Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →


Contents

motorized bicycle has been added to:

  • Well, it was the idea of what to include vs not-include in an article. There are a few examples we touched upon. We discussed the CCM bicycle. The Steam Engine bicycle (still on this talk page (above)), we have resolved or stated clearly (I think) that a moped may be a motorized bicycle, (to which my fingers are still smoking from all the typing). Right now, I'm moving on toward the second paragraph of motorized bicycle. We say something alon the line that it can be is especially pedaled "easily." The thing is... there are some new electric bicycles that are being manufactured. They look just more like a scooter. The only reason they are a moped or "motorized bicycle" is because they have these ugly pedals (which are dangerous b.t.w.) sticking out from the side. In Canada these are generally considered "power-assisted bicycles", but so is my modified electric mountain bicycle. (Actually this bicycle is everything!! It's a motorized bicycle --> Power-assisted bicycle --> moped --> limited speed motorcycle (according to my insurance and in other jurisdictions) --> it's not a vehicle according to the one precendence and the criminal code of Canada (if I'm pedalling) --> ??? Well all that to say I think the "and especially mopeds" is a little pushy. We could simply put mopeds... I would have thought especially would have gone on motorcycles more. (Anyway, I'm not sure if it has been mentioned already, I'll read through the article to make sure and at the same I'll try and find a place if it ain't there. Then, back here for sugesting.) Finally I though a 3rd opinion would have been nice to see if anyone thinks the article is POV. --CyclePat 16:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So your POV is different from the others editing the article - that's not a "POV issue". A "POV issue" is where the subject is not stated in neutral terms ("X is the best thing since sliced bread"), or possibly where the subject of the article is inherently subjective (e.g. "ten best films of all time"). The article already discusses local jurisdictional differences tidily, I'd say. It defines motorized bicycles clearly and unambiguously, while at the same time acknowledging that the boundaries between a motorised bike and a moped are blurred. I still can't see why you have such a problem with that! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Culture

I remember a while ago, I think it was woohookity that asked,... laws or cultures in other countries. well, here is link to transport culture in china. http://chinaunique.com/business/transit.htm --CyclePat 04:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Triumph information links

here is a link for triumph... I know I had put some info on the wiki somewhere at one point but it has disapeared http://www.wilsonmar.com/1history.htm Here is a list of other manufacuters: http://www.uk-dir.co.uk/Business/ConsumerGoodsandServices/SportingGoods/Cycling/Electric/

Wrong article, I think: these should probably be in the timeline, if refactored as proposed, or motorcycle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I have trimmed the categories down to the following: Transportation, Road transport, Vehicles, Electric vehicles, Cycle types, Cycling, Alternative propulsion. I could easily be persuaded to re-insert Hybrid vehicles, but all the othger members of that category are cars, so we might want to think about that for a bit first.

I am a big fan of categories, they are self-maintaining and (to me) intuitive. I can't, however, see much point in having a separate category for motorized bicycle which contains three articles and one user page, with the articles being this, the timeline and moped (which is not, by common consent, a motorized bicycle). For what it's worth I don't see much value in the moped category either. Once we have a significant number of individual articles on individual motorised bicycles that view will of course change.

I could, on the other hand, very easily be persuaded of the merit of a category for light motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds and motorised bicycles, if I could think of a name for it. There are surely enough to make a useful group. I seem to recall somebody making a passing mention of a Canadian company who motorised a delivery bike at some point - that's exactly the kind of article which could be added to such a category. If only I could remember who it was... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

OOuh! Ouuh! Ouh! hey! OUh! OUh! Pick me!! I think the category for hybrid should remain since it is part of the definition of our vehicle. --Pat 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not averse, but if you look at the category page it does stick out like a sore thumb. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Here comes another analogy: When I went to high school, with my nerdy hair, big ears, and weird manerism I stuck out like a sore thumb. They still kept me categorized as a "student" there. (People might have been mean, wanting to bash my anoying fucking little head in, but I'm pretty sure I was a student there!) [[category:garneau]]? --Pat 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I put some of the discussed categories back in. --Pat 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest removing the motorized bicycle category - at present it includes the two articles and your user page, and there are simply not enough articles on individual motorized bicycles to make it menaingful at present. Most articles have fewer categories, although I am a fan of categories this article does seem a bit excessive at present.. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess I could remove my user page. But you seem to have a lot of opinion based on precendences (that's actually good if we have some example, source, analogy) that might not be appropriate or similar for this subject. We are talking about categorizing a type of vehicle. (Similarly, water can be cattegorized in: liquides, chemicals, lakes, rivers, oceans...) I don't know if this is the best example or the best thing to do but this is only logical. Though motorized bicycle is not technically a tricycle, it is a type of motorized cycle. It could be in this category. (perhaps this category doesn't have room for much expansion in your mind, however it might create a list of all the articles that are related to motorized bicycles... all the different vehicles that exist, different manufactures, etc..., CMM should be in there!!) --Pat 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
A category for motorized bicycles will be warranted as and when there are enough articles on individual bikes and manufacturers to need collecting. Right now there are very few, and some of them also make unpowered bikes, so I'd leave them in Category:Cycle manufacturers. At this point in time I would suggest that you should be devoting your energy to fleshing out the history of development of motorised bicycles in the history section of motorized bicycle, because that is what needs doing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reliance on legal definitions - why?

In comments in the article and on the talk page I see an awful lot of reference to legal definitions. Why? I could understand a mention of these confusing and inconsistent definitions, but there seems to be a lot of unjustified reliance on this. Like something is a "motorized bicycle" if and only if the law in some jurisdiction (which one?) says so? Mopeds are "motorized bicycles" because the law says so and therefore the articles should be merged? Seems like weak reasoning to me.... --Serge 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to tone it down. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

MBIC (Motorized bicycle improvement campaign)

Join MBIC

Have you been wondering... Where? When? What do we do next? Well, perhaps it's time we started the MBIC category (a group of wikipedian that like editing the motorized bicycle and related articles) (anyone want to start the category:MBIC)? Anyway... I think we need some directions in what to add. That is, what should we concentrate on next? We could go through a voting system where everyone puts their sugestions down. Then we concentrate on that?

  • I've recently been reading up on motorcycle war History (mostly canadian documentation of WWI and WWII and the significant impact on the development of motorcycles.) I'm working on adding a quick blurb on that. To make things fair however, I am ready to change my current field of specialization. That's if anyone has any propositions. --Pat 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It would however make sense if anyone from wants to study other countries use of motorized bicycles? --Pat 22:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pat, if you devoted half as much effort to the content of the articles as you do to talking about them they would probably be much better. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried that once with woohookity. Every action has it's reaction. Every reaction it's counter reaction. It's better to know what this reaction will be. It good to know about what policy, rules, regulations... when you know what they are you can respect them, but you also know when it is necessary to break them or if anyone has done. --Pat 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:AMCEB

This article is being considered for the category. WP:AMCEB (a better article then encyclopedia britanica) --Pat 16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What part of only include featured articles did you have trouble understanding? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Moved from the WP:AMCEB (perhaps in a couple more weeks?):
*motorized bicycle
  • I could not find any article specific to "electric bicycle", "power-assisted bicycle", or the article it self "motorized bicycle" (the online version of britannica does however have an article on motorcyles and talks about motorized bicycles and tricycles (with an internal combustion engine). [1]
  • the wikipedia article take into consideration other engines.
  • Encyclopedia Britannica seems to have grouped motorized bicycle, Moped, etc., into the motorcycle article. (probably because of the close resemblances and the fact that a lot of motorized tricycles and motorized bicycle where pioneer devices for automobiles and motorcyles. (seeing as I am not a member and I don't intend on being one unless I receive an honorary encyclopedia membership, I obviously can't read the entire article and give it my 100% fair judgement. But it does appear that they have grouped "The moped", "a light, low-speed motor bicycle that can also be pedaled" with the motorcycle category.
    Wikipedia article takes into strong consideration the POV of various jurisdictions, developes on the newer electric bicycle technology, tries to keep the article motorized bicycle on those machines with "pedals" (possibly the early history of motorcycles). It does not go into detail on the general overview of "motorcycles"(a broader term which is discuss in another article within wikipedia) --Pat 17:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not a featured article. opps. --Pat 17:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
sorry about that --Pat 19:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}

Pat, what precisely do you think needs fixing? I don't say the article is perfect but it is a long way off needing the attention of the Cleanup Squad, who already have more than enough to do. We have an active commuity of editors, so best to start by listing things on this page. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to add new information to this article without making it look like a sore thumb. I added the picture of the CCM light motorized bicycle. This has it's place in this article. --CylePat 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


A summary of my recent edits can be found here! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motorized_bicycle&diff=31882101&oldid=30817186 --CylePat 20:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Pat, you make it incredibly hard to assume good faith. When a particular bike has been repeatedly and by consensus excised as irrelevant to the global history of the motorized bicycle, adding a picture is not a sign of respect for consensus. I do not trust myself to be civil so I will stop there. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

1st POV (THE CCM Pixie bicycle motor) that was recently removed

You make it increasingly difficult to make this article a non-biased article. According to Wikipedia:Describing points of view, it is stated that:

any article can be "unbalanced" due to the fact that contributors have more knowledge of, or are more interested in, particular aspects of a subject than in other aspects. For example, suppose there is an article about highways that is mostly about the US. A German who encounters this should not complain about Americocentrism, but alter the article to approach the subject from a wider perspective: what can be said about highways in general, that applies worldwide? Begin the article with this, and then discuss the specific variations in different countries.'

according to WP:NPOVUW "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views." I believe, my view point to include the CCM bicycle as a Internal combustion motorized bicycle is a viewpoint that is held by a significant minority. It has some prominent adherents such as the Canada Technology and Science Museum; I have added the POV-Section. --CylePat 00:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, as per WP:NPOV#Bias, "If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral."

For the picture. Image:CCM_Light_delivery_motorized_bike.jpg This information is verifiable. The statements that where added in regards to the picture where not biases. (opps! no statements where added) However the probable 73 years of difference between the first picture and the CCM ligh delivery motorized bicycle, I believe warant this picture for inclusion. I will add the picture back into the article.

"When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct."

Seemingly this article asserts on many occasions that vehicle "X" is in fact a motorized bicycle yet doesn't not make room for other vehicles "Z" and "Y". We fail to assert fact about competing opinions (For example: the specific vehicle such as the CCM bicycle (though it is a motorized bicycle, "you" and others remove this fact from the article.) (Though the article does however mention the competing view of motorized bicycle in general with motorcycles, maintaining some of our non-POV policy, some section are, arguably POV because some editors remove important information.) --CylePat 01:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pat, HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? What is at issue is not the existence of this bike but its significance. If you think your relentless pushing of this obviously insignificant machine is anything other than POV then this discussion is a lost cause. You have inserted it here, it's been removed by consensus. You created a POV fork to include it, it was removed from there by consensus. You've then suggested cvreating another POV for in order to include it. What this article needs is more pictures of demonstrably significant motorized bikes, like copyright-free images of the Giant, VeloSoleX and Powabyke models.
I have replaced it with a picture of a VeloSoleX, which is mentioned explicitly in the article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Then it is said. We have discussed the issue. We have attempted to resolve it. I think it is time we move on to rfc-user. --CylePat 11:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
You do that. The POV tag is unjustifiable (there is not dispute re the content of the section). The caption you added is false: the CCM was not an example of an early motorized bike, it is post-war and not in any way distinguished. Fopr the record I don't think the Dahon is a good image either, I'd prefer to see it replaced by a better and more representative picture.
Incidentally, the reason we keep having these disputes is that your approach appears to be to add content, however contentious you know it to be, and then argue POV with anybody who removes it, however much precedent there may be. Have you ever considered talking first and adding content once consensus is reached? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pat, please stop re-inserting the CCM picture. Now you've created another POV fork to put it in (in addition to the CCM article) it has absolutely no place at all in this article, rather than (as previously) merely no place at all in this article. The other bikes pictured are all significant models discussed in the text. By common consent the CCM bike is not a significant model and is not discussed in the text. You will note that the Dahon is also out. There are five good quality images on this page, illustrating the context well, and a section below discussing what, if any, additional pictures will help. Note that "nice pictures of bikes with no demonstrable significance" is conspiucuously absent from that list. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pat, I'll say again: please stop adding the CCM bike to this article. It's been removed from the text by consensus, it's been removed from the timeline by consensus. You've already created (yet another) fork for this picture, all the other bikes pictured are mentioned explicitly in the text as having some significance in the development of the motorized bicycle. You say "re-addition of CCM photo. Explanation for removal is unjustified." - no, it's just not in line with your inexplicable obsession with this machine, which nobody but you seems to think has any significance or relevance to this article. The CCM bike is out by consensus, and re-inserting it without proper discussion looks like making a point. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because someone says it's out by concensus doesn't mean it is. Please substantiate your "hear say." Your alleged democratic concensus appears to be far from that. user:Cyclepat --131.137.245.198 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No please stop deleting this picture. It is obviously a motorized bicycle and has it's place within this article. Yes, this vehicle is part of the CCM (bicycle manufacturer) history. However the Toyota Prius is also part of the Toyota. Inclusion into both articles is possible... (as per the example of bicycle and bicycle history) --131.137.245.198 15:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless someone can prove that the CCM bike in question was significant in the development of the motorized bicycle, it shouldn't be included. That's really the end of that. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Every single person with whom you have discussed this issue comes to precisely the same conclusion: that the CCM Light Delivery is not significant to the global development of the motorized bicycle. Even you admitted it on the talk page of the timeline article! The discussions of this article and the timeline both find you as a lone voice for inclusion. The Toyota Prius (like the Honda Insight) is globally significant as one of the first mass-manufactured hybrid vehicles in the world, made by one of the world's largest car makers. The CCM bike is not ground-breaking, not made by a major global manufacturer, has no demonstrable wider influence, and in several other ways fails to rise above the crowd. You have already got two articles which include it, why is that not enough for you? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

2nd NPOV section.

Changes that have occured at line 18, box 2, (in yellow) (made by user:Just zis Guy, you know?) make me believe this article is possible POV. (the History section of the article [motorized bicycle]) currently states: "Electric bicycles are gaining acceptance, especially in Europe and Asia, in response to increasing traffic congestion, an aging population and concern about the environment." The recent changes that you, "Just zis Guy, you know?", removed creates an unfair representation of the social exceptance of this bicycle. Inclusion of the comment (here below) (which was removed) eliminates this POV becaus it covers other jurisdictions. "They are however in some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, or New York, being restricted by laws and regulations." Again, removal of this statement make that section a possible POV. I have added that to the article. --CylePat 01:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition of text "They are however in some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, or New York, being restricted by laws and regulations." to a section from which regulation has been removed, adding it to a proper section on regulation below, is possible POV by the person who has a vested interest in the legal position of motorized bicycles (which I do not). The legal position is covered in the legal section, and in a separate article on motorized bicycle laws. For some reason twice is not enough for one editor, the rest of us appear to feel it is quite sufficient. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Images wanted

OK, at present we have: a VeloSolex and a Derny, an example of the Whizzer (which I believe is the most common aftermarket IC ocnversion, but I could be wrong; does anyone have stats for this v. the various Bike Bug conversions?), and two mass-manufatured electric bikes one hub motor powered and one driving through the pedal drivetrain.

This leaves us needing, IMO, at least one more picture, an image of a very early (ca. 1900) motorised bike, of the experimental variety. I can get a picture eventually by visiting Sammy Miller's Motorcycle Museum, but in the mean time if anyone can find a decent picture of a really early experiment that would be a great addition.

Also, an aftermarket electric conversion (e.g. the hub motor conversion for a Trice) would round the article out. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

New image

Can anyone help put this image de:Bild:Pedelec mit radnabenmotor modell wildwind.JPG in the gallery. --CylePat 04:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

see also...

I will be making some changed to the motorized bicycle#see also section. I will be bassing this on the example found at telephone#See also. --CylePat 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Why change it? It only has 4 items, and those 4 items are sufficient right now. Why not devote your energy to creating articles on the Singer motor wheel, Tanaka Bike Bug and other important topics which are as yet not covered, rather than fiddling with what is already a pretty good article? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Paradoxilly, it's not really change. It's more of an evolution! --CylePat 02:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
So you say. I looked at the telephone article, it has several tens of links in the "see also" section. This has four. I suggest that the change you propose is a waste of effort which would be better spent adding genuine content as per above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes 31 December 2005

I have done some further work after CyclePat's edits; for example, going off at a tangent on steam tricycles seems to me pointless when we could just link to the articles on tricycle and steam tricycle. Less is more. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


I was just going to ask about that. You have done some good edits in summarizing my sentences. You removed though the entire section about the tricycle. What was written is:
  • Converting tricycles is not new to our history. The history of motorized tricyles may be closely related to that of the motorized bicycle. This is based on the etymological and mechanical resemblances between a bicycle and a tricycle; the major difference being the number of wheels. No matter the case, looking into the history of the steam tricycle, a type of motorized tricycle, should explain the early days of motorised vehicle development and seemingly that of the motorized bicycle.
I believe the section that was removed from is the history of motorized bicycles. I do agree that we could mention less. It's just that we talk about tricycles and leave it pretty much in the open. How about:
  • The early endeavors of motorized vehicle development and more precisely the motorized bicycle development maybe linked to the history of the motorized tricycle, (see steam tricycle).
  •  :* The early endeavors of motorized tricycles, such as the steam tricycle, can be linked to developmental history of motorized bicycles.
This is en encyclopedia, hence the cyclic phenomenon.
As for the removal of the endnote: I don't believe that would be considered WP:SPAMHOLE --CylePat 23:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
removed the para on tricyccles because conversion is already stated as non-specific, early trike power adaptations involved engines much too big to work on bikes (hence not appropriate here), there is already quite enough on trikes as a mobility aid, the rest is covered in the linked article. We don't need to cover the same content in every single article on any form of cycle. Stay focused., I'd say, and use Wikilinks to expand rather than digressing wihtin this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC).
But what if that tricycle is part of the historic development? hence, the simple inclusion of: "The early endeavors of motorized tricycles, such as the steam tricycle, can be linked to developmental history of motorized bicycles." would be appropriate, no?--CylePat 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Not that I care very much, but motorised bikes are a subset of motirsed vehicles, and the early motorised trikes were more accurately precursors to cars rather than motorised bicycles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand that it is possible for a motorized bicycle to be considered a motiresed vehicle. But, according to many juridiction, an electric bicycle, which is a type of motorized bicycle, is not considered a motor vehicle and is a type of bicycle. --CylePat 16:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring

As per Talk:Mother Teresa/FAQ and Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages I sugest we concentrat our efforts on refactoring the talk pages.--CylePat 01:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As per my previous comments, I suggest we concentrate our efforts on creating articles for the redlinks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Motor-driven cycle

according to Utah Code http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2002/bills/hbillamd/hb0171.pdf (line 108) a motor-driven cycle:

"Motor-driven cycle" means every motorcycle and motor scooter, moped, electric assisted bicycle, motor assisted scooter, and every motorized bicycle having an engine with less than 150 cubic centimeters displacement or having a motor which produces not more than five horsepower.

Perhaps this definition would be more appropriate for our article's main title? --CylePat 03:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Triumph Image: The question of removal of this picture from the article?

This information is being proposed for inclusion as RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology#Technology and engineering:

This information is listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues 03:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Triumph old.jpg|650px|centre|Early Triumph motorcycle or motorized bicycle (motor mounted in frame, drive via chain to rear wheel)]]

  • According to user:Just zis Guy, you know?" Triumph is definitely a motorcycle (I have seen the original, it has not even residual pedals)).
  • However according to user:CyclePat it is obvious that pedals are present (simply looking at the above picture one can see the pedals attached to the drive chain) on this machine. CyclePat asks that the subject be kept centralized on the image. (An unrelated different model Triumph may have been observed by user:Just zis Guy, you know?.) 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)~
  • Refactoring of comment bellow:  :*user:Just zis Guy, you know? admits he may have seen a slighly different model. He asks if there is a Point to the inclusion of the image in relation to the article. He then asks wheter it is a moped or a motorized bicycle. According to:user:Just zis Guy, you know? this machine "is clearly not designed to be able to be powered by pedals alone." (for those of you joining in the conversation: "That would sugest it's a Moped"). He mentions there has been 4 to 5 past RFC (which where regarding "moped" merger into the "motorized bicycle" article)
this is a refactored comment from User:Just zis Guy, you know? 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 19:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It could well be that I saw a slightly different model. However: what point in the article does this illustrate which is not already illustrated? Maybe it is a good one to go higher up in History after the Millet model, maybe not. If the pedals are funtional (and the one I saw there was one, used for starting only; this does seem to have two, but looks odd because of the angle the fornt one is at), is it a motorized bicycle or is it better in moped, since it is clearly not designed to be able to be powered by pedals alone). And why are we still faffing around with tiny details of this article when there are redlinks for important related topics? I'm working on other articles at the moment, having obtained some authorities on Robert Hooke, de Havilland and Handley Page. Incidentally, making the RfC comment small was not appreciated. Two of the three RfCs on that section were also relating to this subject, but the questions have both been settled by consensus so I removed them. I think there have now been four or five RfCs on this subject, which is ludicrous for something so trivial. Each seems to have been related to changes you made or wanted to make. I think you should try looking at some other subjects! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A class action lawsuit?

I own some electric bicycles. One is registered, plated and insure here in Ontario. I am part of an association called EVCO. Many don't go through all this hasle. I also know one person from Guelph, the case of McShine Joseph, who is being charged for riding his electric bicycle in Ontario. specifically sections 7(1), 32, and 104. My ministerial correspondance with the M.T.O. says, though it is possible to register, etc... they highly recommend we do not register this type of vehicle (defined as a Power assisted bicycle in the Motor vehicle safety regulations. I have done much research for the last 2 years and have many letter that sugest this ain't a vehicle. Mr. Joseph wants me to be his agent. I believe the only way I can get him out of this situation is if the judge doesn't consider this a type of motor vehicle. (some case laws that I have researched, recyprocical agreement, etc.) However, if the prosecution sucessfully charges for Mr. Joseph I find that the M.T.O should be held accountable. Any comments? --CylePat 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat, I don't mean to be a party pooper, but Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum for issues. Talk pages should be used to discuss changes to articles, and only that. (Sorry!) · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 04:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What to include in the article

understandable. Sorry. Let me rephrase the question. Should the dismisal of the case of McShine Joseph and my ministerial correspondances be included within the article. (all of which are in regards to electric bicycles.) --CylePat 19:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow... still no comments. You guys are eager to delete such information but barelly comment upon before hand. Is there a problem? --CyclePat 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think that's appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 04:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
what is not appropriate... the afformentioned comment (witch is a stereotypic comment from my previous experience with you guys that of witch I failed to demonstrate on whitch arguably may or may not belong here because it has to do with editing the content of the article) or the information that I want to include? --CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 12:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The information. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Any discussion of legal details pertaining to individual jurisdictions in any case clearly belongs in Electric bicycle laws. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Pat, you asked if there's a problem. Yes, and you are it. You have an agenda which is clearly at odds with most if not all other editors of this and the related pages. Your latest fork at pedelec is just one more example - you undoubtedly know enough about Wikipedia by now to know that the right way to merge that content was to translate it offline and add what is not already here, to this article. If you need WP editing tools you do it in your user space. That is also the way to achieve your ultimate aim of a separate article for electirc bicycles, since policy states that one time a fork is acceptable is where an article grows too big. But actually what's needed is someone whoi knows about electric bikes (this means you) to start filling in the redlinks tothinkgs like battery storage density, or finding an article where it is discussed in significant detail, since that is missing content, whereas definition of pedelec is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Merger timeline of motorized bicycle history with motorized bicycle

You would think someone would start the discusion about that merger?--CyclePat 01:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For the time being I'd be in favour of that. I'm worried that the timeline may become too large and clutter up the page, but I don't see that as being an immediate danger. And should that happen it could always be shifted back onto its own page. --K-111

new info

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=power%20bicycle

JzG Moped vs Motorized bicycle? (again!)

JzG, You indicated a vote against the merger of this article with moped. One of your reasons being was because the two strands of development are entirely separate. (devils advocat) Do you have any proof of this? What are the major diference between these two strands of development? And if so, could this not be inferable for the use with the "entirelly" different strand of development between electric pedelecs (or electric motor assisted bicycles) vs fossil fuel IC motor assisted bicycles? --CyclePat 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat, I was not the only one who resisted that merge: the editors on moped didn't think much of it either. Why not devote your energy into filling in the redlinks instead of endlessly rehashing past arguments? You are personalising this beyond all sense. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)