Talk:Motorcycle/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New Lead image needed

The current image is rather poor. I like the idea thata it includes two types of motorcycles, but the examples are too small for a thumbnail. I propose a new lead image should be found. I was going to suggest the recently added Suzuki image, but I could see where this would lead to an unnecessary debate over what type of motorcycle is best representative. Not to mention a debate over which manufacturer to feature. Better to have an image that shows a range of styles. Anyone have any suggestions? —M (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I also like the idea that it includes two types of motorcycles. Since the image is in the public domain, I edited it for contrast/brightness and cropped it a little, and I uploaded the edited version. I'll also keep my eyes open for a rally or something. Maybe I'll drop by the used bike dealer down the street and see if I can get a variety shot. --Evb-wiki 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
ps - I like the old image better. --Evb-wiki 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That actually works, Jeff. Now, if we could just find 1 or 2 lead photos that show variety and/or contrast. Or gestalt. Maybe a transmission pic, too. --Evb-wiki 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Suggestion: I propose we we use Malber's idea (above) re using the Suzuki image as the lead photo. 1. It's a pretty good pic. 2. There is already another sport bike in the types sec. (& a semi-sub-class, ie. racing) 3. Jeff could put his Dual-sports photo back in the types sec. 4. The Dual-sports placement would better line the photos w/ the type paragraph. --Evb-wiki 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safety

The article currently makes the following unsourced claim: "most common type of motorcycle accident is caused by inattentive drivers making a turn directly in front of a motorcycle". However, according to NHTSA DOT HS 809 360, the October 2001 full report "Fatal Single Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

  • "single vehicle motorcycle crashes account for about 45 percent of all motorcyclist fatalities"
  • "half of the fatalities are related to negotiating a curve prior to the crash"
  • "almost two thirds of the fatalities were associated with speeding"
  • "collision with a fixed object is a significant factor in over half of the fatalities"

Seems contradictory. -AndrewDressel 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems contradictory indeed. Do we know who wrote the current statement? It could take some time to find who wrote that and ask where it came from, even if they are still about. It may have come from here or more likely here. ww2censor 21:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not inconsistent at all. the first statement refers to a portion of all motorcycle accidents. The NHTSA stats only slice up the factors involved in fatal motorcycle accidents. Apples & oranges. Nevertheless, we should be able to find the stats in a safety/training manual or something. I found a discussion in a Gold Wing Road Riders Association Motorist Awareness Division "Playbook", but the stats were not set out clearly. --Evb-wiki 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Try this article, while British, it does make for interesting reading on the subject. ww2censor 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd hate to have to learn a whole new language just to read a source. Can you translate it? --Evb-wiki 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL ww2censor 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's a good source for m/c safety data: The Hurt Report Jeff dean 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common justification

I added a reference to but then removed the following, because it really was not relevant to the "Safety" section it was in:

Even though statistics appear fearsome, people still desire to ride motorcycles. A common justification given by new riders is "the feeling of freedom" associated with riding a motorcycle. fn.1 "Rider training in Europe The Views and the Needs of the Rider," The Federation of European Motorcyclists, Bob Tomlins - FEM Assistant General Secretary and Project Co-ordinator (September 1997). They like the openness of motorcycling, compared to the enclosure of an automobile. They like feeling the wind and smelling the environment through which they ride.
While the reasons for people choosing to ride motorcycles are many and varied, those reasons are increasingly practical, with riders opting for a powered two-wheeler as a cost-effecient alternative to infrequent and expensive public transport systems, or as a means avoiding or reducing the effects of the crippling urban congestion. fn.2 "Rider training in Europe The Views and the Needs of the Rider," supra. --Evb-wiki 04:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The stuff you removed is mostly covered in the Motorcycling and Motorcycle safety pages, so removing it seems a good idea. It might be useful to link to Motorcycling in particular in this social aspects section of the Motorcycle article. --Cheesy Mike 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most "tweaked" article?

Wow! This article seems to be under "assault" many times each day. Is it possible that this is the most "tweaked" article in Wikipedia? Jeff dean 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff - there you go again with that paranoia of yours! Wikipedia is a collaborative, possibly slightly anarchic, environment with no concept of article ownership. I'd say that the edits over the past few days have been mostly constructive and for the good of the article. --Cheesy Mike 09:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I am just surprised at how much this article gets worked over, normally for the better. Paranoidly yours, Jeff dean 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You see Jeff IS paranoid, or is he? Maybe he is just paranoid about motorcycles, maybe not. ww2censor 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would respond, but I don't have time. I swear the FBI is trying to break into my house and kill me. Or it might be Homeland Security, which has been watching me for years trying to get me. I have to be on guard at all times. Wait ... here they come! ... Jeff dean 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL, that's twice in 2 days. Good going indeed. Cheers ww2censor 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tweak needed

I noticed that the "Replica of the Daimler-Maybach Reitwagen" image in the History section does not always clear the text. I have been unable to format it so that the image has a runaround and the text does not drop under the image. Anyone know how to fix it? ww2censor 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plunger suspension

Plungers were not only superceded by swing-arm suspensions, they were preceded by them. Have a look at a 1914 Indian Electric special. A Whiting. A Matchless 1934 Silver Hawk amongst many others. Whilst Tragatsch is quite limited, a reading by most editors would perhaps open your eyes. M-72 12:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Always interesting to read that Jeff Dean can't justify anything BMW! M-72 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm always willing to debate BMW innovatiotion. Are you? M-72 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which ****ing version of English

<rant> Now in my blissful ignorance i though we all agreed to disagree, because we we're all pissed off with the pointlessness of it all and we want to get on with the real job of improving this article. We can all read both and i don't really give a **** what version of English it's in (or if in lots). If we look back as i vaguely grasped it, Wikipedia policy says this article is worldwide, so we then fall back to the article creator's language, which sees me agreeing with M-72 for once with South African English. but at the end of the day i don't give a **** so can you just leave it all alone!!! </rant>

I'm now off for a cup of tea ;) Pickle 14:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion above as favouring Am. Engl. with 1 or 2 editors strongly dissenting. Sound policy arguments on both sides. Still I believe the consensus was to use "tire". --Evb-wiki 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if it's "color" or "colour" or "standardize" or "standardise," just stay away from that damned "tyre!" —M (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The original edit was in SA English. ALL subsequent editors had an obligation to follow the original edit. As is usual, US editors chose not to do so. The inabilty of US editors to spell according to the mainstream is not sufficient to change an article to US spelling rules. Tyres is a SA spelling. It should remain. US wikipedians (note sp) should broaden their horizons! M-72 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, let's translate it to Afrikaans, mkay? —M (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No he said SA English, not Afrikaans (or any of the other 10 odd official languages of South Africa), we're trying to get our heads around what (if any) version of English the whole article is written in - US or one of many commonwealth variations appears to be the main argument. frankly i don't care really - I'm tempted to request arbitration/help because we appear to be going no where. Pickle 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:Guide to style#National varieties of English :

Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.

- ie get over it!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, clearly South Africa wins. Here are population figures to back me up:

I understand, and perhaps a resident of the U. K. can correct me, that even the Queen's English is returning to "tire" as the correct spelling — as it was in the 17th century.

"Wheel rubber part. Canada as U.S. Tire is the older spelling, but both were used in the 15th and 16th centuries (for a metal tire); tire became the settled spelling in the 17th century but tyre was revived in Britain in the 19th century for pneumatic tyres, possibly because it was used in some patent documents [Peters, Pam (2004). The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press], though many continued to use tire for the iron variety. The Times newspaper was still using tire as late as 1905."

We could create a second Motorcycle article. This one could be "Motorcycle (South African)," and the second could be "Motorcycle (American Imperialistic)."

Having a bent for history as well as being a Canadaphile, admirer of British history, and somewhat of a -- what's the phrase -- "culturally imperialistic American", I personally favour "tire."

Jeff dean 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to agree with M-72 I do think he is right in this case. If this article was originally written by a South African then that is the variety of English that should be used for the whole article, including "tyre" replacing "tire". As for Malber's suggestion of translating the whole thing to Afrikaans, if you could that would be most helpful as the article doesn't currently exist on the Afrikaans version of Wikipedia Af:Motorfiets. --Cheesy Mike 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This article went without edit to "tire" for a whole month, and without discussion of the issue since 16 February. Now, a completely anonymous user changes it without discussion, and we're back at it. That's a violation of the consensus policy. IMHO. --Evb-wiki 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Rer-ead the article on consensus! M-72 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read it. Now you go reread it. --Evb-wiki 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because some of us hoped for a consensus! US spellers cannot accept that! I sat quietly accepting things. NO more. Reap what you sow! M-72 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There M-72 goes again! You guys are too generous with this arrogant, know-it-all, condescending a**hole. He (I assume it's a "he") simply is not capable of good manners or civility with others, in spite of his Australian/British heritage. I still believe he needs to be sanctioned severely. Waratah-9 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Easy with the brush there, buddy. I am a U.S. speller and I would happily accept a consensus. In fact, I believe you will find that I did the research and posted the result above about the South African origin of this article. I submit that your additude, no matter how justified it may or may not be, actually helps fuel the resistance to what you desire. -AndrewDressel 16:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not your buddy, mate or friend! I'm a contributor! If the brush is too wide, tell me why? Your research was excellent. In your opinion, my attitude fuels resistance to the truth. Quite interesting! Truth is based on attitude! How sad! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M-72 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
There M-72 goes again! Waratah-9 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a consensus of one, and your threats are bordering on a WP:POINT violation. —M (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"Buddy" is an American English expression, a euphemism. In this usage, it does not mean friend. Sorry. Your brush is too wide because "US spellers" suggests "all". I am one, and I would happily accept whatever consensus we arrive at. That is why. I don't believe, however, that a consensus is the "truth". Using a form of British English in this article is not the "truth". These are merely details that you seem to desire. It may come as a surprise to you, but when you wish to persued a group of people to do what you want, and you have no other way to compel them other than communicating with them with text messages, belittling them, insulting them, and calling them names is not very helpful. -AndrewDressel 17:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Integrity, decency, responsibility. Strange words for US vandals. Learn their meaning and we'll have no problems. Totally fed up with Yanks ( or is that Wanks) M-72 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There M-72 goes again! DECENCY?! I laugh out loud! You have none of that. Waratah-9 20:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize completely with the frustration of Waratah-9 and others about M-72's negative attacks on this page and elsewhere. I have indulged in such behavior myself in the past, although I hope I am over it. When we respond personally to M-72, we simply lower ourselves into the gutter with him. It is true that M-72 offers intelligent additions to the arcane details of some articles, and I suggest we look to those rather than to his attitude when considering his approach to Wikipedia. Jeff dean 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In a month's or two's time, I'll be riding through the US. May you be one of those that I wave at. M-72 11:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That is good news! Whilst you are traveling through the U. S. I am confident you will receive a warm welcome from all you meet. I hope you take a little time to get a flavour of our nation and that it might help improve your feelings toward us. A warning — petrol prices in the U. S. are forecast to rise again above $3/gallon (AUD 1.02/litre). Have a great trip! Jeff dean 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

# 12:55, March 29, 2007 Pickle UK (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 118853719 by Killa Kitty (talk) - see talk, its been disscussed enough)

# 12:38, March 29, 2007 Killa Kitty (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 118824241 dated 2007-03-29 17:35:16 by Killa Kitty using popups)

# 12:37, March 29, 2007 Pickle UK (Talk | contribs) (rv, we looked up the wiki rules and we're meant to lump for south african english spellings. "etymology" got nothing to do with it. anyone want to request arbitration on this ???)

# 10:35, March 29, 2007 Killa Kitty (Talk | contribs) (→Construction - more corrections for (at)tire)

# 10:33, March 29, 2007 Killa Kitty (Talk | contribs) (→Construction - corrected to standard spelling based on etymology, this is not the place for this argument)

  Let the games resume! Jeff dean 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On one level this is hilariously funny worthy of a of ROFLOL, I do believe Killa Kitty just went through WP:3RR. Pickle 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
On one level this is hilariously funny... Just so.
Also, very entertaining. “It is a tale ... full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.” — Macbeth. Of course, I would hope that Shakespeare would use South African spelling, no?
I am glad she(?) is Killa Kitty" and not "Killa Doggie." What do you do when a cat cuts in front of your motorcycle? Surmount an obstacle. Jeff dean 01:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"Je ne sais pas" (hope thats spelt right). Like the Shakespeare quote. Pickle 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Correctly spelled :)   Jeff dean 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Unlike "McBeth". Must be a US English spelling. --Cheesy Mike 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Damn Yankee. I corrected it to "Macbeth." That is correct South African spelling. Jeff dean 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chain drive

There's an image example of a shaft drive which is excellent. The article needs an example of a chain drive which is very characteristic of the common MC design. Anyone care to contribute? The two bikes I have easy access to are both shafts. —M (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We could use an image (or a photo montage) of tyres too. --Evb-wiki 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean "tires"? :)) Jeff dean 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I could be ROFLOL or i could pull a gun out and shoot myslef - i really don't know Pickle 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
NO!! Tyres! I know what tires look like. --Evb-wiki 19:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of motorcycles

This section needs some copy-editing. First, there needs to be some sourcing on the types of motorcycles. Second, there are too many subtypes listed. I suggest that we split this into two meta-types: street and dirt. From there we can discuss the different sub-types. These should be limited to a very basic overview. For example, street would encompas cruiser, chopper, sport, touring, and sport-touring. I would be bold and dive right in, but I'd like to pose it here for discussion because I could see this as one area where there could be a lot of contention. Please remember the policies of WP:V and WP:RS. —M (talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] short

Is there any short for motorcycle (ej. in the same way of aeroplane / plane) ? --Altermike 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the UK the most common short form is "bike" (as in motorbike). In fact the word "motorcycle" is rarely used. --Cheesy Mike 10:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Bike is a disambiguation page and directs readers to Bicycle and Motorcycle. As you suggesting we include that in the intro as a name used in GB (only)? Maybe SA uses that name too! ww2censor 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Bike is fairly common in US too. —M (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I rarely hear "motorbike" in the U. S., and when I do it tends to be nonriders who used that term. I do hear "bike" in casual conversation among riders, but when nonriders are in the conversation I hear "motorcycle." It's a big country, so most likely others have different impressions. Jeff dean 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I hear "bike" frequently but it is ambiguous in many situations whether one is talking about a motorcycle or bicycle. Brianhe 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First commercially available diesel-powered motorcycle

In November 2006, the Dutch company E.V.A. Products BV Holland announced that the first commercially available diesel-powered motorcycle, its Track T-800CDI, achieved production status.[5] The Track T-800CDI uses a 800cc three-cylinder Daimler Chrysler diesel engine.c Royal Enfield had a diesel-powered bike back in 1965. Given that reconditioned bikes can still be bought, I would guess it was "commercially available" back in 65.

The 1965 bike is a "Royal Enfield" not an "Indian Enfield" and is retrofitted with a diesel. Indian Enfield built the Taurus after Sooraj sometime in the 1980's. M-72 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also looking at Royal Enfield.com The factory stopped producing a diesel engined bike three years ago. ~ Mlk 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) ~

Perhaps the referenced source means "mass produced" or "only currently available." Anyway, E.V.A. Products' claim in November 2006 set off discussions like this throughout the motorcycling community. --Evb-wiki 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you checked out this link? Cheers ww2censor 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gizmag.com's specific claim is "none have been available to the public in any quantity until this week’s [11/2006] news . . . ." [1] I'm not saying they're correct, but I haven't seen any conflicting stats. Of course, gizmag doesn't say how it defines "motorcycle," and we know how difficult that can be. Peace. --Evb-wiki 15:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First to me means "first", not "first available in any quantity". I do think that should be clarified on the article page. ~ Mlk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC) ~
"First" means "first" to me too. What does "commercially available" mean to you? --Evb-wiki 21:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Can go out to a shop and buy it, as is the case with the RE. ~ Mlk 13:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ~

[edit] Standard motorcycles are sportbikes?

Currently, standard motorcycles are listed as a subcategory of sportbikes, as a synonym of "naked bikes", which I don't think is correct. Canonically, bikes like UJMs would be considered standards, but not sportbikes. Examples of modern standards could be Triumph and Indian motorcycles (of course not the Thruxton), which again, aren't sportbikes. Thoughts? 205.200.145.205

I agree. Standard does not fit well as a subcategory of sportbikes. -AndrewDressel 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Chalker and Sam maunder

Reason for deleting "a famous motorcross rider includes James Chalker and Sam maunder" from article? Res ipsa loquitur. --Evb-wiki 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If my Latin is correct, the thing does NOT speak for itself. They are not sidecar motocross persons, so I know nothing about them. A valid reason for deleting them is still requested, or is good faith a POS? M-72 14:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe valid reasons have now been provided. They include:
1. The persons listed are not notable enough to have their own articles and so certainly do not warrant mentioning in the main motorcycle article.
2. The list of motorcycle types is not an appropriate place to list famous motocross riders.
3. The insertion contains multiple typographic errors (including capitalization, punctuation, and agreement of article) which, along with the fact that it was made by an unregistered user, strongly suggest that it was merely vandalism.
-AndrewDressel 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Google test - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22James+Chalker%22+and+%22Sam+Maunder%22 - shows up nothing
2) The website of the late John Davey - http://www.thejohndaveypages.org/ - , a comprehensive index of all UK riders and passengers, plus many internatioanls and sidecar GPs, etc dosne't emtnion them
3) never seen their names on anywhere like http://www.sidecarcross.com/ or anything ...
Pickle 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos in article

I don't mean to moan (or rock the boat) but I've only noticed just now (with talk of nominating this for GA status/review) that we've only got pics of road bikes, despite there being (at a quick count) 29 photos on the page. I'm not sure which ones to drop to put an off road bike (or two?) in.... Pickle 20:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A 2000 Beta Rev 3 trials bike
A 2000 Beta Rev 3 trials bike
A Yamaha motocross bike
A Yamaha motocross bike
Most of the reason is because we don't have a lot of text discussing off-road bikes. The photos generally are well-placed and balanced to support the text. Of course, if we had good photos of off-roads that could adequately sub for the text support, that would be good too. --Evb-wiki 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
How about this one for trials;
For more general off road - ie MX, enduros, etc, - which is got nominated for picture of the day.
just some idea, as IMHO there is text there, but adding it would cause the page to be seriously lengthened, and some of the 29 other photos that are there aren't all necessarily crucial to illustrate point (from what i can see). Pickle 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle Wiki

Hey, there's a Motorcycle Wiki now, I was wondering if anyone wanted to go over there and help. Any help is welcome. Pinky

Nice idea, but is in necessary? I mean is there something that Wikipedia won't allow us to do because its an encyclopedia, etc that means we need to decamp to our own site??? 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like duplication to me and rather non-productive for Wikipedia. Why split our loyalties? The Motorcycling Wikiproject now has 800+ articles in it and I keep finding more to which I add the project banner. ww2censor 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, we could all go join Jeff at Citizendium. --Evb-wiki 12:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't care for the ads on the right side. 5033R5995 15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was just seeing if anyone wanted to help edit it. The thing that is nice about it is that for one its really open to add to, and also, it can have its own FAs, quotes, etc. Pinky
Don't mean to knock your efforts at all, but i don't see a problem really ;) with Wikipedia so i see no need to fork (the whole idea of reinventing the wheel doesn't appeal to me). My brief experience of forks is where (eg BSG wiki, memory alpha, lostpedia, etc) is where Wikipedia doesn't allow it. Pickle 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, well I think wikipedia is gonna stop allowing certain motorcycle articles pretty soon as it starts to expand more. For instance, check out this page, if you look at the champions page, there are a lot of red links for guys that I don't think wikipedia will allow pages for simply because their not that famous. Its fine if you stay here, I am just saying. Pinky
If redlinks are your only concern then have a look at this Isle of Man TT page, or even this one. Notability will still the issue but many rider pages have been written since the Motorcycling WikiProject started about 6 months ago. Of course redlinks are no doubt not your only concern on Wikipedia. In the meantime I will keep on working here and wait to see what happens. ww2censor 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
IMHO its because i can count on one hand the number of off road (especially MX) interested editors on Wikipedia (its growing, it might be 2 hands if i think really hard), and quite frankly were busy enough playing with he MX article, and the recent branch off covering the list of FIM & AMA riders (and quite frankly SX doesn't float my boat, its not very big in Europe at all, the "outdoors" is *it*). As ww2censor says we're only just started and i think anyone who has won a SX (125, 250, 500, lite, SX, etc) title is defiantly notable (well we haven't lost a AFD on them yet). Pickle 06:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break out construction to new article?

The construction section is quite long and looks like a good candidate for a new article. I can do this in the next few days if it is not controversial. Brianhe 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several important article that are a long as this one and as the lead article for the topic, it really should be as comprehensive as possible. If we put it up for peer review again, maybe that will be a constructive comment though I doubt it. Cheers ww2censor 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, it's not much of an article w/o the construction section. The construction is the heart of the motorcycle. Otherwise, it's just a collection of view-points and attitudes re motorcycling. --Evb-wiki 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You can strip out Motorcycle history, Motorcycle safety, Types of motorcycle and even Motorcycling but a motorcycle is the construction of the vehicle. --Evb-wiki 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Another vote for keeping the section intact. --Cheesy Mike 07:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about totally removing this section, just summarizing it with a few paragraphs and creating a longer article with the full content. I'll create a demonstration in my user pages to show you what I mean. Brianhe 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Brianhe that's what I would have expected but I still don't like the idea until the whole article gets too unwieldy. Let;s put our effort into trying to get it to WP:GA or even WP:FA status instead of futzing with it in any major way. ww2censor 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You are, of course, free to create new articles at will. I just personally don't see the need for an article on motorcycle construction, as I view that as the essence of Motorcycle. In addition (or nevertheless or sumpin'), the construction section has only one (count 1) footnote. I'm not sure the sec. can stand alone as an article (and be any good) without more. We could sure use help filling out the sources here. --Evb-wiki 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the feedback. This idea is on hold until after the GA review. Brianhe 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

While searching for references to add to the construction section, I ran across this cite. While it's not the ideal reliable source, the author is identified and he does provide a list of sources. His work suggests our construction section may need a slight adjustment or two in structure. --Evb-wiki 18:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I was also looking through the Motorcycle Glossary, which is provided in as an external link. The Chassis entry, for example encompasses the frame, suspension and front forks. We use chassis as a synonym for frame. --Evb-wiki 18:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle failed GA, the lengthy construction section being one reason. At Evb-wiki's suggestion, I've put together a sample breakout: User:Brianhe/scratch#Motorcycle_construction. Brianhe 04:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I broke out Motorcycle construction into a new article today. Brianhe 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review in Progress

Just to let you know that a review of this article is underway, and I should be able to post something here in the next 24-36 hours. Any questions throughout this process should be posted on my talk page --Fritzpoll 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, a few things in my real life caught up with me, and I didn't get back here to do the review. I'll sort this out by Monday. --Fritzpoll 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for the once over. --Evb-wiki 17:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to note that this article was not listed as being under review on the WP:GAC page and I did not notice the above comments until completing and posting my own GA review of the article. Given the most recent comment above was posted two weeks ago I hope this is not a problem. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Hi, I am going to fail this article for GA at present. There are several issues that need to be addressed

  • Fails MOS lead section guide in that it fails to "Provide an accessible overview". This is currently a single sentence of two sentences, which is completely insufficient to give an overview of everything that is covered in the body of the article. This is a common problem with lead paras, people don't realise it is meant to summarise the content of the article.
  • Fails to be factually accurate and verifiable in that is fails to "cite reliable sources", 22 cites in an article that length is very few, which is no problem on its own except that all 22 cites are to online sources, some of them obscure and/or colloquial. Whilst cites are not needed for general statements that few would dispute, when you are quoting exact figures (eg "Until the First World War, the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world was Indian, producing over 20,000 bikes per year") then you really need to be providing cites to verify this.
  • Fails to be "broad in its coverage" in that it fails to "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details", the section headers are overpopulated and too much detail is gone into in content that would be best suited to daughter articles (a prime example is the 3-screens worth of detail on construction variations .
  • Although not a GAC criterion, I would also mention that the article is overpopulated with images - fewer, more relevant and better images are preferred to many lesser quality ones. A photo of a helmet for instance is of only marginal relevance to the primary article on motorcycles on wikipedia.

I understand that such high-level articles are extremely difficult to write because of the competing demands of so many areas that it is necessary to cover, and I notice that similar problems plague both automobile and aeroplane so I wish you luck with a difficult task bringing this article to GA standard. I hope you will take this GA review in good faith as constructive criticism (the authors of some of the articles I have reviewed recently have been less than gracious when their articles failed GA) and work to address the issues raised in order to bring the article to GA status. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Although the GA reviewer (above) makes some valid points, esp. with regard to the need for references, I personally disagree with the suggestion that this article is over-populated with images. Considering the amount of unillustrated textual content, the images provide a balanced break up of text, and the images adequately relate to the text alligned with them. We should not start aggressively eliminating images. In fact, there is an archived discussion from a while back (see in here (starting about half way down)) regarding the need for more images. --Evb-wiki 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of biker attitude here... Although I have participated in GA reviews with other articles, I don't care about whether this article gets GA status or not. I think the images break up the text, are relevant and add value. --Cheesy Mike 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I did not include my personal feeling that there were too many article in judging whether the article was GA ready since as I mentioned in my review it is not a GA criterion. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree there are not too many images. Indeed, the reverse is true with perhaps 99% of Wiki articles — there are too few images. I have yet to see a Wiki article anywhere with too many images. Motorrad-67 13:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there are not too many images but the fixed sizes may seem too large for some people. ww2censor 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the images sizes are set as default. --Evb-wiki 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. I have my default thumbnail size set to 200px, so for me some images look a little large when viewed on my laptop but fine on my desktop. So probably best to leave alone, though I have on occasions defined a smaller image size (145px) where I thought it better in relation to the text like here. ww2censor 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless manually inputted, "px" are set by the user preferences (150 to 300px IIRC, with not logged in users at 150px), and there is a policy somewhere (i haven't got it to hand) to let the user decided the size of the pics. IMHO on the broader point of the number of pics, i think we've got the balance right,a nd as the article expands and more sections hived off onto specialist pages the number off images will decrease while text length will increase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs)
Silly me ! (re unsigned coment) Pickle 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the policy: WP:MOS#Images. Note that there is an exception for the lead image for an article. Brianhe 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enoguh, is 300px big enough though ? Pickle 03:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
300px looks good to me. ww2censor 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Construction: common engines

Regarding the introductory paragraph for Motorcycle#construction. I'm reverting a change to say that one- to eight-cylinder motorcycles are common. Unless I'm mistaken there are very few 8-cylinder motors -- Boss Hoss is the only one I can think of and I've never seen one on the road. Obviously there are many variants that could be described here (diesel or rotary engines for instance), but I'm trying to cover the vast majority of machines in a simple summary. The Motorcycle construction article would be the appropriate place to detail noteworthy experiments and niche market machines. Brianhe 06:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link to Total Motorcycle?

Total Motorcycle is North America's leading motorcycling information and education website. Non-profit, completely free 200,000 page resouce to support motorcyclists and motorcycling worldwide. Link: Total Motorcycle

[edit] External link to Total Motorcycle Biker's Dictionary?

Hundreds of motorcycle terms and terminology, free resource, now it it's 4th edition. From #'s, A-Z. The largest Motorcycle Glossary of it's kind on the internet. Link: Total Motorcycle Biker's Dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalmotorcycle (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 August 2007

We had an extensive discussion here about external links (now archived). The consensus was, with rare exceptions, that external links should be confined to dmoz and one or two model-specific sites only (usually a manufacturer's site). You are encouraged to use dmoz as a general purpose directory. Refer to WP:EL for extensive reasons why this is a good thing or browse the Talk:Motorcycle archive. Brianhe 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to other national bodies

I think it is a little unfair to only have a link to the AMA in an international website, especially as the FIM is already represented. Could we please add links to other large motorcycle organsiations such as FEMA, the ACU and BMF, etc. --Muthaf9cka 13:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguably you could drop the AMA, all other governing bodies are mentioned through the FIM article. Not sure about other lobby groups though such as BMF, MAG etc. Pickle 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead photo

What's the edit war over the lead photo for? I don't know if Motorrad-67 has some axe to grind here but putting in your own photo does seem somewhat of a COI. Let's decide on the type of photo best complements the lead, put it in a leave it. I thought that Image:Motor Cycle EB.jpg was a really good lead photo; clean, strong, uncluttered and to the point, not confusing like the previous one. The new one Image:R68-700.jpg looks more like an advertising shot (a nice shot though) to me rather then something generic which I think is what needs to be here. We really need to get this article up to GA because it is the main article of the project and stop messing with it. Hope you can agree on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs)

If I remember correctly, the last time we discussed this, we agreed to seek a variety shot (because nobody wanted to pov push in favor of one make over another). That's why we had the Indie-parking-lot shot. I agree that both of the recent alternatives are better pictures. User:Fcb981 chose his photo, User:Motorrad-67 chose his. Neither was particularly COI-ish. Both were good pictures. I like Image:R68-700.jpg because of the basic/standard/stripped-down motorcycle config. I think Image:Motor Cycle EB.jpg makes less of a "statement" (pov, coi, or otherwise). I wish we could find a good variety shot. The only thing I ask is, please don't make the image so large it slams me in the face everytime I open the article. --Evb-wiki 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the pixel specifications. If a user wants a bigger picture, he can change his preference, but the rest of us shouldn't be forced to look at gigantic pictures. thegreen J Are you green? 22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly thegreenj, a user cannot make a bigger lead picture without changing ALL the undefined size images on a page. The preference setting is an all or nothing situation. Few people are likely to want all the images displayed larger and in fact the guideline is that no images, other than the lead, should have a defined size. The lead photo can have a defined size and while I agree with Evb-wiki that the image should not be so big as to be totally in your face, which it also could be if one uses a screen resolution of 600 x 800 or lower (a more unusual scenario nowadays with cheap big screen for both laptops and LCDs), it would seem to be in order to have a lead image size defined at somewhere between 225px and 350px, otherwise the default 180px is too small in my opinion and does not balance the article. Besides when, if ever, the lead is expanded as was suggested in the peer review a slightly larger than default image will definitely balance the text better
Regarding the actual lead image, you may well be correct that a variety shot is more acceptable to most. I don't mind but the previous image certainly does not identify with any one motorcycle type as appropriately do many of the others. Yes both recent images were good pictures but perhaps not quite right for the lead of this article. Image:Motorcycles@Indy.jpg did seem to fit the bill quite well so let's go back to that if people agree. ww2censor 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the image to the way it was before the dispute, both the image & the size. I've placed Image:Motor Cycle EB.jpg as the lead in Motorcycling to maintain its featured picture candidacy. I really like it there. --Evb-wiki 00:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Evb-wiki, I'm pretty happy with that and hope everyone else is too. Can we really try to get this up to GA? Cheers ww2censor 02:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on images

First, I believe there has been a consensus to set the pixels on the lead image higher than the default 180px. (Not my preference, but I've accepted it.) Also, since we went to the trouble of ensuring that image placement enhanced and followed the text (as far as relevance), I think dropping them into a gallery (which I feel disrupts the textual flow and article format) is against consensus. It at least needs to be discussed prior to implementation. I've made my opinions known. --Evb-wiki 12:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wherein lies consensus in this regard? What constitutes consensus? Motorrad-67 12:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Evb-wiki. A larger lead image looks better IMHO. Leave the other images in place as they are relevant to the text. --Cheesy Mike 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Um. I did not say "a larger lead image looks better." (That may depend on the image.) I said it's "Not my preference, but I've accepted it." (Acquiescence is a form of consent.) It's really not that big of deal to me, as the size of the LEAD image helps balance the blank space from the TOC (but, some people hide the TOC, so . . .), as long as it doesn't overshadow the intro paragraph. Of course, consensus can change. --Evb-wiki 13:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
.. "leave stupid fucking spelling edits" — Aha! Now I understand "consensus!" Motorrad-67 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September, 2007 reversions

Can somebody explain what's going on with all the recent edits and reversions? I have lost track of what is new and why all the undos. Maybe we can discuss here & avoid an edit war. -- Brianhe 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, other than the usual mass vandalism and link farming, its edit that has changed rather a lot of stuff in one go that raises issues of concern. some bits are relatively normally tidying exercise but others are major changes which were the result of a lot of talk and consensus forming. Pickle 07:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slang terms

Removed the mention of slang terms ("crotch rockets" and "suicycles") on the abstract for sports motorcycles, as they're inconsistent with the rest of the article - no other type has slang names mentioned. Neither contribute anything to the article, and are also slightly pejorative. 88.111.88.66 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good edit. Thanks ww2censor

[edit] Conversion templates

Hey all, I've added in the auto templates for doing the conversions for many of the figures. One that I'm not sure if people want done differently is the kW to bhp is now saying "hp" instead of bhp. Dunno if anyone's got issues with that, if so maybe can use the auto bhp one for conversion instead.. NathanLee 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)