Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 2

message: pertaining the the new changes (motorized bicycle)
EVCO can be found at [www.evco.ca]
Hello EVCO members,
I need your help on this one.  I'm currently working on the Wikipedia (an encyclopedia that everyone can go in and edit).  My problem is that there are some possible miss-understanding and debates that are happening which seemingly requires more than one "expert" opinion on the subject.  The article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_bicycle  
It would be nice of some of you could join in on the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Motorized_bicycle
We have put down a lot of information but it just seems like things are getting, how do you say, "in hot water!"  or something like that!
Essential a few people have decided that "electric bicycles" should be categorized as "motorized bicycles."  They went and removed the article titled "electric bicycle" and changed it to "motorized bicycle"  The problem is that "motorized bicycles" include a wide range of different sub-class bicycles...  ie.: our electric bicycle that many EVCO members enjoys using.  Well that's not really the problem the problem is WE/THEY/"Some People" have simply placed the term "motorized bicycles"  in place of "electric bicycles."  I see a misleading web page, that is based on add hock terminology that might not be appropriate. 
Patrick --CyclePat 17:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, feel free to create a subsection on electric bicycles. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  letter to EVCO members 

message: here are some of the basic facts: (here are the basic facts/ the premises)
#Some PABs may be registered as a moped in Ontario (See the H.T.A. and my personal experience)
#All PABs should be registered as a moped in Ontario (See the H.T.A.)
#Some/(most) PABs may not be registered as a moped in Ontario (some peoples personal experience
#Registered mopeds in Ontario may be operated on road
#PABs in Ontario may not be operated on road
Induction:
*If Some PABs may be registered as a moped in Ontario
*And Registered Mopeds in Ontario may be operated on road (in Ontario)
*ThenSome PABs may be operated on road (in Ontario)
However you may also be perfectly correct in thinking:
*If PABs in Ontario may not be operated on road
*But Registered mopeds in Ontario may be operated on road
*PABs may not be registered mopeds
(humm...  I think there's a few things wrong with that 1) the first premise is totally contradicts my first induction 2) I think I have a falicy?  but we'll go along with it)
Hummm...
*Some PABs may be registered as a moped in Ontario
*PABs may not be registered as a moped in Ontario
*???Some PABs are not PABs???  (hummm... I think I'm getting deeper into some falicy here!)
*Some PABs are not PABs
*Some PABs may be registered as a moped in Ontario
*Then "not PABs" may be registered as a moped in Ontario
(That's the closest I could get to your reasoning... humm... I give up!)  
(Can you explain your side of the story to me!)
oh wait!:
#Some PABs in Ontario may be operated on road
#Some PABs in Ontario may not be operated on road
(that is where we contradict! And I don't think we can do anything about that)--CyclePat 16:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spychological break down of the subject

message: I propose we merge moped with motorized bicycle.  See the discusion on moped --CyclePat 22:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on this... as you said before for bicycles there is a different section for mountain, recumbent, hybrid, bikes.  I think some people have rushed the idea of merging articles.  Currently though we are working with "motorized bicycles," we... went into a totally new category a few days ago.  (b.t.w.  if you look on ebay you see some really cool motorized bikes gas bikes)(I personally prefer the clean, environmental electric bike/bicycles) I though it would be nice to see what people would say after adding all the different types of motorized bicycles.  What do you think about the rocket engine bicycle?  I like!  ;)  LOL!  (b.t.w.  I'm just starting to learn how to take things light hearted around here, so can you be gentle if you're mad (humm!  maybe I should preach what I say))   --  CyclePat 03:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, suggest we merge, "motorized bicycle" with "automobile."  Automobile is a broader term that describes a vehicle in general....  OH!  Better yet... let's merge it with vehicle.  because that's even broader. (*sarcastically)  LOL!!  :)  Seriously, this is nonsense --CyclePat 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sugestion: Return the "electric bicycle" page and add a (disambiguation) to eliminate confusion. --CyclePat 04:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, since you think that others have been needlessly merging different forms of motorized/electric bike articles together, I'm sure you don't really think merging moped with electric bike/motorized bike/cyclemotor/autocycle would be a wise decision.  I think there really is a fine distinction at times, (Is a Velosolex a moped or a bike with a helper motor?) but, overwhelmingly, I think there's usually a logical distinction (if not legal distinction) that can be drawn.  --Charleschuck 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CyclePat, don't set up a strawman just so you can knock it down.  Merging all the "electric-assisted/electric/etc" articles into motorized bicycle was a perfectly fine decision.  Suggesting then that we should merge moped and automobile together as well and then using peoples' (obvious) negative reactions to suggest once again breaking electric bicycle out into its own article is specious. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You misundersdtand, I think.  This page is about motorised bicycles (i.e. bicycles with a motor attached, be it electric, IC or whatever).  The VeloSoleX is a grey area, the Honda P50 is mentioned solely as the last production in-wheel IC engine (and i can live without that, actually, once the timline is expanded as per current emerging consensus).  This article is about motorised bikes, which are generally treated differently from mopeds. I don't think there is any significant support for the merge proposal. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second merger sugestion 

message: We do not use the top level heading (= Heading =) on Wikipedia. I'm not saying this again. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For the third time...

message: I didn't see a consensus formed on merging moped into this article. I am trying to give CyclePat alot of leeway, but it's obvious to me what's going on here. This whole thing started because I made this article into a redirect to moped and that upset CyclePat. So why on earth would he now be wanting us to combine this article with moped? I think what's happened is that the other people working on this article made CyclePat very angry. Instead of discussing it, he's making rash changes to the page. It needs to stop. I don't see consensus on combining this with moped. And now this article is getting downright ugly (again) with formatting we don't use, sections that just consist of links, etc, etc. CyclePat, if you are angry with us, fine, but then talk to us about it instead of making this article into some odd mixture. Mopeds do *not* belong here. They are a completely different animal. You've said so yourself. If you don't think we should combine some of these forms of motorized bicycle into one article, fine, but discuss it with us instead of making these wholesale changes. One could argue that you are sabotaging the article. I'm hoping that's not the case, but you aren't doing yourself any favors with your actions the last couple of days. 
Meanwhile, I'm going to fix the formatting...again. Empty sections are eyesores. If they have to be here, then they need to be at the *end* of the article, not the beginning. We're not going to attract people into reading this article if they see empty sections to start it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat, give me an hour to fix the formatting ok? I am very close to asking for protection on this article. You are making changes without any kind of consensus. This is Wikipedia's article, not yours personally. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article that we are working on is motorised bicycles.  (it used to be electric bicycle) We need to concentrate on the various types of motorized bicycles that exist.  You are removing and deleting the various stubs I have added to the article.  I think you are acting quite harsh and you should concentrate on improving the article not deleting. --CyclePat 18:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I will remove the merger notice from moped.  --Charleschuck 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, my opinions where expressed when the article used to be "electric bicycle" now we are in a new category that we came upon consensus "motorised bicylce".  We need to work on this and add all the relevant types of motorized bicycles.  (or at least a link to it...   Perhaps we should do the same for all the sub-classes of "motorized bicycle"... (ie.: what is currently happening to moped.) If so, then perhaps we should do the same with "electric bicycle."  Hence returning to what it used to be.  (But retaining this page as a main category!)  --CyclePat 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um Cycle Pat? Look at what I removed. I removed the section on mopeds since there was no consensus that we should merge mopeds into this article. Look at . I reordered the sections. I did not remove any of the stub sections you had created. Not one. I put the empty sections at the bottom, which is what we usually do on here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wish you had told us about the fact that you didn't want these all merged into one at the beginning. Because obviously, you didn't want the merging, since apparently your goal is to recreate the electric bicycle article somewhere. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trouble to express my opinions on something that seems to make sense, however might not be something I wish to be totally involved with. And it's also hard to so once the changes have already been done.  (Which is kinda what happened... well overnight!)  Anyway, I looked at your changes.  (thank you!... humm... I know that those = main titles aren't normally used but yah... anyway, sorry)  Yup!  I think your right, I didn't want the merger, but again it is at least a logical merger.  And finally, well... dunno... Happy Halloween!--CyclePat 19:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The revert I just did

message: Are flywheel, nuclear rocket, Jet Propulsion and hydrogen run bikes real or hypothetical? I see no links on google to real bikes with those names. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I added some links on the wiki. (I hope they are still there) I believe they are real.  They are at least hypothetically possible.  (Symantics on the name might be argued (ie. internal combustion automobile vs a car)  but I believe it has its place in this article.  --CyclePat 19:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I didn't remove anything except for the section on mopeds. I put the links at the bottom of the article under external links. Please look at some other articles and how they are formatted. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!  Nice defussal of the argument and good edit.  Thank you.  --CyclePat 19:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I've rearranged the sections a bit.  I hope it's a little more coherent (and a little less messy-looking) now... No information was removed, just moved.  --Alynna 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This section "laws by jurisdiction" is pertaining only to electric bicylces.  That is why I put it back under electric bicycles. --CyclePat 22:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: b.t.w. I believe that this, getting confused with what goes where?  (ie. "laws by jurisdiction" under electric bicycles vs "motorized bicyles") is a flagrant example of what is happening because of the merger.  Again we need to seperate the articles.  And have a disambiguation page to clarify any other terms that confuses people .--CyclePat 20:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that the articles should be merged or not? Yes or no. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for the delay.  With my present knowlege of mostly canadian law, I think the article should not be merged.--CyclePat 16:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't see why we can't solve this with subcategories. There is absolutely no reason to have separate articles for power assisted cycles, power assisted bicycles, electric bicycles, etc etc. They're all variations on a theme. If the "laws by jurisdiction" sections are too unwieldy, well, then maybe they don't need to be included. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think there's a valid point in here somewhere - but it's not that merging articles makes us confused about where the component parts came from and thus go.  Yes, there are laws that only pertain to electric bicycles.  But undoubtedly there are also laws that pertain to a wider subset of motorized bicycles.  Things like that would make sense to include in this article.  On the other hand, there does seem to be enough information specific to electric bicycles that I would not oppose having a seperate electric bicycle article (while keeping this article and doing one of those "main article: electric bicycle" things). --Alynna 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rearranged 

message: Is this section about laws pertaining to electric bicycles only, or about all laws pertaining to motorized bicycles?  The answer to that question affects where it should be placed (I was under the impression it was the latter, which was why i moved it.). --Alynna 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This section "laws by jurisdiction" is pertaining only to electric bicylces.  That is why I put it back under electric bicycles. --CyclePat 22:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: b.t.w. I believe that this, getting confused with what goes where?  (ie. "laws by jurisdiction" under electric bicycles vs "motorized bicyles") is a flagrant example of what is happening because of the merger.  Again we need to seperate the articles.  And have a disambiguation page to clarify any other terms that confuses people .--CyclePat 20:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that the articles should be merged or not? Yes or no. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for the delay.  With my present knowlege of mostly canadian law, I think the article should not be merged.--CyclePat 16:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't see why we can't solve this with subcategories. There is absolutely no reason to have separate articles for power assisted cycles, power assisted bicycles, electric bicycles, etc etc. They're all variations on a theme. If the "laws by jurisdiction" sections are too unwieldy, well, then maybe they don't need to be included. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think there's a valid point in here somewhere - but it's not that merging articles makes us confused about where the component parts came from and thus go.  Yes, there are laws that only pertain to electric bicycles.  But undoubtedly there are also laws that pertain to a wider subset of motorized bicycles.  Things like that would make sense to include in this article.  On the other hand, there does seem to be enough information specific to electric bicycles that I would not oppose having a seperate electric bicycle article (while keeping this article and doing one of those "main article: electric bicycle" things). --Alynna 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  laws by jurisdiction 

message: I propose:  Several conversations could be classed under one main category.  Ex.: Ontario, Ontario moped registration, etc... all seem to have the same idea.  Plus it will make things easier to find and read.!  --CyclePat 20:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  We could also archive old business, but I don't know how to do archiving... --Alynna 20:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We don't do redos of the discussion pages. I will archive some of it, but again, we do not "organize" the discussion pages. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we don't really move peoples' comments, because it tends to alter the flow in which they were made.  Archiving we can do though. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived a bit. Link is at the top for those who aren't used to archiving talk pages. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Discussion page! 

message: I've rearranged and reworded the section; I hope it's clearer now.  I think it's still consistent with what it was saying, but if I've accidentally introduced error, I apologise and ask for your patience in correcting it.  --Alynna 18:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you've begun the section of conflict of laws "federal" vs "ontario."  The last sentence states "They are not permitted..."?  What do you mean they are not permited?  Not permited... to do what?  not permited... to be what?  Not permited... where? (you know the standards 5W's questions!)--CyclePat 21:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sentence was an attempt to capture the conflict that had previously been expressed in "PABs (as described here) cannot legally be operated on the road in Ontario because they fail to meet safety standards. (even though they meet federal standards for Power Assisted Bicycles)".  My point was the contrast in safety standards, not the permissions.  I see your point, though.  I guess it's irrelavent now, anyway, since ipguy has decided that sentence is inappropriate altogether. --Alynna 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontario 

message: Is there any way we can trim the links a tad or at least have all of them at the bottom of the article? I counted 30 links overall and that's overdoing it a bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of adding the page to the cleanup page, since this article seems to be getting uglier by the day. More eyes needed, I think. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, because I've wondered about this on several articles, but what would be the appropriate way to handle external links that (a) relate closely to one section of the article and don't much relate to the rest of the article, or (b) are mainly resources for editors expanding the article rather than further reading for the user? --Alynna 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: There is nothing wrong with this subject having its own article; however, the entire article is so bogged down with links and is more focused on Canadian law than on motorized bicycles themselves. Please serve Wikipedia readers well and rewrite it entirely, and try to find a good replacement for the blurry picture as well. -Medude24 14:26, 4 November 2005 (PST)
: If you read the rest of this talk page, you will see that the article is an ongoing collaboration of a number of editors who have put and are still putting large quantities of time into it.  I will do some cleanup, but please have some respect for the collaboration going on here before you condemn the article.  Yes, there are some questions about the scope of the article.  But there's a lot of good stuff in it... a rewrite is not the answer in this case. --Alynna 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we do need a rewrite. If anything else, the sections that are just listed as links need to be written out. No way around it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been saying that for awhile now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree generally with Medude.  The problem is that the only person here who fundamentally cares enough and has the information to devote the kind of attention to the sort of rewrite that's necessary is CyclePat, and he obviously isn't going to do it.  Personally I think most of this detail about laws by jurisdiction should be excised.  It's content, but is it meaningful?  I would say no.  If there's some inherent conflict in differences between jurisdictional statues, then delineate it. But just a laundry list of how they're treated in different statutes, absent context, is pretty useless. · Katefan0(scribble) 07:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and moved the huge laws section to a separate article, where they won't dominate an article that's not focused on them.  I hope this helps.  --Alynna 08:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you are my new hero. I worship thee. :) Excellent idea. And let's go through these links. From what I saw before, most of them are pretty redundant. I mean, one link per bicycle type is enough. I'll do that now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Btw, I have no problem with briefly summarizing laws about motorized bicycles. In fact, I wonder if that should be combined with the "names" section, which I've always found unwieldly and kind of ugly. I dislike lists right in the middle of an article if it can be avoided. You know, something like "In Canada, where motorized bicycles are referred to as x, laws generally", etc. I think that's what CyclePat doesn't quite understand. We can summarize laws, but it has to be summaries, not the law itself. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite this article. 

message: A lot of the stub sections appeared to be simply notes that a certain kind of engine could be used on a motorized bike.  I've combined these into a list, and moved the external links to the external links section. --Alynna 23:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub sections combined