Talk:Honda CBR600F

message: This page's introductory paragraph is highly subjective and does not reflect the opinion of all users who have experienced the motorcycle. The paragraph below is also highly subjective and should be removed as it does not add to discussion.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.171.229 (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2010

message: I removed this table which is simply a list of years and model numbers. I simply don't see what value a long two column table adds to the article. Given its stub state, what the article needs is substantial expansion with cited content, not trivia. Your opinion may of course differ. Discuss... --Biker Biker (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what makes the long table encyclopedic. It reminds me of lists of frame and engine numbers, which is information only useful to a certain kind of collector, and not what an encyclopedia is for. The codes clearly follow a pattern, and with a little thought the pattern could -- and should -- be summarized in the article. Perhaps use the aka field of the infobox. The number shows the generation, and the letters are just a sequential indicator of model year. Even so, a summary explaining the codes is a far lower priority than a thousand other bits of information about the bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Table removed

message: I propose that Honda CBR600F3 and Honda CBR600F4 be merged into Honda CBR600F. I think that the content in the CBR600F3 and CBR600F4 article would be more appropriate in the CBR600F article as the F3/F4 is a subtype of the CBR600F. It would give the viewer more information about the series as a whole, instead of this stub. -- WhiteJoker88 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge These stub articles contain more infobox stats than prose, and in general merging related articles is an excellent way to deal with too many dinky little stubs with no meat to them. Merging now would create a single article with a little bit of substance to it. We should create a specs table that lets the reader compare the stats between revisions side by side through each version, e.g. Yamaha YZF-R1#Specifications. A merge now does not preclude un-merging a separate article for the F3, F4, etc. if in the future an editor writes enough material to justify it, as per Wikipedia:Summary style.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A specs table would be nice, but for now, I'd settle with more info categorized by generation or year. --WhiteJoker88 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I've started to create a specification table. See section below.(Stephengmatthews (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Support merge common sense. JFDI. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Would Honda CBR600F4i also be suitable to merge? It seems to be a subtype, but it obviously has more content then the others. Also the content suggests it is a separate motorcycle not just another generation, so I'm not sure. I guess it should get a summary in the new article, so I did however added a merger tag just in case. One can always delete it, I suppose.  --WhiteJoker88 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I would only summarize Honda CBR600F4i in a section of Honda CBR600F, and link to Honda CBR600F4i as a  article. It could used more footnotes, but Honda CBR600F4i is a reasonably encyclopedic and neutral article with a fair amount of substance to it, so it's worth keeping on its own. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Why does jumping around between different pages make it easier to see the differences between the models over the years? If you tell the story of the development in one article it forms a coherent narrative, and you can see the reasons behind each change in context. If you spread that around on different pages, it makes it seem like each version was created independently. There is no magic rule that says if two bikes only share X percent of parts they have to be on different pages. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Honda CBR600F. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080109052138/http://powersports.honda.com:80/the_story/heritage/heritage_milestone.asp?Decade=1980&TargetUrl=Milestone/Milestone_Model_0113.asp&bhcp=1 to http://powersports.honda.com/the_story/heritage/heritage_milestone.asp?Decade=1980&TargetUrl=Milestone/Milestone_Model_0113.asp&bhcp=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Well the edit log will tell a different story. To make things clear, this is the version of the article just before my edit (dated 17:16, 21 June 2016): 
: In 2003, Honda introduced the CBR600RR, a higher-performance, race-ready, super-sport middleweight, while continuing to manufacture the popular F4i which appealed to those willing to sacrifice a little performance to gain a more comfortable riding position, as well as an engine configuration better suited to everyday riding. The F4i remained available for three more years before being discontinued, with the 2006 model being the final one to be released. No major updates were made in these final years except for color scheme changes.
I felt that model differences were exaggerated in a misleading way with that wording (issues highlighted here in bold). I think most articles on wikipedia regarding various vehicles focus on their performance, reception and perception from when they were new. To me, it sounded a bit like a sales person trying to sell the new model over last year's cheaper alternative. That's not a balanced view. It attempts to make the FS/F4i look like it wasn't a full-on supersport for its time. I felt that some of the wording should be toned down and that's what I did, nothing more. I explained most known differences between the models (see discussion above), and how they were not so significant, in some detail (which 72bikers so far has completely failed to adress). It should be noted that I'm not merely browsing brochures or old magazines here; I have first-hand experience. I have argued (explaining my view at depth) that the actual differences between the two models is down to no more than regular improvements you'd expect over the model years/generations, supporting this with a comparison to a similar model line by the same manufacturer at about the same time (CBR900RR/CBR1000RR). I adressed these issues in detail on the Talk page. I have also supplied evidence (link to video) of Honda's view on the CBR600F4i at the time, being a top supersport with 16 championships, as well as mention of Cycle World's view. I also made a comparison to the 2011 CBR600F and how the differences between the CBR600FS/F4i and the first CBR600RR are neglible in comparison to that, highlighting how the "F" vs "RR" in the model name isn't something to go by in itself when deciding what the bikes are like (that model naming is more down to historical reasons; the 600 line needed to be renamed to match the new 900/1000 line's name). It should also be noted that historically, Honda's sport bikes have usually been regarded as more relaxed when compared to its competing brands, but this should not be confused with comparisons to its successor. I wanted to remove dubious bias to the wording while keeping the basic meaning, no more. After my edit, the paragraph looked like this (14:48, 14 July 2016‎): 
: In 2003, Honda introduced the CBR600RR, a higher-performance, race-ready, super-sport middleweight. The CBR600RR replaced the CBR600FS in Europe[citation needed], while the F4i in the US with the banana seat remained available for three more years before being discontinued after the 2006 model year. No major updates were made in these final years except for color scheme changes.
Notice my addition about the Euro model (highlighted in bold). Later, this is the paragraph after 72bikers' edit (19:56, 15 July 2016‎): 
: In 2003, Honda introduced the CBR600RR, as a higher-performance race-ready, race replica alternative to Honda's more street oriented 600-class sport bike, the CBR600F4i. [11] , while continuing to manufacture the popular F4i which appealed to those willing to sacrifice a little performance to gain a more comfortable riding position, as well as an engine configuration better suited to everyday riding. The F4i remained available for three more years before being discontinued, with the 2006 model being the final one to be released. No major updates were made in these final years except for color scheme changes.
Notice how large passages from the original edit are now back (highlighted in bold), inserted back by 72bikers (as can be seen from the edit log). And yet 72bikers now claims that he/she knew nothing of this. In addition, the differences between the bikes have been made to sound even greater, with the addition of the wording I have highlighted in italics. Also notice how my mention of the CBR600FS is now gone, making it seem that the recent edit by 72bikers (19:56, 15 July 2016‎) was more of a copy-paste from the first version (17:16, 21 June 2016), rather than a careful and considerate improvement on my edit. 
I have made great effort to be very precise in my arguments previously. It should be noted that 72bikers has offered no clear answers or discussion on my key points (sometimes, frankly,  giving the impression that he/she hasn't even bothered to read or understand them). I would also like to add that 72bikers' view that I have added statements to the article is clearly false (the only thing I added was mention of the Euro model, as can be seen from the edit log). Regarding referenced/copyrighted material, that statement by 72bikers here is a bit unclear to me as he/she is not directly adressing what I wrote. 
Dsandlund (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor User:Dsandlund please remove this wall of text under this heading Third Opinion and put it under the heading you started CBR600RR vs CBR600F4i/CBR600FS. Did you really fail to understand the instruction given by editor User:Robert McClenon. He simply asked for one editor please state, in one paragraph, what the question is. Your statements are all false and you have never added any reference for anything on this cbr600f article page ever. And from what I have seen you have never added any reference for anything you have ever edited not sure how you have gotten away with this for so long. And it also appears that when another editor changes anything you edited you go on these rants of how you are some authority on the subject it is really not helpful.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
*Wikipedia is not a place for your first hand opinions!!! 72bikers (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary after the question

message: The infoboxes for each model contain slightly different specification detail, so they appear to be inconsistent. The content of the infoboxes could be moved into one large table. I started to make this table in this revision. (Stephengmatthews (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant there are specs listed for one model that aren’t for another, so some cells in the table would be empty. Like we don’t have the bore for the first model. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I hadn’t read through the Talk page, but this seems a better solution than the problem I tried to solve by putting  in front of every section. If we can get rid of the multiple infoboxes, then let’s please do. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifications table

message: I have started to populate wikidata with data about CBR600Fs. For wikidata examples, see CBR600F and CBR600F4. (Stephengmatthews (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikidata

message: In , please replace the  template with , since the section now has one source.
67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2016 

message: Under , please replace
with
Also, the very next sentence appears to be a POV statement which is not directly supported by the cited source, so please add  to that or otherwise address it.
67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed altogether, appeared a bit like commentary — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

text:  The second requested change has been reverted, with worse grammar and little done to address the reason given for removal. Reopening the request with all the above rationale. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2016