Talk:Buell Motorcycle Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

Buell Motorcycle Company is within the scope of the Motorcycling WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

1 More Info
2 External Links
3 Ad Copy?
4 Models?

[edit] More Info

This page could use some more info on the history of Buell, specifics on the various models, pictures, etc... it's basically a stub

[edit] External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I'm going to go in and clean them out again. This article seems to be a popular magnet for forum-website-promoters, sadly. OldMan 03:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

taken directly from Wikipedia

Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. (it does)

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. (it does not)

3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. (there is no money being made off of this site, there are NO ADVERTS and registration is free)

4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. (it does not)

5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. (there are none)

6. Links to sites that require payment to view the relevant content. (it is free)

7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. (cross browser compatible)

8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. (straight HTML)

9. Links to search engine results pages. (not here)

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (not here either)

11. Links to blogs, except those written by a recognized authority. (no blogs)

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. (it does not)

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked to from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site. (there are many Buell employees, marketing gurus and engineers that visit this site often. they bring much recognition to the site. it has been authorized by HD corporate as a safe and freindly site.)

With no answer I would assume it is safe to add a few of the more popular forums??

Marty

I would vote "no." Please see number 10 above. Forums rapidly change in value depending on the people who populate them, and don't often contain reference material that are useful to people seeking encyclopedic data. Thus criterion number 13 varies widely over time too, and unfortunately, as can be seen on many other articles, once one forum has been added, it seems to become popular for every forum operator and fan to try to promote their own favorite community discussion board over others. I'd vote to keep this kind of clutter out from the very outset. OldMan 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

...And just a clarification of the above discussion: I've playfully referred to myself as "Linkspam Police" in a recent reversion, but I WILL stop reverting external links especially if 1.) the link addition looks like it was added by an active Wikipedia participant, rather than a random drive-by linkspammer, OR 2.) The editor gives a good rationale on this page or in their edit summary explaining why their link should be exempt from the guidelines at WP:EL, OR 3.) Discussion here establishes a consensus for this article that exempts external links from the guidelines at WP:EL. I just want to make clear that I'm not trying to erase all the external links to be a big fat meanie; I just think exemptions from wikipedia policy should be clearly thought out and discussed first. Not trying to be a wet blanket... just keep the quality high.

In that vein, if any of you forum-promoters and fans want to copy any of the most useful reference material from your favorite forums into this article, that would be highly welcome! (Make sure you have permission!) I always like to learn new stuff about motorcycles, and Buells are good ones. OldMan 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know of a few forums that you could learn a lot from. Too bad you removed them. =/ Now I remember why I stopped editing over at DMOZ. Too many King for a days there also.

[edit] Ad Copy?

This entry reads very much like a Buell advertisement. I believe it should be rewritten from a more neutral perspective with regards to Buell's attributes and innovations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.17.242.187 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC).