Talk:Suzuki GSX-R1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Suzuki GSX-R1000 article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

[edit] Weights

Changed the dry weight in the main article (the sidebar already had it as such) to 365 which is suzuki's claimed dry weight: the link is to Sport Rider, who claims a dry weight of 415, how they get this I am not positive, but I think its by weighing it with gas empty vs gas full: gas weighs in at ~ 6 lbs/gallon, 4.8 gallon tank = ~30 lbs, which is what SR.com is listing as the difference between wet and dry weight: this is incorrect, dry weight is supposed to be the bike completely dry, no fluids; not the bike with an empty gas tank. Left the SR link since it has the wet weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.158.130 (talk)

This is because manufacturer claimed weights are ALWAYS estimates and never meant to be factual. Check out ANY bike's claimed dry weight vs what it really is and it will always be different. We should stick with actual weight and not manufacturer claimed estimated weight. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Which actual weight? Actual Dry weight? (bike only, no fluids or fuel) SR's Dry weight? (Bike with fluids, no fuel) or wet weight (bike full fluids and fuel). I vote we do Mfg. claimed dry weight and Wet weight where possible. Then again, I did make the original edit :/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.2.190 (talk)

Manufacturers never make a claim to wet weight because it's going to show as being heavy. They only make claimed dry weights. Publications that actually do weight tests really do take the bikes and put them on scales, which is why I'd prefer to use just actual weights. I can compromise though. We'll just use both estimated and actual weights and make sure we cite sources correctly when doing so. May I suggest you also fully sign up for a Wikipedia account (as it's more protective of your identity) and, at the very least, sign your comments properly. Thanks Roguegeek (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This is an online encyclopedia and should have as much details stats about articles as possible, all the stats mentioned are verifible on the link mentioned at the end of the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireblade (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 September 2006.

Did you even read my response on my talk page when you decided to ask me about this? I'll just do a little copy and paste here... For every one article you can find that has one type of info, you can find another one that will contradict it. In cases like these where multiple sources can contradict each other, it's best to just stay neutral and offer only facts that can not be disputed. In any case you did NOT cite your sources correctly. I'm going to revert these edits until sources can properly be cited. Please read up on Wikipedia's policy on citing sources. You might also want to evaluate what reliable source actually is and what to do. Please also check your talk page for the comments I left on signature usage. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also so many grammar mistakes in the edits that were left. Please double-check or have someone proof read before editing. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. The source was mentioned clearly at the end of the article and it is a reliable source BBC to be exact and the feature is top gear do you even read the article carefully before you start tagging it??? it is unbiased and neutral. It is not an opinion it’s a road test and its results. thanks. (fireblade)

Just because a link is entered into the bottom of an article doesn't mean the fact had a cited source. Please read the guidelines over again on how to cite a source. Simply put, if you don't cite a source correctly, I'm going to either correct it or tag it as unsourced. You need to read these policies before editting. Let me again re-state what I have said in case I didn't explain it clearly. I have no problems with the source, but there are conflicting sources all over the place on this particular aspect. Pull 10 sources that did the same test and you'll have 10 different results. Again, it's best to stay neutral on this instead of just listing facts from one source that really doesn't even specialize with motorcycles compared to some of the other major publications. Roguegeek (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the data on one reliable source here ie BBC, can someone please show me those 10 conflicting sources thanks (fireblade)

I'm not sure you understood the point. It doesn't take 10 results to show it's a subjective topic. It takes one. As long as there is one reliable source that shows inconsistency, then the results are subjective. I think a more important question to ask is why is this very insignificant fact so important to you to put into an article where there are so many more important things to state? Where would it even go? And don't you think there might be more value in finding info on the history of this bike? Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have said it time and again --This is an online encyclopedia and it should cover all aspects related to the articles, these figures show performance and capability of this bike I think question is why would someone is determined to delete these accurate reliable figures??? (fireblade)