and I for one welcome them in an article - as long as it is made clear what their provenance is. I would like to suggest that we introduce two parameters "power_claimed" and "power_tested", which if used will display on different lines in the infobox. Both parameters should still be properly referenced of course. Comments? --Biker Biker (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In theory that would be good, although then you'd really want to expand it to include claimed crank and claimed rear wheel power (bhp and hp), as well as tested bhp and hp. Four statistics for power and four more for torque, eight total. The problem there is that the infobox becomes too busy and confusing, and even if you could sort that out, in practice we don't have all four figures. Many manufacturers never released a claimed output, and I don't know of any independent testers who publish anything other than rear wheel hp. So in the best case, you're comparing apples to oranges. It makes the claimed output look dishonest, when in fact they could very well be presenting the true crank or bhp. On the other hand, they choose to publish that figure to make themselves look good, so maybe we shouldn't feel sorry for them.

All of which leads me to think that if we're going to make changes, we should define the infobox power parameter to be only rear wheel, tested horsepower and torque. These are the only meaningful figures on a motorcycle anyway. The majority of your losses are from your transmission, with shaft drive costing the most power and chain the least. But you can't simply bolt on a chain drive to a shaft drive motorcycle. When the designer chooses a particular transmission, the bike pretty much has to live with it, just like it has to live with the valvetrain and the presence of balance shafts and any other fundamental components. Subtracting the drive losses would be like subtracting friction losses from the main crankshaft bearings. You can't live without it, and the friction and inertial losses from these components are determined by the trade-offs and the quality of the design. So by only showing independently tested, rear wheel horsepower, we're giving the most useful, meaningful statistic, and the one that you care about the most at a glance. It's also the figure you are most interested in for side to side comparisons, and to estimate top speed or acceleration.

Claimed, crank, and/or bhp have a place: in the body of the article, where they can be fully explained and accompanied by fair warning as to the source.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to put in a line for Dynamometer HP feel free to do so. This isn't going to be very useful. Keep in mind that horsepower ratings are being removed due to too many legal problems. Honda and Toyota are both in trouble for letting the marketing people set the horsepower ratings and are not posting horsepower ratings as they once did. Our governments are also to blame because there is no enforcement of any of the parameters for testing genuine horsepower, MPG or other things and the makers just set a figure they feel is best for sales while skewing the results several percentage points deliberately. Dynamometer power is just as meaningless as HP and Torque figures. The true measures of performance for high powered motorcycles for sport are acceleration, and track speeds. For utility motorcycles their performances are better measured in achieved MPG. There is no standard for comfort or safety. A lot of these things are horrifically bad at handling.

If you are going to post Dyno figures, they MUST adhere to a standard method of testing or they are USELESS. HP and Torque are covered by standards that the makers are in some ways forced to observe within reason. Krontach (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Which standard method? Which agency forces manufacturers to adhere to an engine testing standard? I wasn't aware that there was regulation in place about this. It would make our task much easier if we could cite a standard. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Jr. Designs

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have started a draft of Paul Jr. Designs here: User:Mlpearc/Paul Jr. Designs. I would appreciate any input, comments and/or help. Also a navbox here: template:Paul Jr. Designs
Mlpearc powwow 18:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do they mass produce bikes or make one-offs? I think we should only call companies that make series-produced models "manufactures" and the others should be called motorcycle customizers or motorcycle builders. From the website, the only thing they seem to sell is clothing. On West Coast Choppers I described the company as a lifestyle brand since several sources supported this, and the motorcycles were loss leaders or advertisements for the branded merchandise.

Lacking solid, independent evidence that their primary business is making motorcycles, it might be better to write an article about the TV show and just have a section about the bikes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The company was and is founded as motorcycle customizers as is OCC, the clothing ling is just a by product of the website. I will locate references to this fact as you suggest. Thank you for your time and input. Mlpearc powwow 18:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Dennis on this - skeptical about the motorcycle credentials, so those references will be very welcome. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know :P Mlpearc powwow 20:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the layout needs a lot of work and more info but, I got some refs. :) Mlpearc powwow 04:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron Simms

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Created this article as part of my work to build up the Hayward articles. Im not a bike enthusiast myself, but he seems notable, and im proud to have him in hayward ( i see his shop every day on my commute). Does anyone think a list of bike makers, with a brief summary next to each name, would be a good page to create? some dont like lists, but i think they complement categories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

spam / low-value links and unreliable references

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

There are way too many links to cyclechaos.com on our articles. The website is a motorcycle wiki, run by enthusiasts not recognised experts and as such it meets neither the reliable sources criteria, nor those listed at WP:ELNO. Some of the content is forked from Wikipedia but with no credit back to the site, as is required by Wikipedia's licence. Over the next few days I'm going to expunge every link to the website that exists within articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. So that's fixed. The next bum source on my list is this one - motorbike-search-engine.co.uk --Biker Biker (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. So that's history too. What next for spam / unreliable source removal? --Biker Biker (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bikez.com and motoprofi.com. And suzukicycles.org --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Well the good news is I got rid of suzukicycles.org and bikez.com a while ago. Haven't notice motoprofi.com before but will take a look. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My next it is this one, which is just a bunch of pictures of old British bikes with no encyclopaedic content. What makes it worse is that all the existing links are broken and now simply redirect to the general gallery page. We don't need a site with pictures - that's what WIkimedia Commons is for. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

ianchadwick.com and ashonbikes.com

http://www.ianchadwick.com is cited in about 80 articles. From his bio http://www.ianchadwick.com/bio.htm it look like he's a professional journalist with an academic background, but the problem with citing his web page is that it's entirely self published. There's no editor or publisher doing any fact checking. The same problem, by the way, happens at http://www.ashonbikes.com/, which I have cited and would like to trust. Kevin Ash is an authority, but his personal site isn't edited by anyone but him, and howlers have appeared regularly. Fortunately, most of Ash's best articles end up published elsewhere, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/kevin-ash/, after having been gone over, and the improvement is noticeable.

I'd say these sources are useful to us, but unreliable as footnotes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS guidance seems relevant here.
Since Chadwick and Ash are recognized experts, I don't see a problem using these as sources especially when we don't have a plethora of alternatives. — Brianhe (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rating question

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See Talk:Norton Manx#Article rating --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Importance rankings. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yamaha SR500

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm about to get out my sharpest hatchet to have at this article. Anyone care to comment or save anything before I reduce it to a bleeding stub? --Biker Biker (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was an entertaining read! It's not entirely clear from the lead if it is still being produced, perhaps that can be fixed during the 'trimming' process? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR and third opinion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is the third time this pop culture section was added to Scooter (motorcycle) in the space of 8 hours. No reply to discussion here or talk page query here. No edit summary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Importance rankings

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Quite an impressive list. It's a good start however, for a bike like the Honda CB750 not to be near the top may indicate that the categories may need some tweaking. It seems as though the CB750 isn't ranked high enough because it wasn't the fastest bike. While top speed is a notable category, perhaps there should be other categories to offset it. The Ducati 916 might be another example. While it wasn't the fastest motorcycle of its period, it was considered by many in the motorcycling press as the best handling bike on the market.Orsoni (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the CB750 is an important motorcycle.--Biker Biker (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it raises questions about how and why museums choose their exhibits. Could be they traded all their Hondas to get one Vincent. Motorcycle Panorama chooses the 1972 Honda CB500 Four over the 1969 750 for unclear reasons. Another significant factor: more or less all the books and museums I've used so far have either a US or British bias, which works to compensate from one another, but fails to give enough credit to Japanese bikes, let alone other countries. So a Japanese museum catalog would be very valuable, as would Japanese books of significant motorcycles.

In the case of the CB750, you can augment the museum/book list with other sources. In Sport bike I list five sources saying it was a milestone bike, and more could be piled on. Things become more diluted in 1984: Sport bike has two sources each saying the modern race replica era began with the 1984 Honda VF750F and 1985 Suzuki GSX-R750, but I could add several more that say it was in fact the 1984 Kawasaki GPZ900R. So clearly 1984-5 was a watershed, but which bike is the exemplar is harder to say, and the importance of all three becomes decreased in this ranking system.

So I'm saying the list can be a starting point but it must be augmented with other factors and occasionally totally overruled by a significant enough expert opinion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point about 1984 which, makes it all the more difficult to make the list anything but subjective to personal opinions. While most would agree that the Honda CB750 was a milestone bike, finding citable sources to back up that claim in order to satisfy Wikipedia standards might be difficult. I own a copy of The Art of the Motorcycle. I might be able to find some useable data to cite as a source. The list is a good start though and it's better than nothing at all.Orsoni (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I've referred to my copy of The Art of the Motorcycle and, the page on the Honda CB750 states that the bike was a "pivotal motorcycle of the past 50 years" and that it "ushered in a new era." I don't know how we can incorporate this into the list.Orsoni (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Genuine Scooters

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can Genuine Scooters be rehabilitated from non-notability? Sources are the company website, a press release, and the motorcycle.com model listing. -- Brianhe (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming motorcycling bios to (motorcycling)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bradley Smith (motorcyclist) -> Bradley Smith (motorcycling)? Peter Egan (columnist) -> Peter Egan (motorcycling)? Discuss at WikiProject Motorcycle Racing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hero Honda Split needs rename

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

At the very least the article capitalization of Hero Honda Split is contrary to conventions. But regardless of caps, the title doesn't sound right to me, can the Project members give some suggestions? Maybe it shouldn't even be a separate article but folded back in to Hero MotoCorp? Brianhe (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put a merger proposal to merge it into the company's history section. Please comment at Talk:Hero MotoCorp. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorcycling/Archive_6&oldid=456649071"