Talk:Motorcycle/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Electric motorcycles or not?

Add link in see also section to Electric motorcycles and scooters - User:Daniel.Cardenas 05:04, 21 November 2006

Removed link "because it was unsourced, POV, and poorly written. Not to mention the devices you were attempting to attach are NOT motorcycles by any way, means or definitions." User:Rsm99833

The link to electric motorcycles and scooters looks perfectly valid to me. That is why I have reinstated it. They are two wheeled powered vehicles. They don't fit into your personal definition of motorcycle but they certainly fit into mine. The first paragraph in the Engine section of the page states "Almost all commercially available motorcycles are driven by conventional gasoline internal combustion engines, but some small scooter-type models use an electric motor,. --Cheesy Mike 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because a vehicle has two wheels and a motor does *not* make a motorcycle. What you are trying to add in are classified as motor-driven cycles, which are not the same thing. This is why those particular vehicles have a different classification when getting a license, and also this is the same classification that has been established and recognized by the motor-vehicle industry and is recognized by most, if not all, motor vehicle governing bodies. Rsm99833 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to look at the Vectrix, Taz Electra, Eco Glide and Evader EV1000 you will see that they are in fact electric scooters, not electric cycles. An electric cycle is open framed more like a regular bicycle. Your argument about classification is not valid either. Maybe that is the case in the US but in the UK, for example, all two wheeled powered vehicles are in the taxation class "bicycle" regardless of the nature of the motive power. The Vectrix was exhibited at the Motorcycle World motorcycle show in Beaulieu UK in 2006. It was advertised there as a motorcycle and is subject to motorcycle regulations in that a helmet must be worn. This is not the case in the UK for motorised bicycles. The motorcycle page covers scooters. These machines are electric scooters on two wheels and are therefore valid inclusions in the "see also" listing for the page. I am therefore going to reinstate the link that I still believe was correctly inserted by Daniel Cardenas. --Cheesy Mike 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All fine and dandy. But for it to be a true motorcycle it has to have an engine over a specific cubic size. "electric motorcycles" neither have an engine, cubic size, nor is it thought of as being a motorcycle by any stretch of the imagination. Feel free to link to scooters, as that those are a bit closer. But not the electric. Rsm99833 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, how can a motorcycle, with an electric engine, not be a motorcycle. Where is it mandated that a motorcycle must have a crude oil based (ie petrol or even diesel) engine??? - surely and electric motorcycle wouldn't have a cubic capacity, as that refers the displacement of the cylinder which an electric motorcycle wouldn't have? In the long term with emission regulations, global warming and even sound pollution legislation how is a electrically propelled motorcycle not a valid subject to include within a motorcycle article, hell IIRC way back in the Victorian times they tried steam powered motorcycles. Pickle 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, a two-wheeled vehicle with a motor or engine does not automatically make it a motorcycle. In this case, the vehicle in question would be classified as a "motor-driven cycle" Which is what the industry would and does classify it. In any case, it's no more a motorcycle than the the Segway is (and yes, I've seen people try to classify that as being a motorcycle as well). Rsm99833 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some citable sources:

Dictionaries:
  • "a motor vehicle similar to a bicycle but usually larger and heavier, chiefly for one rider but sometimes having two saddles or an attached sidecar for passengers." - Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
  • "A two-wheeled motor vehicle resembling a heavy bicycle, sometimes having two saddles and a sidecar with a third wheel." - American Heritage Dictionary
  • "a motor vehicle with two wheels and a strong frame" - WordNet
Note no mention of internal combustion engine or electric motor, just "motor vehicle". -AndrewDressel 22:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
California DMV allows for electrically powered motorcycles with a strange limitation of 45 miles per hour:
  • 400. (a) A "motorcycle" is any motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, and weighing less than 1,500 pounds."
  • "(c) A motor vehicle that is electrically powered, has a maximum speed of 45 miles per hour, and weighs less than 2,500 pounds, is a motorcycle if the vehicle otherwise comes within the definition of subdivision (a)."
Electric Motorsports in Oakland, CA lists a "100% Street Legal, Grand Prix Style, Electric Motorcycle, DOT Certified" with a "Top Speed: 65 mph" and "Range: 40 miles"

Are there any citable sources that specifically require internal combustion or exclude electric power? -AndrewDressel 22:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's a reasonable test: those of you who have or are advocting "electric motorcycles" do this- ride on the freeway. 03:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but that has little to do with it. After all, "Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments." Instead, we need to cite "verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." That is what I tried to do above. -AndrewDressel 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The opening sentence is "A motorcycle is a two-wheeled vehicle powered by an engine". In the UK scooter is not a legal definition; two wheeled powered vehicles are mopeds (determined by speed, engine size and provision of pedals) or motorcycles; a "starter motorcycle" (for driving licence purposes) is determined by power output. GraemeLeggett 10:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This may all be true, but the opening sentence of this same article is hardly a citable source. Perhaps someone in the UK can find a copy of the legal definition that can be cited. The exact power output required to be a "starter motorcycle" would be handy. -AndrewDressel 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On this side of the pond, kids can ride a "small" motorcycles (that has a less than 50cc engine and the speed can't exceed 30mph, can't carry any passengers - ie no second seat or sidecar, i also think there is a power restriction) at 16 with a CBT (1 day training course and theory test) with an "L" plate on the back. The motorcycles typically used are scooter but also there are no a variety of supermotos, road race and trail bikes (conceivably any type of bike as long as it met the legal criteria). Way back in the fuel crisis back int he 1970s i think there was a wave mopeds (the ones where you can pedal to help the small engine get you up hills), but they have died out with the advent of better engines.
The reason I'm moaning here, is as an off road motorcyclist (don't really follow road racing or road legal bikes) many off road publications have followed with interest several prototype electric motocross bikes - thus to me and the rest of the MX community they are a motorcycles, if a little odd (i have to admit I've seen photos of an electric BSA bantam - thats defiantly a motorcycle).
There are undoubtedly quirks of law / tax classifications that focus development on what are superficially bicycles with tiny electric engines which are significantly different from electric propelled motorcycles but is not the fundamental difference between a bicycles and a motorcycle is that a bicycles is self propelled by the rider (ie pedalling!), a motorcycles isn't.
As for some sources there is a variety of stuff on the DVLA website (www.dvla.gov.uk) - our "DMV"
Pickle 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit on definition, at the bottom in lieu of somewhere better, regarding the legal definition in the UK. GraemeLeggett 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I modified the word "does to "can" in the sentence "Though electric motorcycles are emission free during operation, producing the electricity that charges the batteries in them can cause pollution." This opens up the interpretation since many people charge their electric motorcycles off of solar panels. Monkeythumpa 19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle.com link at bottom of motorcycle page.

The motorcycle.com page doesn't tell much unless you subscribe. I suggest taking them off the list of external links. What do you think? 66.174.79.234 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Cloud Observer

I agree. No point having it on the list if it's not going to help people. I'll see if there's something better I can add instead. Spaomark 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Motorcycle.com has a few older articles that are not password protected, but unless you become a subscriber content is very limited. Because it is a commercial site that is well-indexed in search engines, I don't believe a link to it is necessary here. Wikipedia isn't a link library, right? I am going to remove it. When I do, I am also going to remove links to non-notable web-forum "talkin bikes" and non-notable commercial site "we ride on sundays" Gregarious Lonewolf 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Vandalism by US-centric spellers

Despite the fact that the English version of Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, US-spellers have repeatedly chosen to be POV and US-centric and "culturaly-imperialistic" in ther editing of this topic. Do we need to engage in a reversion war to keep these wankers out! If you want Wikipedia to be only US based then say so. It was not the original intention, but if that is what the majority want, then say so, the 60+% that do not speak American English can go elsewhere. We can divide wikipedia into US english and Real English. Your Problem, not ours. - M-72 11:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't for those "culturally imperialistic" Americans, the official language of Australia could well be Japanese, and of the UK — German. And it was the Marshall Plan of those "culturally imperialistic" Americans that helped Europe rebuild. Get off your arrogant, culturally snobbish high horse, M-72. 12.72.119.24 15:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The ignorance of User:12.72.119.24 can be best answered by two articles. Khalkhin Gol and Kokoda Track. I doubt that he'll understand the significance of either. Such is life. M-72 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiding within a cloak of Anonymity, user M-72 again lashes out at others — masking a deep-seated sense of cultural and personal inferiority. Waratah-9 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Waratah-9. Sorry if I appear anonymous. Show me how to be stabbed both in the front and the back, I'll gladly accept either. :-) I genuinely did not know that I was anonymous. I'll gladly make myself visible and receive the appropriate stabs. M-72 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am British and proud of it! The Wikipedia:Manual of Style doesn't say whether a general article should be in any particular version of English, just that it should be consistent. However it is quite prescriptive on when British English should be used over American (or any other flavour) of English. I reverted your spelling because the page was already written in American English. I would be just as rabid as you in changing spellings if someone were to try to Americanise an article that should be written in British English or was already established. --Cheesy Mike 12:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the page was not cited as being written in American English, and since the majority of English speakers speak other than American English, and the section was in non-American English, changing it to American English was culturaly Imperialistic and contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. We can always go back to the RV wars of 2005. I cannot find a version prior to 2003 that states what the original major edit was. As such no determinationion of the original major edit can be made and any change from British English to American English is simply vandalism! M-72 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
M-72: Shouldn't an arrogant cultural snob know the difference between "since" and "because," and when to capitalise "imperialistic?" Or are those more anomalies of Australian English? Waratah-9 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. All of the words in the article that could be spelt in a different variation of English are spelt in American English e.g. Tire. To insist on having just one word spelt differently to the rest of the article is pedantic bordering on childish. --Cheesy Mike 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK Cheesey Mike, go back over the last three years and see in what versions those words were spelt (spelled for the Americans). While you're doing it research Mandarin, an attempt to unify different dialects, Childish - I haven't spat my dummy yet! For Jeff, I 'll give you the drum, understanding a Russian in either "o" or "a" Russian is easier than understanding a Geordieman in English. I'm only an Australian speaking English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M-72 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
everybody knows how americans spell words, but not very americans are familiar with (ancient?) british. furthermore many people with english as a second language learn the american version. the british version isnt the best choice in my opinion. --AlexOvShaolin 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Some citation would be useful. I believe most people on the Indian sub-continent still learn British English. It would make British English the largest dialect. M-72 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think its up to us to decide which version of english should be used on this article as its not spercifically an english or american article Pickle 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, it is not up to us to decide, but a concensous would be handy. So, from WP:Guide_to_style#National_varieties_of_English, as Cheesy Mike points out, we have:

  • Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
Clear enough: pick one and stick with it. Maybe there's a banner we can put at the top once this is settled so this can of worms can stay closed.
  • If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.
I'd say there is not a strong tie to any specific dialect in the subject itself.
  • Try to find words that are common to all.
Not the issue, I think. The words are common enough, just not the spelling. At least we're not arguing over 'boot' vs 'trunk', right?
  • Follow the dialect of the first contributor.
So, I went back to the original version, created by Clasqm on 09:02, 28 September 2001, and M-72 appears to be correct. Among the mispellings that my, American, copy of MS Word flags are: aluminium, characterised, tyre, specialised. All are valid British English spellings, I believe. At least dictionary.com says that aluminium and tyre are British. The others are merely synonyms.
Also, Clasqm describes himself on his user page by saying "I lecture in Religious Studies at the University of South Africa."
Any evidence that the dialect of the first contributor is not British English?

If not, any chance we can tweak the spelling of a few words, then leave them alone, and get on with improving the content of the article? -AndrewDressel 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The concerns of one editor about British/American spellings does not warrant aa re-write. This article has been in American English for quite some time. This would be a different matter if this article were say about British Motorcycles. I see no improvement of the article with a re-write to appease one British-English-centric editor. Let's get back to discussing edits that would improve this article. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Off(sic) course it's ridiculous - you don't agree with it. But the point remains was the original article was written and spelt as per British English. All subsequent spellings should conform to that. But of course US editors insist on their right to ignore anything that doesn't please them. Most of the discussion on this article centres around the fact that US editors have little to no idea of the world beyond their national borders. If it doesn't conform to your prejudices then it's wrong. M-72 07:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiding within a cloak of Anonymity, user M-72 again lashes out at others — masking a deep-seated sense of cultural and personal inferiority. Waratah-9 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Off thread: This repeated comment from Waratah-9 is bordering on a Personal Attack. Can we keep the debate on the editing not the editors. Pedro |  Talk  16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Waratah-9 has made few if any edits outside of this debate. Pedro |  Talk  16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is a real (often heated) disagreement regarding the spelling and usage of words and phrases in this article does not justify personal attacks and insults. I realize that MOS states the spelling and usage should be consistant (and I generally agree), but I could care less. I know "center" and "centre" are the same and "motorized"/"motorised" are too. (Tyre struck me as odd, but I'm not completely familiar with all word forms.) I'm interested in the collection of factual information about motorbikes. (It seems to me that motorbike was a perfectly acceptable American usage back in the day. Maybe, not so much now.) As [[User:Malber|Malber] wrote yesterday, let's all go take a ride and get back to this later. (The weather in Houston is great today.) See, ya. --Evb-wiki 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

I have added the appropriate tag;{{npov}} ({{npov}}) tags to this page as I believe there are many areas which require a good look at for NPOV issues, see above conversations. Bennyboyz3000 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific. What problems do you see? I am sure you don't mean the whole article is NPOV, maybe there are occasional POV, so lets talk about them and fine the facts or a consensus. The talk page is an appropriate place to discuss such matters. ww2censor 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree that this whole article violates Neutral Point of View requiring the use of a warning tag. The sub-section on history could use a little clean up, and maybe the section on safety could be edited to read in more encyclopediac style. Tagging this entire article as violating NPOV is wrong. Gregarious Lonewolf 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I also do not think the NPOV tag is appropriate. The points of contention in the above conversations are either long resolved or about spelling. Without specific issues to work on from Bennyboyz3000 or someone else, I don't know where to start. -AndrewDressel 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV tag is meant for use in the main article page, or in a section of that page, as appropriate and not on the talk page. The talk page is the very place where NPOV/POV will be expressed and discussed in order to resolve specific issues on the article main page. So I am removing the tag from this page and unless some specific items are mentioned for discussion as NPOV I will remove the page tag too within a day or so. Cheers ww2censor 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have removed the tag, very inappropriate without proper explanation. Bennyboyz3000 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article getting long

Wikipedia reports that "This page is 35 kilobytes long." when I edit it. This exceedes the recommended 32k. One cadidate section for its own article is History. In fact, I'm surprised that Motorcycle history does not already exist. Any objections to moving most of the History section to its own article and leaving just a brief paragraph in its place? -AndrewDressel 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, but with plenty of room for wordsmithing. That brings the article down to 33k. Perhaps the safety section can be shrunk as there is already a Motorcycle Safety article. -AndrewDressel 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You could remove these bits from History as they serve no purpose in the main article and little in the Motorcycle History article.

BMW motorcycles came on the scene in 1923 with shaft drive and an opposed-twin or "boxer" engine enclosed with the transmission in a single aluminium housing. Police officers have used motorcycles — primarily for the enforcement of traffic laws — from the early 20th century. Called motor officers in the United States, these officers call their vehicles simply "motors." M-72 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Rewrite - initial proposal

OK, I saw the request for peer review, so here are my thoughts. This article is loaded with excellent content, but fails in its primary task of being the foundation of "all things motorcycle in the 'pedia".

From a knowledge framework, this article is a "parent" article. Motorcycle represents a subject that is multi-facted, and the authors of this article cannot safely presuppose the objectives of its readers. A reader may arrive here seeking to understand a) the socio-economic significance of 3rd world transport b) Hollywood treatment of the topic c) different valve configurations d) etc.

Hence the purpose of this article is to be sufficiently generic across the topic, while giving its readers an easy path to the specific knowledge they seek. As I read this article (Jan 9 07), I find it confusing and lacking a sensible structure. It tries to be comprehensive in some areas, is clearly inadequate in others, and intimidates the reader, rather than exciting them with the prospect of new knowledge discoveries.

I feel a complete rewrite is in order, but this rewrite should be coordinated and follow a pre-determined Heading/Subheading structure (which I think should be discussed thoroughly here before embarking on it). A need for various subarticles will emerge, but before diving off and creating them all, consensus should be obtained.

So here are some basic questions: 1 - Why would a reader surf into this article? Try to identify as many candidate reasons and then generalise them. (Eg - motorcycles in movies, custom chopper building, Paris Dakar racing, internal combustion engines, 3rd world transport, luxury lifestyle symbols, bikie gang violence, military history, vintage marques, etc, etc).

2 - Presume (for the sake of the exercise) that this article consists of nothing more than links to external articles (headings and sub-headings). How should it be laid out?

If the above two steps are completed to exeryone's satisfaction, then the content of the article will become largely self guiding. As I said, all of the text I read was high quality, it is the structure which makes this parent article hard to digest. Regards Manning 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I copied these comment to the appropriate peer review page as it is more appropriate there. ww2censor 04:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite. I was skeptical of your comments and thought the article looked pretty good. Then I read your user page. Perhaps you see something I don't. So, given that I think the article is okay, I'll start with its current structure, and add your suggestions where I think they should go:
1 History
2 Technical aspects
2.1 Definition
2.2 Construction
2.2.1 Chassis
2.2.2 Front fork
2.2.3 Engine
2.2.4 Transmission
2.2.5 Final drive
2.2.6 Wheels
2.2.7 Tires
2.2.8 Brakes
2.2.9 Suspension
2.2.10 Instruments
2.3 Add ons
2.3.1 Fairing
2.3.2 Sidecar
2.3.3 Trunk
2.4 Fuel efficiency
2.5 Dynamics
2.6 Safety
3 Uses
3.1 Transportation
3.2 Racing
3.3 Status symbols
4 Social aspects
4.1 Popular culture
4.1.1 Movies
4.1.2 Advertising
4.2 Subcultures
4.2.1 Gangs
4.2.2 Custom choppers
4.3 Mobility
5 Types of motorcycles
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
As it gets too long with addition of new material, one big candidate for its own article, I guess, is construction and add-ons or maybe even all of technical aspects. -AndrewDressel 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would remove a large number of the subheadings (pretty much all third level subheadings), and roll then into a general paragraph(s), with a links to a more detailed article. For example, the 10 sub-items under construction could instead be discussed collectively (to considerably less detail) under the heading of "Construction", with a link to a far more detailed article (the contents of which should be more detailed, given that viewers of that page are actively seeking technical details). I think this would create a far more approachable article that better serves a generic audience. "Countries of the World" articles follow a similar format now (generalised front page, with detailed subpages), and it has proved quite successful. Regards Manning 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! We have a concensous of two on moving construction into its own article. Any other opinions? Separately, I disagree on removal of subheadings. I very much dislike wading through a sea of prose (read "three or more paragraphs"), especially on a technical subject, to find the details I'm looking for, but that's just me. -AndrewDressel 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree to a point, but I disagree that "Motorcycle" (generally) is a technical subject. You CAN approach it that way, but the potential reading audience is much too varied to anticipate that. Currently I think the technical aspects in this article are too detailed for the general article, but not detailed enough for a technical article. From reading it, I got the impression (rightly or wrongly) that efforts had been made to not go overboard on the technical description. I would rather see the technical elements pulled back to a summary in this parent article, and then have a world-class technical analysis under a seperate article. Anyway, I'm off on a summer holiday for two weeks so I won't be around to help out. I'll check back when I return and if I can help out I will. Regards Manning 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Turns out the Bicycle article has faced similar issues recently, and many of the social or use aspects have been moved to the separate Cycling article. The technical discussion of bicycles has stayed in the bicycle article. Maybe 3 Social aspects, 3.1 Subcultures, 3.2 Mobility, and 3.3 Safety should all go into the already existing Motorcycling article. -AndrewDressel 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My first impression when seeing this ad is WOW. What a pile of POV topics and rambling. Very un-encyclopedic. Really, take a look and the subhead on Mobility! I am NOT a motorcycle person, so the task of cleaning this up should go to someone else. Or should it? As a layperson viewing it from the outside, it's clear that much of this 'article' is the bemused opinion and feelings of passionate motorcycle enthusiasts. It might be interesting to some, but we have a duty to write something worthy of being called an encyclopedia. I started by removing a couple of paragraphs in safety section that had absolutely NOTHING to do with safety at all; just feelings about motorcycles. Sorry if this offends, but if it does you are probably guilty of POV. MiracleMat 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting Started

Getting started riding has been added. Even though the article is US-centric and the advice offered is illegal in some jurisdictions, I won't rv it out of existence. I'd kick myself except that might offer pleasure when punishment is more appropriate. How did we (assuming you're all motorcycle riders). forget this? There is a need to supply this advice. HOWEVER, we get into the complicated areas of licences, definitions and legal jurisdictions. I don't think that Wikipaedia wants to be a legal source, but how do you avoid it in a tangent that needs it? Comments welcomed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M-72 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Is a motorcycle a "motorcycle?"

Motorbike is simply common English usage for what Americans call a motorcycle. The OED defines motorbike as synonymous with motorcycle as does Wiktionary, not sure who appointed the referenced online dictionary as the arbiter of English but it certainly isn't recognized over the OED. Bob Palin 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hard to determine which is which, especially when it's inevitable that you'll find certain models that could fit in either category. I don't think you should argue about this point, but simply aim to be all inclusive maybe including a link to the moped and scooter articles early in the motorcycle article. To paraphrase a supreme court justice "I don't know what a motorcycle is but I know it when I see it"--Budlight 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to exclude scooters from the definition then the burden of proof is on you and you have yet to give any credible source that supports your definition of a motorcycle. I do not agree that any two wheeled vehicle with a motor is a motorcycle but think that motorcycles and bicycles are two categories and scooters are a style of motorcycle such as a motard/sport bike. If there are multiple definitions of a motorcycle then we need to state that in the lead not use the POV of one editor, excluding other views.

Since the modern motorcycle evolved from someone putting an engine on a bicycle, and the etymology of the word is "motorized bicycle," I would support inclusion in the definition scooters and mopeds since they share the same lineage. But I would not support including the Segway in the lead. I have a basic motorcycling book that includes mopeds and scooters in it's description of motorcycle types which I will reference in the AM. —Malber (talk • contribs) 06:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a common ground would be to take this from the aspect of how the motorcycle evolved. Since mopeds and scooters share the same lineage they could be included in the broad definition of motorcycle. (Indeed, some high cc scooters are blurring the line between scooter and motorcycle.) Since they have their own articles, the rest of the article could focus on the "modern" motorcycle. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Additional comment: I have no problem with the lead in its current wording. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I happened today to be reading the September '06 issue of the AMA's American Motorcyclist magazine. On page 20 in a sidebar there is a list of motorcycle names and what they are named for. One of the entries is Vespa. :-p —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the lead paragraph is pretty good, but I would add a comment about the issue itself. As a new reader, I would rather be told upfront that the expression carries some controversy than stumble across it later. Something along the lines of "The rest of this article focuses on the 'modern' motorcycle. See articles on motor scooters, motorized bicycles, mopeds, and electric scooters for information on other single-track, motorized two-wheeled vehicles include." If that doesn't do it, then an entire separate section discussing what is and what is not a motorcycle according to whom and why, may be necessary. -AndrewDressel 20:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew has it about right. A short, but to the point, comment in the introduction along the lines he mentioned should do the trick and avoid any controversy later on, especially for those who might not read the whole article down as far as a separate discussion section. Go with that a be done with it. Cheers and thanks for the input. ww2censor 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has and still does incorporate scooters. As long as scooters are considered a type of motorcycle, just as the underbone style is considered a motorcycle then this article should cover it. Jeff if you cannot give a credible source that motorcycles and scooters are distinct categories of vehicles (e.g. scooters are not motorcycles) then you can not change the lead to your POV. I have already cited sources that scooters are considered a type of motorcycle, but I have not seen any credible definition that scooters are not motorcycles.--Clawed 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of scooters (sold as "scooters" by their manufacturers) that do not meet the legal definition of motorcycle as specified by many Departments of Motor Vehicles simply because of engine size and/or top speed. This of course has implications on licensing, registration, taxation, and riding regulations. At the same time, there are scooters that do meet the legal definition of motorcycles. The Honda Helix and the like come to mind. So any claim that all scooters are or are not motorcycles is highly suspect.
It would seem that early in the article it should say something like "some or all scooters may be considered motorcycles, depending on which of several conflicting definitions is used. For example some scooters meet the legal definitions of motorcycles of some Departments of Motor Vehicles, and some do not." An interesting definition can be found here [1]. -AndrewDressel 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
To my amazement I find myself agreeing with Mr Dean, there's a first time for everything! The new introduction is just plain silly with all those pictures and rambling about various countries around the world, maybe what's needed is a section on Varieties of Motorcycles. What's happened is that we've got way from the basic design of an encyclopedia which is initially to present the core facts of a matter then expand to the details for the interested reader. Bob Palin 17:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
While I was also as stunned as Jeff and Bob at first by the recent change, I have to admit that my "common sense" is based on experience gained mostly in western culture. I do not know how motorcycle is defined in Asia or Africa and I cannot find a credible source that narrowly defines motorcycle to exclude step-through (underbone?) frames. I own and ride a large, western-style motorcycle, but I see no point in excluding other styles if the case can be made, and I believe it has, that the word "motorcycle" is used throughout the world to mean any two-wheeled, single-track motorized vehicle. Perhaps a new article should be created for Large motorcycle just as there are already articles for mopeds, Scooter (motorcycle), pocket bikes, motor scooters, motorized bicycles, and electric scooters. -AndrewDressel 18:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For the legal definition of motorcycle and moped that is used by 90% of the world CONSOLIDATED RESOLUTION ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF VEHICLES (R.E.3) This is the UNECE definition. You'll note that two wheel mopeds fall under L1, three wheel mopeds under L2, motorcycles, motorscooters etc fall under L3, motorcycles and sidecars under L4, trikes and cyclecars under L5 and quads come under L6 and L7.
Sadly, while this document does suggest a dividing line at 50cc and 50km/h, it does not use the words moped or motorcycle. It doesn't even specify whether the two wheels are in tandem or not. -AndrewDressel 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
For licensing requirements the usual definition is <50ml and <50km/h defines a moped and >50ml and >50km/h defines a motorcycle. Various categories based on engine capacity or power to weight ratios may be added. In NO jurisdiction have I ever encountered a separate motor scooter (as opposed to motorcycle) licence.
I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but according to Wisconsin DMV, "Anyone who drives a motorcycle must have a Class M motorcycle license or motorcycle instruction permit. Moped drivers do not have the same licensing requirements. (emphasis added) They must have a Class D regular, probationary, or special license restricted to moped use. A moped is: Any of the following vehicles (excluding a tractor) capable of speeds not more than 30 mph, with 150 lb. Rider on a dry, level, hard surface with no wind, a power source as an integral part of the vehicle, and a seat for the operator:
  • A bicycle-type vehicle with fully operative pedals and an engine certified by the manufactured at not more than 50cc.
  • A Type 1 motorcycle with an automatic transmission and engine certified at not more than 50cc."
-AndrewDressel 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As to Jeff Dean's proposed definition - "When the bike is at rest, the rider puts both feet on the ground." - would have the rider failling compulsory pre-licencing training in many parts of the world.[citation needed] And how ABS braking mysteriously reduces the possibility of crashes in general (as opposed to rider braking error crashes) is mysterious.
Part of the problem of definition appears to stem from the usage in some North American jurisdictions of "motor scooter" in the sense of a speed limited vehicle. This is not the case in most of the English speaking world. Mods may have ridden scooters, and rockers bikes, but both had motorcycle licences (or permits) and both were "bloody bikies" to the Police and general public.
As to commonsense - where does the ubiqutous Honda C-90 (and derivatives) fit into the scheme of things? Is it a motorcycle, scooter or stepthrough? It is afterall the highest volume vehicle EVER manufactured. (http://world.honda.com/timeline/motor/ 35 million units as of 2002 with an annual increase of 1.5 million units per year excluding derivatives and Chinese copies.) Or the Quasar, Yamaha T-Max, Whitworth Monocar, Suzuki Burgmann, Ecomobile? Best not to let your extremely insulated and narrow views of the world colour what is supposed to be an encyclopaedic definition. M-72 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petty bickering

Unconstructive inflammatory comments removed.

These comments are totally unconstructive and nothing to do with the article, so please stop and get on with making better articles. ww2censor 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This is all ridiculous, M72 had some of the best contributions to this whole page, but no one responded to them. I'm sure he was simply upset at the people editing this article to remove other people's work rather to be all inclusive, and actually contribute. I mean seriously wikipedia is all about how inclusive you can be, why else would there be articles on all kinds of deviant sexual fetishes perpetuated by pornographers who seek to promote them. But the order is in from ww2censor, get on with work so that Jimbo Wales can profit!--Budlight 01:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the comments because they were inflamatory, off-topic, and did not discuss improvements to the article. If anyone disagrees with me they can revert my edit. Let's all calm down and try to discuss ways to improve the article. If you can't right now, I'd suggest taking a ride and then comming back. :-) —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Dean and images released under Creative Commons license

(Note: these comments are in the edit history for the article.)

Jeff wrote: I removed all my images because this article is a mess and the talk page is filled with off-topic, barmy anti-Americanism. I do not want my images shown here until this article is fixed.

Evb-wiki wrote back, saying you don't own the images (or anything else on wikipedia)

Jeff replied: O.k., let the rv wars begin, I can go as long as you can.)

Two points. One, to the best of my understanding, once you release an images under the creative common license you cannot change your mind and restrict people's right to use the work. That is the whole point of an "open source" or "freely distributable" license. Two, it is bad form to threaten a revert war. Gregarious Lonewolf 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this good form?
Is it possible for Citizens of the USA to recognise that they are part of the world? Gaea? Planet Earth? The world has CHANGED! YOU lost in Afhganistan [sic], Vietnam. Cambodia. Iraq. Iran, Russian Federation, Venuzuala [sic], etc. You will loose in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. What happens in Wisconsin means shit in Uzbekistan! M-72 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I didn't see you commenting on that. Jeff dean 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That is just one person's opinion. I don't agree with it, but rather than starting a flame war I ignored the comment. Your comment seems to suggest that because I chose to ignore it, that I am insufficiently patriotic.
The real issue, however, is that you released the images with a Creative Commons license. Among the baseline rights and restrictioins in the Creative Commons license is that they are not revokable. As the license grantor, you do not have the right to tell Wikipedia to stop using those images. You should have thought about that before you released them under an "open source" style license.
It is my opinion, therefore, that your threat of a revert war and repeated removal of these images constitutes defacement.
Gregarious Lonewolf 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment about images released to Wikipedia under the Creative Commons license, as well as Jeff's threatened revert war.

Jeff, I can understand why you're upset, however, just blanking the links to the images you submitted is not the way to approach the issue. Had you discussed your desire to remove those images in the talk page before starting your revert war, I might have been more sympathetic.

Gregarious Lonewolf 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)