Talk:Kawasaki KLR650

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Motorcycling Kawasaki KLR650 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.

No article discussion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.249.21 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Specifications

Either the horsepower, torque, or both specifications listed are incorrect. In order to achieve 44hp @ 6000rpm, the required torque is 38.5 ft*lb, which is more than the listed peak torque. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totensiebush (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I have removed the following link (advertising):

I also plan to remove the following links as well in order to reduce "external link fluff" in this article:

  • Conall's KLR650 Website and links
  • DSN_KLR650 Moderated Forum at Yahoo! Groups
  • KLR_Adventure Forum at Yahoo! Groups
  • MADS_KLR650 Unmoderated Forum at Yahoo! Groups

Please discuss here if this is a problem --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest restoring the links for DSN_KLR650 and MADS_KLR650. These are two excellent sources of info on the KLR, on a par with klr650.net and much better than anything else around. The DSN list, in particular, has more daily traffic than any other list save for .net, while the MADS list is home to some of the most experienced and knowledgeable KLR enthusiasts.

Judjones 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Jud Jones


I agree. This user group and the FAQ are the only two places I go for KLR info. So I've put it back on. I don't know about the MADS one however so I have left that as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gust0261 (talk • contribs)

[edit] FAQ

Sorry guys, but Wikipedia should not contain FAQs despite how useful they are. Please rewrite/summarize the known issues while citing reliable sources. –Pomte 12:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-publicated sites

Should the links to sites' reviews of the motorcycle be kept? I honestly don't think they should, as well, they aren't magazines, but community-fueled reports and the like. I mean to say, these are reviews from sites that are not actual publications like Rider magazine, and shouldn't be listed. The reviews presented by sites such as KLRworld.com and klr650.net could be counted as orignal research, as they were made by community members of said sites, and not real publications. Heck, I could go write a review, then list it here. Would I? No, that's orignal research. Please discuss, if there is no discussion within the timespan of a week, I shall be removing all non-publication links. Daedalus (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are a valuable source of information by third parties who have actually ridden the motorcycle. After all, the reason the majority of people who look up something like a motorcycle on wikipedia would be to learn about certain characteristics of it, and the information contained in the review articles may be what they were looking for in the first place. Daedalus, do you own a KLR650?Firemedicntx (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to own one, or have had a previous experience of riding one, however, the reviews from the sites stated above could be classified as orignal research. As per Wikipedia:Verifiablity:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Also, as per nobility, what is different in those reviews from the reviews of the publicated magazines? Daedalus (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I read the "verifiable page", and agree with most of what it has to say. These links are listed under the "External Links" section on the page and are not listed as "References". Looking at the "When should I link externally" page it says:

Although external links on content pages provide useful information, Wikimedia projects are not search engines or link repositories. They should be kept to a useful minimum, and provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page. Where possible, consider using content in links to expand the page or create new pages........ Many sites are commercial in nature. Although this provides motive to spam them on wiki pages, there is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. Many major newspaper websites contain heavy advertisement, but they are nonetheless good references. In the end, the best criteria to consider is the content and relevancy.

I agree that the content and the relevancy of the '08 KLR650 Review pages as well as the KLR650 forum pages both fit the criteria as external links. However, if the rule is "No links to forums" so be it, but the links to reviews should be allowed to stay in light of the above statements. What is the difference between user based reviews and a published magazine review? Motive and monetary gain. Owners doing a review aren't being compensated, and in turn are perceived to be more truthful by readers who are also motorcyclists. Firemedicntx (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)