Talk:Timeline of motorized bicycle history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The delete discusion can be found here 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation was filed... and it appears that the discussion is happening on the main mediation page. --CyclePat 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

the information found at http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl?index=132708&calln=4&lastq=&opt=ANY&doc0=0&query=bicycle is to large to discern by myself in the short amount of time necessary to have a descent article before the deletion. Please help by including any pertinent information for the article. Thank you! --CyclePat 04:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from disscusion of motorized bicycle

Pat, I know Andrew Pattle personally so will ask him for some of his sources to follow this up. But will you please stop pissing all over the consensus here and trying to make a WP:POINT. There is a strong' consensus on this page for keeping history within this article unless and until it becomes too large (which it has not yet). Also, much of the stuff you (I'm assuming it was you, given the text) put into the timeline was irrelevant to the motorized bicycle as defined. It might have the makings of a timeline of motorcycles, or even powered two wheelers generally, but the BSA Bantam is a motorcycle, the Honda Cub is a motor-scooter, the horse-drawn cart, although undoubtedly available as a powered two wheeler, is not actually a motorised bicycle according to the formal definition. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Motorized_bicycle"

Well indeed, I put a bunch of information, but many new people have also done the same. Please note: motorized bicycle is a bicycle with an attached motor to assist pedalling (so with pedals)... that includes pedaled moped (ethymologicily refered to as motor pedals). Perhaps early motorcycle might fall in this category. As discussed in the main article of motorized bicycle there are many jurisdictional definition that exist for a motorized bicycle. Generaly scooter don't have pedals, and later motorcycles wouldn't have it place in here. We are getting into a technical area. It would be worthy of editors that want to add a reference, add along with it a picture or a link, to the vehicle photo in question (This makes it easy for other editors to verify your information). However, do to the pressing nature of this article, since it is up for deletion, some editors might not have the time to do so, feeling it is more important to get the basic source information down. --CyclePat 17:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
No, the moped is separate and has a separate article. One of the first things the motorized bicycle article does is to make precisely that point. As I said below, I have no objection to changing this article to be a timeline of powered two wheel transport and its derivitives (which will still leave questionable cases like the SdKfz.2 Kleines Kettenkraftrad and the various cyclecars, but would remove questions about the likes of the Harley-Davidson No. 1. If we take a permissive view and allow any powered two-wheeler or derivitive, which I think is the least contentious approach, then we have the potential for a useful article which ties together at least four overlapping streams of development: light cars, motorcycles, mopeds and motor scooters, and power-assisted bicycles (which, incidentally, is what I think motorized bicycle should be called). But the subtleties of development of each stream is best done in their respective articles, where it can be explored in depth. Timelines are about pivotal moments: first power-assisted bike; last in-wheel IC engine; first mass-produced electric bike - that sort of thing. Otherwise it's too muddy and you can't see where the turning points were. To say that in 1959 the original Issigonis Mini was launched is undoubtedly an important moment in car history. To say that in 1990 several dozen companies all released minor variants on their supermini-sized vehicles is not just unnecessary, it is actually destructive, in that it obscures the genuinely significant data. See what I mean? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm reading back into the history, And I don't understand. It feels like on one hand you want a make the article broader but on the other hand (such as the afformentioned comment) you don't. If we can take K-111 sugestion I think we might start out good. --Pat 02:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your edit

We still have a long ways to go. Thank you everyone for your edits. I'll be back later on tonight. Please lets keep this article flowing so deletionists may understand how important this is. --CyclePat 11:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The importance of this timeline is amply demonstrated by the fact that a good half of the edits discussed motorcycles, motor scooters or mopeds. Actually they made a reasonable case for moving the article to timeline two-wheeled transport and a much better case for merging to timeline of transportation technology, but a singluarly weak case for keeping a timeline restricted to motorized bicycles as defined in the article from which, against consensus, you originally split this out. Incidentally, despite repeated requests you have yet to cite an authoritative source for the significance of the CCM bike in the context of the global history of motorized bicycles which is what is under discussion.
Note that subjects for timelines tend to be broad in scope (e.g. railways, air travel, motor technology). This sticks out like a sore thumb in that company!
Also, I don't think you realise quite how much trolling for support in web forums is likely to piss off regular Wikipedians. You have repeatedly failed to influence consensus to support your WP:POINT, and going out and actively soliciting keep votes based on a highly partial description of the argument - to say nothing of denouncing those who are actively working to make the motorized bicycle as "deletionists" - exhibits, in my view, either bad faith or gross ignorance. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of the Honda P50.

Although the Honda P50 may be considered a "Moped" I feel it is important to this timeline because because it was the last motor-wheel propelled vehicle built by Honda, or any other other company, which is historically significant in the context of this timeline because most early bike motors were motor wheels, and many popular designs from Britain during the fifties and sixties (Such as the Cyclemaster, and the BSA Flying Wheel) were too. The Honda P50 brings the era of motorized wheels to tidy and easily representable conclusion. The p50 itself is actually the last in a long line of bike motor development at Honda dating to the 1940s. Although sold as a complete unit, they were very light, comparable to the Velosolex, and my own experience with one was that it could be pedaled much like the velosolex could be, a bit more clumsily than a normal single speed bike, but infinitely easier than pedaling a regular type moped. Thoughts on inclusion anybody? (I had added it to the list earlier, but it was removed, so I'm stating my reasons for having here in this comment)

What you say reinforces my belief that a timeline for the motorized bicycle is not what is needed. If it were enlraged to a timeline of the powered two-wheeled motor vehicle, that would allow the ambiguities to be highlighted, rather than a point of conflict. But then of course we'd have similar trouble with cyclecars. Of course, in prose, the point can be made much more readily (which is why WP generally prefers articles to timelines, unless it's covering a big topic with well-defined milestones). Have you read the main motorized bicycle article yet? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
But I think on a larger scale, the model is less significant, to mopeds it caries some significance, but to motorcycles in general the Honda P50 is a practically meaningless oddity. To motorized bicycles it carries significance, and to Honda in particular it is also important, but in other contexts it's barely worth noting. I figured since motor-wheels figured more stongly in the history of motorized bicycles than in the history of any other sort of motorized vehicle, that it may be of enough importance to list here.[User:K-111]

We could enlarge the specifics of this timeline to include mopeds as well, this is true and would further add to usefulness and depth of this timeline.

I have decided that if the Honda P50 warrants mention on the main Motorized bicycle page, it deserves mention here. No reason to be operating by double standards. User:K-111

[edit] CCM bike in the context of the global history of motorized bicycles

OKay! Let's get things strait here. There is no contest in citing source. I've given them to you on numerous accounts. I've indicated the source. I've cited the source. I've typed the source. If your fancy is to find out the "global history of motorized bicycles" Then do so... but in the history of today... at the museum of science and technology of Canada exists a bicycle that is motorized with a "Pixie" motor, dated back around 1940's. Do you understand this? --CyclePat 23:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. And in this article (timeline) I haven't done any of this. I've cite all my sources. And what ever happened to faith? Ever seen the movie Contact? No one believes that she went into another world! Your lack of faith in the wikipedia system is stranglying this article and killing it. Your lack of diplomacy requires this subject to be mediated. If you have the time to so, please go to the mediation page and request a mediator... either wise I will do so when I have the time tomorow. --CyclePat 23:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Pat, what you have failed to do (repeatedly) is to demonstrate the significance of the CCM bike in the global history of the motorized bicycle. In other words, who besides you thinks this influenced the development or history of the motorised bicycle, worldwide? I can't make it any clearer! Request mediation if you like. And before you do, pause and reflect: Jimbo Wales sent me a private email recently complimenting me on my handling of a far more serious dispute than this. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Then we should be able to talk about it. As, I've probably indicated on your user talk page, I think that it has merit for inclusion. Analogy: If people are using a Toyota Prius since 2000, which even has it's own article on wikipedia, and we where making a timeline on automobiles/cars, I think the inclusion of the manufacturing dates is important. But if that is not possible, such as the our case for the CCM bicycle because anyone and everyone was adding the "Pixie" motor to a bicycle... it just so happens I only have one well sourced documented event of that being the CCM bicycle in Canada, Ottawa. Then, well...the inclusion of dates when it was mostly used would be important. Back to the analogy? Would we start talking about the significance of the Prius? (That should be explained, if possible, on it's own page (Toyota Prius. This is wikipedia after all, and there is no need to have extravagantly large articles. (all the notable fact are found in the article)(this timeline is not really the place for that) In a timeline similar to ours, Motorized bicycle history, it would look something like:
2000 - Toyota introduces to the worldwide market it hybrid automobile Toyota Prius
Then maybe someone might add a link to Toyota like this [1]... and hopefully people would improve the article as per Viki policy elaborated in the avoidance section of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --CyclePat 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The Toyota Prius is one of only a handful of mass-production hybrid cars. It has its own article because someone created it, and it has a place in the article on hybrid vehicles because at present very few mass manufacturers are shipping hybrid vehicles.
CCM were not the first, not even nearly the first, to motorise a bike. Nor have you provided any evidence that their doing so influenced many other manufacturers to follow suit (in which case it would be a notable event). All you've done is link one article form one museum - whay may or may not indicate that the curators thought the bike a significant milestone in the development of the motorised bicycle or powered two wheel transport generally. It's just as likely that it was available and represnted an example of the kind of thing they wanted to discuss, or maybe they think it's a curiosity.
Do you see what I mean? In the context of an article on CCM, the bike almost certainly has a place. In the context of an article on the dveelopment of the motorized bicycle as a global phenomenon, it's up against things like the VeloSoleX, which sold in large numbers and can still be seen on the roads of france now (one of the characters in my school French textbook rode a clearly identifiable VeloSoleX). The VeloSoleX itself almost certainly merits an article of its own.
Is that a bit clearer? What we're talking about here is trend setters versus also-rans. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand your point of view. You are agreing that it is a motorized bicycle, right? You want to decide who (what types of motorized bicycles) played a major role in the developement of other motorized bicycles? (significance) I want to do that to by establishing a the timeline. You want to find out who was the first to motorize a bicycle, and I would also like to know the answer to that question. I think developing on the significant subjects is important (ie: the first motorized bicycle), but it is probably just as important to develope what someone may consider the side liner or less popular motorized bicycles. How do we determine what is good and no good? I'm not 100% sure but I think it is important that we maintain wp:npov rules. I can understand that my viewpoint might be the minority one, and I can accept that. However, my viewpoint should be fairly reported, and its minority status noted, and then I would be happy. I think it is possible to "be both fact-stating and minimally controversial, in that most biases are toward the majority viewpoint, and minority viewpoints are mentioned and treated reasonably. I think this can be done, and an encyclopedia is one place where it should be." (some quotes take from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples Debate) --CyclePat 21:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to side with JzGyk for right now. I can't find enough information about the pixie motor to make it worth noting in this article. There are some motors that didn't sell very well, and may not have even been very important in the evolution of the bike motor, but for one reason or another are worth noting. For instance I added the Lohmann engine. It wasn't exactly a hot seller, and it appeared late on the postwar bike motor scene - however because it lays claim to being the world's smallest bike motor, and because it is a mechanical oddity (being a compression ignition semi diesel) it merits mention based on the fact that it is unique in the world of bike motors, and seemingly pretty famous for it's uniqueness amongst collectors as well. The Pixie motor may in fact be unique, possibly even important - but I just can't find enough information about it. Perhaps this will change if more information comes to light. User:K-111
Thank you, that is exactly my view too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Mopeds

Anybody want to support the inclusion of Mopeds into this timeline? The moped is closely related to the motorized bicycle, but both are distinctly seperate from motorcycles or scooters. The moped and motorized bicycle are machines that never "evolved" in the sense that the motorcycle did, they kept their bicycle type pedals and controls, and low powered engines, and in the case of the motorized bicycle even kept bicycle type frames and brakes. Niether is comparable to other motorized two wheels other than they have two wheels and a motor, but both are comparable to eachother. This would make the timeline complentary to both the entry on mopeds and the entry on motorized bicycles. [User:K-111]

If you want to include mopeds, it ceases being the timeline of motorized bicycle history. If you want to include mopeds it needs motorcycles and cyclecars as well. I have no fundamental problem with that, since that would combine history from three separate articles, which is useful, whereas the current article has the history for only one subgenre, which is absurd when that history is already in the main article. I can't think of a title, though, as "timeline of powered two wheel transport and derivitives" is a bit unwieldy.
Please note the above comment was unsigned by user, Just zis Guy, you Know?, it was just under the next comment (by me). For some reason he moved it here, creating a possible confusion, on who published the comment, even for himself. He is now even suggesting that I am suggesting opening the article to other powered two-wheelers. However, I might it might be a simple mis-understanding on my behalf... Perhaps what you meant by other two-wheelers is that "you considered a moped" a another type of two wheeler. The definition agreed upon for a motorized bicycle is found in that article. So, if you read the first line, you will realize that it includes bicycle that require pedalling. A moped is a type of bicycle requiring pedalling. Anyway, the Aforementioned comment by user Just zis guy... was added 23rd of November 9:46. Please sign your comments. Thank you! Our feeling in between each other are not so good and, even though this might have been a collection of accidental mistake, it doesn't help the present situation. --CyclePat 16:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup! I agree! Moped is similar. We should try to, if possible, get the ones with only pedals. (or state that they do not have pedal) A moped is a motorized bicycle. --CyclePat 23:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Pat, why only with pedals? I can't see any justification for this arbitrary distinction if you're going to open the article to other kinds of powered two-wheelers. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Answer is partially above, but just to clarify. The definition of motorized bicycle is that with a motor that assists pedalling (Hence, something with pedal) --CyclePat 19:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
No, the definition of a motorized bicycle (per the article) is a bicycle which has a motor but which can be ridden by means of pedals alone. Mopeds fail this. Mopeds are specifically excluded from the scope of motorized bicycle. So once you arbitrarily decide to include them here, then you must open the floor to inclusion of other types of pwoered two-wheeler, and their derivitives, per above. I have no problem with changing this to a timeline of motorcycles and derivitives. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's compare notes: Just to make sure everything is clear in this discussion, the definition is here at motorized bicycle (the first line) and it states:
A motorized bicycle is a bicycle with an attached motor used to assist with pedalling, a class of hybrid vehicle. Motorized bicycles may be powered by small internal combustion engines or electric motors. Some can be propelled by the motor alone if the rider chooses not to pedal, while in others the motor will only run if the the rider pedals. Different
We can essentially say that a "motorized bicycle" covers several types of "mopeds" (as long as they have pedals). I don't remember seeing what you just said... "a bicycle which has a motor but can be ridden by means of pedals alone." I think you might have had that on your mind but I don't see it in the article (at least at the first few paragraphs and if it is in there, then our article is contradicting itself) No mater the case, I can recall an instance in my life seeing a moped that was ridden by pedalling alone (not very far, because of the muscular fatigue, but it was). And I'm sure there are many more out there that we haven't found. I think the idea of changing to motorcycles and derivatives might be interesting (We would need to discuss or go ahead and start a draft, broader category). (Only with the idea that we would need a sub-category for mopeds/motorized bicycles). Essentially that means I am not ready to see this sub-category go. Keeping this page is quite useful for the article motorized bicycle. In the long run, it would probably eventually just end up right back here. But Placing a link in an article on the top of this saying something like "this is part of the "motorcycle/motorized bicycle/moped series time lines" (Remember we must discern the difference between those with pedals and those without.) I think the article is quite clear as is and just need some good NPOV additions. --CyclePat 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm just curious, would either of you walk up to a biker and tell him his Harley-Davidson is a Moped? To suggest that a machine legally limited to 50cc and required to have pedals, as well as being legally considered as something other than a motorcycle (registered and insured differently from motorcycles as well) is the same as a motorcycle, is faintly rediculous. Theres reasons a moped is a moped, and a motorcycle is considered something completely different. The moped evolved from the motorized bicycle, as did the motorcycle, but the moped followed a completely different evolutionary path, the two are too dissimiliar to mixed up with eachother. Ask any motorcyclist, mopedist, or DMV if a moped is the same as a motorcycle, and you'll just hear the same things I've stated above. Besides if they were the same why would we have seperate pages for the definitions of motorcycle and moped? In loose terms a moped is a motorcycle, but in the same way that a motorized bicycle is a motorcycle. However, a motorcycle is niether a motorized bicycle or a moped. As for why only mopeds with pedals? Because mopeds have pedals. The word moped is derived from the words motor and pedals, by classic definition a moped must possess both a motor and a set of pedals. There are a few localities that do not require pedals for legal classification as a moped, but these are in the minority. I don't see any logical reason a timeline for mopeds or motorized bicycles would need to include motorcycles.User:K-111
As far as I can see this should either be a timeline of motorized bicycles as defined in that article, which would be pretty pointless as the history is already quite well covered in the article and the timeline would include less information not more, or it should be a history of the multiple strands of the powered two-wheeler and its derivitives, which is currently not served by the three separate articles on the motorized bicycle, motorcycle and moped. As such it would draw together the three strands in a way that would add to all of them. To leave out one branch of the tree, including only motorised bikes and mopeds, would be anomalous and arbitrary, in my view. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I would have no problem with a timeline for all of these things, but to make the information coherent, they would each have their own sub headings on the page, I feel that if we just jumbled them all together the motorcycle history would drown out all other important information, and if somebody was looking specifically for information about say scooters - they wouldn't want to have to read through 100 entries pertaining to motorized bicycles, mopeds, and motorcycles. If this sounds like a practical idea (all on one page, but under their own sub headings) let me know. I think it would work. User:K-111
My point is, if they want the history of the moped they go to moped and read the History section. What's interesting, and what the timeline has the potential to do, is to trace the parallel threads. This can be done with colour coding or a table or icons or maybe some other way. So you can see the parallel development, and where the strands have maybe merged and split, or where there are grey areas (like motor scooters, which I understand kind of evolved from mopeds). Yes, coherency requires a bit of work, but if it was that easy and that obvious there would be little point in the article in the fist place, it would just be a copy & paste of the history sections of three different articles, no? Let's see if we can come up with a presentation that works. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I think color coding would work too. If it doesn't, we could always try something else. And actually, the motorscooter is more closely related to the motorcycle than the moped, as no scooters (even those of the twenties) ever featured pedals, to the best of my knowledge. User:K-111
Consider the Honda P50, which we both agree has a place in the combined timeline. No look at the Honda Cub (which, incidentally, has minor cult status in London as the transport of choice of "knowledge boys"). Similar in almost every respect,and the cub is clearly (to me) the natural successor to the P50. But it's definitely a scooter, not a moped! This is why I think a broader timeline might be useful, to tie together these related items. And in fact I'd be equally supportive of a prose article rather than a timeline, on the history of PTWs and their derivitives, which would allow the case to be developed without the problem we've identified of picking out the different strands. In a prose article one can discuss in detail how pedals came and went in the development of scooters/mopeds, mainly (if I read it right) due to legislative considerations: once scooters were legally the same as mopeds (which they are in most laces ISTM), there was no longer any need for the fig-leaf of pedals, especially since electric starters had become cheap and reliable by then. Do you see what I mean? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer a timeline just to keep things cleanly seperated, and generally easier to pick through. We could include short descriptions of each vehicle type at the top of the artice as well as links to their respective pages for further information. I say we start out just building the timeline, once we've got the important dates, events and machines listed - we can decided whether or not to keep it as a timeline or to flesh it out a little more. If we decide to expand it from that point, it will be much more easier because we'll already have figured out and agreed upon what is important to include in the article. So far as hondas go... interestingly the Cub predates the P50 by several years - however the P50 was more of a developement of bike motor technology than an attempt to build an integrated machine (like the cub was) so in theory (and in mechanical reality) it's a much more primitive and limited machine than the Cub was/is.User:K-111
I would consider a motorcycle designed for and primarly powered by an mechanical engine and a motorised bicycle to be designed for and primarily powered by human power. The definition of a moped varies considerably between countries. While most early definitions of mopeds make pedals compulsary, now very few countries mandate that pedals are compulsary, so there is no real definition of a moped. Scooters are considered motorcycles and this has never been disputed. I can't see why the only requirements for inclusion in this timeline be that it is a vehicle with pedals designed for and primarily powered by human power but with another mechanical engine designed to assist in powering the vehicle. --Clawed 10:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I think this article requires a Wikipedia:Requests for comment? RFC? what do you think? --CyclePat 05:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
user RFc will give a new users perspective. I think, that this article was put into the delete category pretty fast. Most people that peruse this category, seem to have a quark for wanting to destroy and delete something. I would imagine it is easy to become institutionalised into such a routine of deleting things that it just becomes 2nd nature without even needing to think (well for most of the articles anyway). The difference, is that this is a timeline. Someone that has a outside point of view might be able to help us out. --CyclePat 19:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
as stated in WP:RFC: the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first. The user(you) requested a delete right away. That was not very friendly. I think since the delete is still there we have ground for RFC. Plus it might help to get some people that are part of a category that is not necessarilly a deletionist view but some other people. --CyclePat 05:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I nominate articles for deletion most days, this came up on my scanner like any other. And Pat, when throwing accusations of bad faith you have to recognise that you, too, have significant fault here. Having had the CCM Light Delivery removed from the main article as not being of any demonstrable significance (with the reason fully stated), you created this new "timeline" article including the invention of the wheeled cart (irrelevant and speculative), the Rover safety (irrelevant and already removed from the main article also for reasons stated) and the CCM (apparently insignificant). Do you really think these were the first and most important things to put in a history of the motorised bicycle? I sure as hell don't. You failed to get them in the main article, and then sudddenly along comes this new article with exactly the content you'd been trying unsuccessfully to get into motrized bicycle, and pretty much nothing else. You call that friendly?
And now you are suggesting (on my Talk page) yet another new article, a "list of motorised bicycles", into which you can put the fucking CCM! NO, Pat - look on AfD at the number of arbitrary "list of" articles which get nominated and deleted. There are only so many ways I can restate the fact that WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
The reason the CCM was excised (twice) is that you have not demonstrated its significance, and in fact you have acknowledged that you can't. Others have also tried and failed. It looks like a local curiosity, with a place in the CCM article and nowhere else. Prove its signifciance in the global context and in it goes. Simple! But to start this article with only one actual motorized bicycle - the one which was removed from the main article - while omitting demonstrably significant examples in the main article, makes it very hard to WP:AGF; either way, as started this article was worse than useless, and frankly I still think a timeline of motorised bicycles only is useless, as the main article has a pretty decent history section. It seems that this article may change to a timeline of powered two wheel transport, per discussion above, which is potentially useful if it draws together the various strands, but as started it adds nothing to the history section of the main motorized bicycle article, increases the maintenance effort, and above all it appeared to be making a point, which is why I nominated it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article still a stub?

I've been wondering. This article has a lot of information. However there appears to be oppertunaties to add a lot more. Should this still be considered a stub? How many editors are now working on this article? (At least 3 right?) 16:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~

I'd say so, right now, but I think there is likely to be development once we've agreed what exactly it should turn into :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Just checking, that's what I though too. --CyclePat 00:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving steadily on...

I think that there is a clear consensus for a change to include mopeds, I'd also support scooters since it is hard to separet the two. I have some suggestions for a this article:

  • Timeline of light motorcycle development
  • Timeline of motorcycle development
  • Timeline of powered two-wheel vehicle development

Any other ideas? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Just zis Guy, you know?, Well, I think we do want to include mopeds. (I'm not 100% sure, but I think there are already some in the timeline). Presently, there is still a debate on whether a moped is a motorized bicycle. If we started adding all mopeds (some of which do not have pedals in some jurisdiction... (considered Noped here in Ontario)) it would create a substantially longer list. (that could be good) The new broader article is created could merge this timeline (history of motorized bicycle). However, it may however become so bogged down that we may have to return to this article. It may also create more confusion. Problem: In the sense that if someone wants to know the evolution of only mopeds he might have a hard time discerning the information through the timeline. The major question remaining... how should we differentiate the models types of vehicles or machines? Suggestion: Perhaps a simple explanation/description of the machine would suffice? Perhaps a stub article on each machine would be better? Or perhaps we should have a legend explaining the different types of two-wheelers and (possibly) evolution? (I think the first and second suggestions would be more appropriate). Aside: Perhaps in motorized bicycle it would be good to include a section called "evolution of bicycle towards the motorized bicycle." So, other ideas for the article:
  • Chronological List of Two-wheeled vehicles? (that would cover bicycles to!)(and it's really broad) (list because a timeline is key-points) or
  • Timeline of Two-wheeled vehicles?
(keep in mind this is only speculative... I think we could try making these broader lists but I think it would still be important to keep the timeline for motorized bicycle unless we are clearly able to demonstrate the evolution of each category (ie.: moped, motorcycle, noped, etc...) (This is a hard decision)--CyclePat 18:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we're also avoiding a problem here: Categorizing: Manufactured Mopeds, Manufactured Motorized bicycles, vs Addition kits and self constructed motorized bicycles and mopeds. The key here is "manufacturers"... should there be a list of different manufacutered motorized bicycles and kits. How should it be presented... by timeline like we have it now. By manufacuter? (list of motorized bicycle manufacturers (past and present)?) Each one having a stub to the manufacturer and the related vehicle? I think it's important the issue at hand be resolved before moving on to biger broader ideas because we will probably have the same problem there. Is there a concensus to change the page. I don't think so. I think there is a concensus to incorperate mopeds or have a timeline for mopeds. However, there is currently a debate on whether a moped is a motorized bicycle. --CyclePat 19:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
How about we try it anyway and start a draft somewhere? I'm sure we could figure something out. (without necessarily deleting this page quite yet) (I'm sure that will get us on our way to a good start and we might... eventually no longer have any arguments about this timeline.) --CyclePat 19:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
First and foremost, please do not create another article. The solution is to move this one, preserving this debate. I am having a hard enough time keeping up with the multiple instances of the same issues as it is!
K-111's comments re inclusions of mopeds are persuasive. As far as a timeline goes, tracing milestone events, I see no problem with a wide context (PTWs and derivitives), but that's why I am asking for discussion since there may be an overall preference for a slightly narrower scope (which for the sake of argument I've called light motorcycles).
I see no reason why this would impact on the ability to trace the history of mopeds: that is covered in moped and always will be. I see the function of a timeline article as linking the threads. There appears to be no dissent from the idea that the various strands (especially moped, motorized bicycle and motor scooter) cross over at some points, and some (e.g. the VeloSoleX) could arguably be categorised in more than one group. The motorized bicycle article begins by defining a motorized bicycle as specifically different from a moped, and most jurisdictions categorise them differently (e.g. age, testing and helmet use restrictions), but some apparently classify them together.
I would oppose a timeline of two-wheeled vehicles. Here's why: in bicycles we have the hobby-horse, tension-spoked wheel, chain drive and Rover Safety, all well before motors were practical; we then have milestones like the Mochet Velocar; Marin County and the first mountain bikes; the Avatar 2000; the Lotus bike; composite frames; fairings; racing; the HPV movement. The divergence seems to me to take place early on, and the significant developments in pedal cycle history (recumbents, compact frames, monocoques) tend to be separate and distinct from the development of motorized bikes and derivitives. The motorisation movement stems from a then-settled bike, the diamond-frame with tension-spoked wheels, and developments since have been essentially divergent, not convergent. Whereas there is a lot of crossover between the moped and the motorized bicycle, such that some notable examples can't really be placed exclusively in either camp, and similar cross-fertilisation between mopeds and motor scooters, the distinction being (in my view) largely founded on local regulatory requirements.
In any of the above cases - and the woder the category the more I believe this - a list is hopeless. Almost every model by almost every manufacturer (of which, in bicycles, there are many thousands over the years) went through several iterations, many of which are dictinct: the Dawes Galaxy, for example, has gone through standard 531 diamond to the new Ultra Galaxy, which is a compact frame with STI and all sorts. A list would potentially have so many entries as to defy any attempt to trace the development. Even in the context of motorised bicycles alone it doesn't work because there's no easy way to verify a vast number of the potential entires, since only single examples reportedly remain of so many of them. The merit of the timeline conept is that it blows away the chaff and leaves the significant and pivotal oments to allow the reader to trace the development in some kind of logical way.
Now, I am known to be opposed to lists in general. For my money only a minority of lists on WP have any encyclopaedic content. I have nominated a number for deletion, and my memory is that most of them are deleted (I make a point of not tracking the results, as I would be far too prone to advocacy if I did. Mostly if I nominate something for AfD I don't vote, and I try to keep quiet other than asking for clarififcation; in this I am not always successful). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happiest with Timeline of powered two-wheel vehicle development, outlining the key developments and mentioning important examples (not just a list of every powered two-wheel vehicile ever made). I think this is more or less what you're suggesting Guy, in which case I agree with you. An article showing the development of motorbikes, mopeds and motorized bicycles would, I think, be far more useful than what we've got now. - Hitchhiker89 20:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, please bear with me. I agree with you that the bicycle probably doesn't have it's place right now in our proposed article. Even though it may have played an important role in the development of the motorized bicycle, it's not really a motorized bicycle. It might eventually have its place in a broader article. We do agree that there is very much a lot that is similar with motorized bicycle and moped. However, when it comes to agreing about merging the articles moped and motorized bicycle we have trouble. (almost a double standard). If there appears to be a concensus that these articles should not be merged, then why should this timelines be merged with a broader term? I do agree that a simple list, compared to a timeline, might defy the obvious attempt of demonstrating development. However a chronological list might help. The difference between the chronological list and timeline is the that timeline (according to one way of defining) has "key points." Having key point means we have to pick and chose information. Necessarilly that means we would have to eliminate some information. (This would wouldn't help us in maintaining NPOV and though we might know this information, anyone reading the article might not... leading to the idea of trully is the development of the motorized bicycle)... essentially all we would now have is, what I've been trying to do. An unbias chronological list of motorized bicycles. We would then be able to include the grandiose selection of different Motorized bicycles, (some Mopeds are a type of motorized bicycle) etc.(I understand it would be interesting to note the relevance and the differences or similarities, but where do we draw the line... I'm sure there could be 20 page essays on comparing one bicycle with another.) (yes! this does come back to the CCM issue a little)(but that is just one example, I'm trying to think beyond that) what would be wrong with a list of manufacturers or motorized bicycles and moped? similar to the List of historians? Or we might write (Chronological) list of Motorized bicylce and Moped manufactures? (this is now axed on the companies date of appearance, instead of the bicycle) (Chronological) List of motorized bicycles and mopeds? (axed on the order of bicycles historic appearance). I think the history includes many divergence from the regular bicycle, but it also includes many convergences even in todays history (Just look at the electric bicycles such as the motorized bicycle kits, ie. [www.bionx.com], that can be put on any bicycle. etc... there are even similar hub motor gas kits). --CyclePat 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Pat, I do not know how to make myself any clearer. I cannot conceive of any article encompassing the history of the bicycle, the motorized bicycle, the powered two wheeler, motorized transport, transport in general, or in fact anything other than CCM (which already contains it) in which the CCM Light Delivery with Pixie engine would be a useful entry. Any list sufficicently indiscriminate as to iclude this item would, as far as I can see, have millions of potential entries. Can you think of a set of criteria which allow this but don't allow every other bicycle made by every bicycle manufacturer in the world? And that list would be AfDd as unmaintainable and functionally unverifiable (the guidelines on lists strongly recommend against starting lists which potentially have very large numbers of entries) and (mainly) because WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information.
It would help if you could give some indication as to why you are so fixated on this one bike. Is it somehow related to your legal proceedings? It is already mentioned ont eh CCM entry, why does it need to be anywhere else? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Pat what worries me about merging the moped and motorized bicycle pages together is that, you can bolt a motor to a standard bicycle, and that makes it a motorized bicycle - but it doesn't make it a moped that alone is reason enough to keep seperate articles. I was in favour of categorizing the two of them together here, because the relationship between motorized bicycle and moped is much more close, and much more sigificant than that of any other two wheel vehicles. That is they're important enough to eachother, as well as closely related enough that including one in the discussion of the other is logical and completely justified, but they are still different machines. One is bicycle with a motor clipped onto it, the other is a complete machine, generally including all of the equipment necessary to classify it as a road-legal motor vehicle (as in having a headlight, tail light, and brake light, etc.) and while there is no reason one couldn't modify a bicycle to the point of being a fully functional motor vehicle, generally most people were/are content with a bicycle with a motor attached. The other reason which I already stated in the discussion for the motorized bicycle page is that alot of early bike motors (and even a very very few current ones) exceed the 50cc limit for displacement that is absolutely required for a vehicle to be categorized as a moped. So there is no double standard, I just think we should keep things as clean and straightforward as possible. As for including bicycles, except for maybe the invention of the diamond framed safety bicycle using wheels of equal diameters, I don't think the bicycle warrants many if any other mentions in this list, we should just keep it limited to things that have two wheels and a motor. User:K-111

[edit] motorized two-wheeler just doesn't do it

Okay, I think the name motorized two-wheeler will limit our section drastically. The early history of motorizing "bicycles" also involved "tricycles", even today there are some motorized tricycles. There was supposedly even an evolution towards 4 wheeled bicycles with motors. (In china they have motorized (electric or ICE) 3-4 and even 5 wheeled pedal taxis). I think we're getting into a dillema of going into an even broader category... First here are the change that need to be done to this article:
  • remove history at the end of the present timeline
  • fix the capital "M" put into a "m"
  • switch around the words: Motorized bicycle timeline (not necessary but might be good!)
Here are my suggestion if we absolutelly must change (which seems to be the consensus)(though I expressed some concerns regarding that), anyway:
  • Timeline of transportation --> Timeline of motorization
    • Timeline of light vehicle (motorization)
      • (comment: kind of broad... do we really want light cars, and small LEVs being incorperated in the timeline?)
      • Timeline of motorized two and three wheeled machines or
        • (comment: A narrower subject than the light vehicle sugestion but still leaves room for much inclusion... This is good if we want to include "noped", scooters, motorcycles, wheelchairs, (those off road 3 wheelers) but it eliminates the odd chinese 4 wheeled motorized pedal machines, etc. Very large timeline... I still feel adding all those non-pedal devices... (pocket bikes, electric scooters, etc.) would bog down the article. Will we be able to do it?)
      • Timeline of motorized bicycles, tricycles, and mopeds or
        • (comment: we should have tricycle in the definition of motorized bicycle, right? No real need for tricycle if it is defined in motorized bicycle)
      • Timeline of motorized bicycle and moped or
        • (comment: Okay if I had to chose today, right now, this would be it. Since, we have mostly been talking about incorperating mopeds why would we pick a broader term. We would still be able to incorperate that 4 wheeled motorized pedal machine (not limited by the amount of wheels) This would limit the amount of information in regards to motorcycles and other non-pedal devices (scooters, nopeds). A 4 wheeled motorized machine is just as important in the history of motorized bicycles as a motorcycle (and I'm sure that's a big history)
      • Timeline of the development of motorized bicycles or
        • (comment: a timeline sort of understand a development. With the same, that means we should not have "history". I figured development would mean we could include mopeds... Really what is wrong with just including the appropriate mopeds inside the article?)
      • Timeline of the good, the bad, and the ugly (Just kidding! Well actually, what if there are ugly motorized bicycles?) :) --CyclePat 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
How about Timeline of powered cycle development? That would be about the same as Guy's suggestion of Timeline of powered two-wheeled vehicle development but it could include motorized tricycles, quad bikes, Chinese taxis and so on.
-- Hitchhiker89 22:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, we had decided? Or don't ask me who did? But it was decided for those articles (that could be a precedence... but the way it went might be contreversial because it happened overnight... like a blink) Anyway the issue was... "powered assisted cycles" be merged to the article motorized bicycle. (aside: Maybe then the article motorized bicycle should be ... "motorized cycle") (But I honestly do feel we should have enough with just bicycle.) You know what I think the problem is, it's because all the research we find is mostly about motorcycles. We want a place that information somewhere? Right? So, the sooner we figure what goes where the sooneer I think we'll be moving along. Instead of trying to fight over what it should be called why don't we just put the information in. If we find something that ain't supposed to be there,... well then, you know. peace --Pat 04:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you are confusing two issues. The first is the motorized bicycle article, which I would say has settled on a workable definition of its scope and is coming along nicely. The second is this timeline, which if it covers only the same subjects as motorized bicycle should be merged into it (the AfD result was 8 for merge and/or delete, two for keep, one of which was K-111 who now agrees to expansion of scope of this article, the other was you).
As far as this article goes, we can't start widening the scope of the content until we've decided what the scope of the content should be, obviously. And that scope defines the title to a large extent. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The scope of the content is covered by other articles such as Road transport.--Pat 04:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The scope of the content is covered by other articles such as Motorized bicycle. So shall we move for merger and deletion? Or shall we go for a broader scope with some possible encyclopaedic merit? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
We've had this dicussion in the delete. I would would say no because a timeline is supposed to be a graphical representation and will obvious repeat some information. --72.57.8.215 21:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
How about Mechanical Road Vehicles for the name of the timeline? --Pat 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I fixed the formatting of this article

I just cleaned it up a bit so it fits our format a bit more. I don't quite understand the need for an introduction, but if you want to reinsert it, whatever. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As per the Wikipedia:Timeline standards I am formating the article to have an introduction. That means I will put the intro back. (this is also based on the Timeline of the Big Bang. I will also notice that the dates have been classed under events. --Pat 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
b.t.w.: I changed my nick name to Pat, but I might change it back later on to CyclePat. --Pat 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


I do not contender that this intro is the best thing. It probably could choped down a little and still mean the same thing. (or we could keep it the same lenght and continue expanding the events section)... --Pat 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For us historians

Please take a look at this great bicycle history link. Search the page for motorized bicycle to quickly find the appropriate info. http://nbhaa.com/indexoakland.html --CyclePat 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

another interesting fact: Singer & Co. of Coventry, Warwickshire, England, was a bicycle maker that edged into powered vehicles in 1901. It first built motorized bicycles and tricycles, and then began building cars in 1905. It produced a wide variety of family vehicles and light, sporty models. It enjoyed enough success that, by the late 1920s, it had risen to third place in British sales behind Austin and Morris. (http://autos.canada.com/info/autobiography.html) --CyclePat 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


This web page claims a tricycle was motorized in 1870s http://www.housemouse.net/tt1870.htm --CyclePat 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This is just one more reason why the timeline needs to be powered two wheelers. I believe several car (and other engineering) companies started out making motorcycles / motorized bikes / light motorcycles and then went into cars (sometimes via cyclecars). I know for a fact that Humber made bicycles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More info to add to our article:

1948: Soichiro Honda, who had just made a nice profit selling auto-parts business to Toyota, starts his own company to make motorized bicycles. [2] --CyclePat 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we put the manufacturers establishement in the timeline? --Pat 19:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Pat, the intro is - ahem - problematic. You can't state that we are inferring info from photographs, that's original research and speculation! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
No, we can say how most of the information was gathered. Generally through inferance. If we had specific dates written down on a moped then that would be gathering information. If we have a machine that resembles a bicycles with a motor attached, and has pedals, we can infer that it is a motorized bicycle. As stated in WP:V,
It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.
(I'm making reference to the timeline that said the Wright Brothers had a motorized airplaine bicycle)
ANyway, we are presenting Primary sources. According to WP:V Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.
and again... It is encouraged in collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. Anyway I suggest you read Wikipedia:No original research and tell me more specifically what section(s) makes you worried. --Pat 04:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if you have any idea how patronising that sounds? As an active articipant on WP:AFD I am familiar with WP:NOR and its usual interpretations, thanks. The problem is stating that we infer from photographs. That's not a secondary source, it's original research, plain and simple. If we report what others have inferred and discussed in other (named) authorities that's different. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure a lot of these photo's, text, concepts and ideas have been published in a reputable publications. (Ie. off hand: the pattent office) I also understand your concern, if we are infering vs if some reputable Joe blow is interprating the photo. However, seeing as the information is generally available elsewhere (the pattent bureau, the text, just under a phot from a book, etc) I believe it does "refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or otherwise inappropriate)". Hence it is not Original Research. Plus it is practically the same diference... we're just being even clearer if we say others. (And if we say others... who are these others?). We would have to put a footnote (or maybe to another page) for all our sources. (which really ain't that bad... maybe that could be something for wikisource that should link to?) Finally I would like to underline the precendence that exist at Timeline of the Big Bang Conclusion: I would prefer keeping it as is because I don't think you have put up a sufficient argument, this may cause more confusion, and it will be a little more work (essentially doubling our sourced information which is already at the end of every sentence). However, I do understand you POV and I am open to the possibility of change) (It will mean some confusing work)(Do whatever, but lets do it right!) --Pat 14:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Re the big bang timeline, inference is required because nobody was there at the time. It is a theory, not a fact (and clearly identified as such). Here, no theorising is necessary. The existence or otherwise of functioning pedals (or hand-cranks to be inclusive) is demonstrable from the literature and many of these vehicles are preserved in museums and other collections (e.g. Beaulieu and Sammy Miller's in the New Forest). I disagree that it will require anything confusing; if anything it will be less confusing since we won't appear to be going off at tangents the whole time. Sources are frequently listed on the Talk page or Wikilinked back to the article about the item itself, so do not need to clutter the text. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wright Bicycle/airplane

It should be pretty obvious that the Wright brothers flew an airplane in 1903, and not a motorized bicycle. The Wrights were bicycle makers, and it's possible that they did motorize a bicycle, but I can't find any evidence of this at this time. If I do/can I will relist the event. User:K-111

Well, I only found one source for the Wright/bicycle motorized plane. (the link that is at the end of that particular information entry) I though I saw something similar in a Simpson's episode. Are you attempting to argue the source or are you attempting to argue the necessity of inclusion of this information? You know what my beliefs are on this. Essentially, you have to keep asking yourself, is this really true? Do we define this properly? Constantly requestionning everything after every addition, I think, which probably involve a little bit of research, is an excellent way of developping an article that is NPOV. --Pat 04:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Pat, I don't think The Simpsons is considered an authoritative source :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear on things here is the information that was added:
  • 1903 Wright Bros. fly first motorized bicycle/airplaine in Akron, Ohio[3]
The source is obviously at the end. --Pat 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Timeline Graphic

Not much research done but do check out the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CyclePat/Sandbox. It has a board we may us for the timeline. --Pat 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Before incorperating a table... I would like to ask everyone opinion. I am hisitant to do so after reading Wikipedia:How to use tables. But I am apt at using it to incorperate the different colours to differentiate different types of vehicles as discussed in the delete for this article. (Is it worth it?) --Pat 14:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I am asking everyone... Please put your voice down. Do we want a graphy table now, should we wait until later, do we want one at all? (please read Wikipedia:How to use tables before voting) --Pat 12:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You are putting the cart before the horse. As far as I can tell we have not yet agreed what the (wider) scope should be; this will define how much effort needs to go into highlighting the various streams. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] added tricycle

I added tricycle to the timeline Introduction... Slowly moving on toward other vehicle types. --Pat 16:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Content removed 4 December

Explicitly violates the definition: has no functioning pedals. It's a steam car, albeit with three wheels.
Ditto. Two rows of seats, cart suspension - not a bicycle or motorcycle by any realistic definition
No indication that this had functioning pedals either; motor quadricycle was a common term in the very early days to describe a prototype light car - outside the scope of this timeline.

Footnotes apply only to above, so I've brought them here.

  1. Singer, Charles Joseph; Raper, Richard. A history of technology : edited by Charles Singer ... [et al.]. Clarendon Press, 1954-1978. p.427 and p.434
  2. Singer, Charles Joseph; Raper, Richard. A history of technology : edited by Charles Singer ... [et al.]. Clarendon Press, 1954-1978. p.428.
  3. Singer, Charles Joseph; Raper, Richard. A history of technology : edited by Charles Singer ... [et al.]. Clarendon Press, 1954-1978. pp.423-424.

Note that when citing external sources one link per resource is usually considered sufficient. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay! whowever removed this information, (you must know how I get because you didn't sign it) (anyhoot) I would like your counter argurment sources. Also, on one hand some of us have cryied about expanding the definition to include other types of vehicle but on the other hand we are removing anything that is not strictly similar to the definition... (ie.: tricycle, Quadracycle?) Come on let's have a little give and take. This feal like a trying to explain something with being able to do any comparisons. I guess that means there's going to be a whole lot of sub-articles, related or not (according to some people), that are a lot more specific to the subject but will never be mentioned in this general timeline. That's sad. (Okay now that I'm done complaining, lets look more into detail)
  1. (Discuss/possibly RM or keep) what do you mean "has no functioning pedals. It's a steam car," do you have some other sources of information?
  2. (KEEP) What does falling within the bicycle or motorcycle definition have to do with being included or not... that is why I added tricycle to the start of the timeline! If you look at the article on tricyles you will notices they have some motorized trike
  3. (Discuss/possibly RM or keep) what do you mean quadracycle "has no functioning pedals." Are you sure about that for this model. Do you have any sources to say "It's a steam car," --Pat 12:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Pat, it was me (and yes I did for once forget to sign it, but it is trivially easy to find out so the snide comment is not required), the counter-arguments are precisely as stated. Google for any of these three, look at the pictures and see if you can find the pedals. If you'd like to point me to Google links for the three of them, where the pedals are clearly visible, then back they go. No problem. Remember the definition of the motorized bicycle? It's in the first section. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess I will add the pictures. Then you may be able to infer.... (Oh shit... you guys removed that from the intro. being able to infer...) Well, in that case, we've just removed almost halft the list... I'll see you later on this afternoon when I have the courage to come back either put back the inferance part or remove all the other information that was infered. --Pat 13:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Item 1: [4]
  • Item 2 might be this [5] or this [6], neither appears to be a standard type bicycle (or tricycle), drivable by pedal power, with power assistance.
  • Item 3 is unspecific, several "motor quadracycles" (i.e.cars) appear to have been produced in or around 1889, including [7], which is very clearly a car not a bike.
Also, you are reversing the burden of proof. Where is your verifiable evidence that these are motorized pedal cycles per the definition? That's what WP:V and WP:CITE means.
Note that another user (User:noisy has taken a much-needed scythe to the article. I would have done so myself had I not been completely confident that it would end up with precisely this discussion with Pat.
So, Pat, first we need to agree what the wider scope is going to be (if any). In the mean time, anythign added must be verifiably a motorised bicycle, per the definition, or of demonstrable significance to the main article (e.g. the Honda P50). I note that after various edits we are back to the situation where this article is functionally redundant, duplicating content in the main article, so we do need to come to a consensus view re widening the scope. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improving and broadening the article content

(continued from above conversation)

Aside: First I would like to thank you for you patience. Wikipedia has usually been a harsh learning process and I believe this is the first time I've actually felt not so bad. Comment: Okay, so you appear to be correct. But I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to put the burden of proof on your shoulders. I mean I did add some well sourced information. (I'll double check my source again just to make sure) Well, according to my sources, (which I think seems reputable)(see all three afformentioned footnotes) it indicate that it's a motorized tricyle and quadracycle (and I think there's not much more than that... I'll get back on that). I though my source was pretty good (This may take some more time, but I will however try and upload pictures, when possible, to avoid this type conflict) Anyway, these texts, even the ones that accompany the photo in question, are conflicting with our inferences from the photos. (even within the original source) (Ie.: The photo's you just submited conflict with the text) I'll have to look back into that digitalized book (online) and double check that photo about the coal powered tricycle because I really though I saw some pedals (weird). What do we do? I think wikipedia says we should state it anyway noting the conflict. I think we (or future editor) are going to have much difficulty by simply reading the texts to make this timeline. Maybe, as sugested we should expand to include other vehicle (not necessarily pedal powered... especially for the early years). (such as I recently added, the tricycle) However that may mean, latter on, the inclusion of full light motorycles, pocket bikes, scooters, etc... Is that what everyone really wants or do we still want to have a timeline specific for "motorized pedal vehicles?" --Pat 13:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad, Pat, we all have to learn. The point about the "motorised tricycle" and "motorised quadracycle" named is this: in the very early days, they did not yet have the words automobile or car. So experimental cars were called horseless carriages, motorised tricycles, motorised quadracycles, all sorts. They are of interest per the development of the automobile, but are already substantially diverged from even the motorcycle, since they are large, heavy machines. The British Government uses the term "pedal cycle" to mean a vehicle with two or more wheels propelled by human power, or words to that effect, these vehicles are not recognisably derived from that, they are derived more from carriages or dog-carts by the looks of them.
In as much as this is a timeline of motorised bicycles, those vehicles are not relevant. You can try to persuade me otherwise, but it will take some doing. Why not go to timeline of transportation technology or start a new timeline of land transport?
As to whether people want a timeline of motorised pedal vehicles, that was what you started, Pat, as far as I can tell nobody else asked for it. The consensus seems to be that we should enlarge it, but there is as yet no settled view on how far, unless someone else has something to add here? I guess that light motorcycles would encompass everybody's thoughts, but we'd still be left with some who feel that all motorbikes should be included. As yet I have no good suggestions for a title beyond the originals I listed up there somewhere. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, here's another thing, Pat: I didn't see if it was you who added the link to Andrew Pattle's Tanaka page, but having followed it I found an interesting story. I added a paragraph to the history section of motorized bicycle, and created a new article for Tanaka Power Equipment, plus the associated research led me to the Tanaka disambiguation page where I added the company and also Toshiba, which was founded by one Hisashige Tanaka, to use the Western orderign of family and pesonal name. That took very little time, much less than has been spent in arguing here today. Next time you find something interesting like that, why not do the same? I don't hold myself up as a shining example of a Wikipedian, but that is definitely the kind of thing which makes Wikipedia better in a way that edit wars don't. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Bonjour, Nope. Wasn't "moi". I'll check it out and see if I can help out! Good iniative. Merci!.--Pat 15:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
There's not much technological innovation that was applied to the tricycle that wasn't simultaneously applied to two wheeled vehicles. Possibly the only tricycle that bears mention is De Dion's - not the steam one, but the one with his famous IC engine (which was widely used as power for many early motorcycles and automobiles) and it featured pedals. [8] the link has an 1898 version, but I know that there were ealier ones, I just can't find a definitive "first" date of production though.
As for scope of the article, I think we should just go with the rather broad "two wheels and motor" and concentrate on filling out the 1800 section for the time being. -User:K-111
  • I am happy with that - but we should think of a new title and a consensus definition of what is to be included. In that respect, "powered or power-assisted two wheel vehicles and their derivitives" might do the job, casting the net reasonably broadly. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the rather general legal terms "Motorized Bicycles" and "Motor-driven-cycles" should be applied? It would be the Timeline of Motorized Bicycle and Motor Driven Cycle Development Regardless I haven't figured out how we're going to color-code, or differentiate the different types of vehicles yet. I can't find anything in guides for wikipedia that show how to do this. -User:K-111

[edit] Picture

First time for everything! I did it!

Image:A history of technology p424(coal bicycle).PNG

It looks like he's pedalling. --Pat 14:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do like the photo link you provided thought. [[9]] --Pat 14:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Humm... yes. Indeed, we are in a pickle here. Inference from a picture seems like a thing to do. Just look at at the picture. His left leg is up, his right is down. (perhaps a pedal motion?) But pedalling what? However, you did say, this might be original research, and now I see what you mean. However given the text that accompanies the photo I would add priori that. (or at least mention our conflict?)--Pat 14:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Where's the chain? That looks more like a footbrake. This is why we can't be inferring stuff from pictures, we have to go to authoritative sources - as you identify above, original research nicely covers the situation where one interprets a photograph (or in this case an engraving, I linked the photo above: [10]). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
What if the chain runs underneath and we can't see it? It sure looks like he's pedalling. Hold on let my call my great grand dady up! (just kidding) --Pat 17:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

(eyes rolling)... opps! Well, as you said original research. But do you need a chain? I ask that question because I though maybe it might be a roller that was applied to the front wheel for extra propulsion? (Verry verry Strong possibility not a pedal system, even though arguable). (now that you say it may be a stoping system) (Exactly, how many inference can there be? Yours make sense, so does mine right? (right now I would say that yours makes more sense!) (I'm not trying to argue anymore here the fact that it has pedals or not but more the idea on how we will include future references... As you mentioned, in the past, many motorized bicycles or motor bicycles where called as such, but do not meet our current wikipedia motorized bicycle definition because of the pedal hypothesis I have been lingering about. (Asside: improvement to that article motorized bicycle could be done by stating (such as with the article steam tricycle: "uses an engine as means of propulsion or to assist with pedaling")Anyway. we could always simply go through this process, which I believe wasn't that bad. (and we did avoided edit war... wow!)--Pat 15:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, and the motorized bicycle article already does say "A motorized bicycle is a bicycle with an attached motor used to assist with pedaling". A machine designed to be powered by motor alone is a moped, or a motorcycle. We've already been round that loop more than once. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If that is the case we should remove the reference to power on demand electric assist bicycles because these bicycles can be powered by only electric motor if the driver choses to... should be classed as a moped or motorcycle. Whereas others may be motorized bicycles. --Pat 03:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your agenda is showing AGAIN. Nobody else appears to have a problem with this definition or the inclusion criteria. Also, you have asserted that this picture is fair use on the basis that you assume it to be so, the author having dies in 1960. That means copyright on the book persists until 2010 under English law, the book is not freely available on the web. You need to prove fair use, not assume it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
My comments about fair use for this picture can be found on the article's pages and the talk page. Image talk:A history of technology p424(coal bicycle).JPG You would be best to keep any discussion about that subject on the relevant page. I also ask that you strike out the previous comments via adding <s>your text</s> for not only are they insulting but they demonstrate your lack of complacency to acknowlege "fair use" guidelines. --Pat 05:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, Pat, I am not refusing to acknowledge fair use guidelines (and complacency means self-satisfaction, so I can't imagine what you mean by that). Fair use is stated in the appropriate Wikipedia policies: it says that screen grabs of images on books on websites are OK. This book is not on the web, it's on a private extranet. There is no doubt that it is stil copyright, as copyright persists until 50 (now 75) years after the author's death. I have asked the university of this is covered by fair use, they have not replied. But what you must remember is that the burden of proof is on you - you have to prove that it is fair use, not assume it unless proven otherwise. You have interpreted a small piece of text in the way which is favourable to you, but as I said it could equally be taken the other way. Remember that everything on Wikipedia must be either public domain or licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. I am not making this up, it's there plain as day on the image upload. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
We both agree it is copyrighted. We are not agreeing on the "fair us". WP:FU stipulates the guidelines for "fair use." If we couldn't use fair use documents, then wikipedia wouldn't have that section for uploads. To aleviate this argument, we could probably use that picture you found... but is the source reputable? (does it need to be?) Again, fair use is allowed so long as we are arguing something about the picture. I think the fact that it looks like he might be pedalling is good enought discussion. Anyway... No image is inherently fair use, fair use is a matter of how you use the image. Also, I think you may be confusing fair use and public domain. Fair use applies specifically to certain uses of copyrighted images. Anyway, in their "Terms and conditions" set forth for that portion of the site they explicity say something along the lines of "Fair educational use of the contents of this Web site is permitted." Does uploading this image to Wikipedia qualify as proper fair use under our rules? I find it very unlikely that Oxford University press would agree to license the image under a Free license or release it to public domain, so I think application of fair use is the best way to go here. Also, for a weaker argument I would say useWP:FU#Counterexamples. As per WP:FU I'll be adding the {{fairusereplace}}. so maybe we'll have a better image, GNU Free license or something similar, poppin up soon . That's all for now. Chow. --CylePat 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template:Mercedes-Benz vehicles

please look at the above link for any sugestions. Or comments for this timeline. --CylePat 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

When we have a few dozens of separate articles to link that might work. Right now we have a timeline, with relatively few articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/Talk%7ETimeline_of_motorized_bicycle_history_7b35.html"