# Talk:Imme R100

I would like to start an "External links" section with links to two videos of Imme R100 motorcycles I have found on YouTube.  For the purposes of this discussion, and in the hope that I am not violating policy by posting the links here, the links in question are: IMME R100 seen running at WEST KENT SHOW on YouTube and IMME R 100 Originalzustand unrestauriert läuft on YouTube
I have read WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNO and I have the following conclusions and concerns:

The videos are almost certainly home videos and do not appear to be copied from movies, television, or commercially released videos or DVDs.  The risk of them having been uploaded to YouTube in violation of copyright seems quite low.  Is this good enough, or is there anything further I would need to check?
Items 2-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 of "Links normally to be avoided" do not seem to apply in this instance.  Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
Item 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."  The two videos in question show running Imme R100 motorcycles (one running stationary on its main stand, the other being ridden) at various angles, focusing on various parts of the motorcycle. (There is another video of a running Imme R100 that does not meet this criterion, as it has a fixed angle and a fixed width; as such, it is little more descriptive than a photograph, and photos are already in the article.)
Item 7: "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country." I am fairly certain, although not absolutely certain, that YouTube is accessible globally.
Item 8: "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details." I think Flash is required to watch YouTube videos.  Would Template:YouTube give "an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content" as required in the "Rich media" subsection?
Item 10: "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists."  Is this applicable to YouTube?
Item 13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked." Based on the content of the videos, as described in my argument for Item 1, the videos are directly related to the topic.
Item 15: "Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates."  I have no idea whether this applies or not.  Please advise me of any sourcing tools that might find equivalent content.
Item 17: "Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information."  I am not clear on what this means, so I do not know if it is applicable to YouTube videos.  Please advise.
Item 20: "External links as sole entries in stand-alone lists and embedded lists." I don't think this applies, but I'm not sure, so I added it here.
Please advise me as to whether these links would be acceptable as content in an "External links" section.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The first video is excellent. The second one I'm ambivalent about. However I think your summary of both is right on the money in terms of their applicability to the article. And yes I think using the {{youtube}} template is the right way to go. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall add the first one right away. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the Article importance grading scheme guidelines, "Low" means "subject is notable in their main discipline" ,while "Mid" means "important in their discipline".
What is the discipline of the Imme R100?  Motorcycles?  Motorcycle technology?  While I am fairly certain that it is notable in both of these, I do not know whether it is really important in either.
I am therefore unable to assess this article for importance (and I probably shouldn't even if I could, since I might be biased).  Could someone please assess the importance of this article to WikiProject Motorcycling?
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The only source I ever found for the compression ratio of the Imme R100's engine was an advertisement on a German website: http://www.dhd24.com/archiv/2010/36/84478/1/Oldtimer/8514/Oldtimer-Weitere-Marken/72896790/Imme-Export-Riedel-Motor-AG.html .  Advertisements are not reliable sources, as the Good Article assessor pointed out, so I removed the citation and the info it supported from the article.
I have not as yet been able to find another source, reliable or otherwise, for the Imme's compression ratio.  Does anyone know of an acceptable source for this data?
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)