Talk:Bicycle/Archive 3

message: I gather some quotes from wikiquote.  They can be found at User:CyclePat/Bicycle Quotes.  This article could probably have a link to the "not made yet", wikiquote page. (I'm not going to start a wikiquote on bicycles unless we are linking to it) --CylePat 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea!  Julius.kusuma 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If I'd noticed that you guys were interested, I wouldn't have started on my own. There is now a cycling section on wikiquote and a link from the cycling portal. See wikiquote:Cycling and Portal:Cycling -Dhodges 01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bicycle Quotes

message: I've started making an audio version of this document.  I'm presently at about 25 minutes of speech, into.  --CylePat 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know how to convert a wav to ogg?  --72.57.8.215 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Audacity will do that (just open the wav file and then go to File -> Export As Ogg Vorbis) -SCEhardT 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  this is my first attempt. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bicy.ogg#Summary. Part one!  I think I'll redo it.  --CyclePat 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio file. 

message: An anonymous user just added folding bicycle to the list of bicycles by function, but it's already listed under the list of bicycles by construction.  I think it should be reverted.  Comments?  Julius.kusuma 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It's a commuter / utility bike by function. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  RfA! 15:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Folding bicycle

message: this sentence doesn't is contradictory. I think we should reword it to be NPOV via sitting the sources and not just saying "Most bicycle historians" but saying "bicycle historian such as.... joe blow, etc.. etc..  etc...now believe that these hobby-horses with no steering mechanism probably never existed, but were made up by Louis Baudry de Saunier, a 19th-century French bicycle historian.  --CyclePat 03:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this needs to be changed to avoid weasel statements. -SCEhardT 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't this seem a little bit naive? 

message: I made the following edits:
moving Paris-Brest-Paris to Bicycle recreation,
sentence on racing in US and Europe, 
clarify comments on track bikes.
I feel these are correct; Paris-Brest-Paris is not a race, cycling is a minority sport in US , only track bikes are used for track racing, and not all messenger bikes
are track bikes. I did not write the comment about racing bikes being uncomfortable. LDHan 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ooops, I only meant to revert the edit to the caption of the photo, not the recent ones that you had made.  Sorry about that!  Julius.kusuma 04:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies accepted! Thanks. LDHan 09:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paris-Brest-Paris, Racing in US and Europe, and track bike reverts by User:Julius.kusuma 21:14, 29 January 2006

message: I made a few changes before realising this was a Featured Article - see what you think and hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. Feel free to re-edit if deemed desirable. EdX20 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK to me - in my opinion you have improved the style. I re-arranged the section on gearing without any complaints a few months back. Murray Langton 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't know Featured Articles couldn't be edited, I think I need to look at the help pages. LDHan 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Featured articles can be edited, of course. I guess the goal is to make sure the article stays at that standard. I think some of the added material might go better later in the article, outside the lead section. I was surprised that mention as children's toys has been left out until now. --Christopherlin 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Avoid excess detail? If it's bicycling, then why not put it in the cycling article? --Christopherlin 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much what I meant. There are several parts of this article that would be better suited to "cycling," but I figured that brief mention in "bicycle" might still be appropriate.Sfahey 16:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, okay. Thanks for the references. It might be better addressed in another article, I don't know for sure. Perhaps you should create an account, at least to sign posts on talk pages. Thanks and good luck. --Christopherlin 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicycling and health 

message: Referring to this comment:-
"To distinguish a bicycle from a motorcycle, it is also called a push-bike."
In the Vicrotian era a "push bike" did not have pedals. It was pushed along as if the rider was actually walking. The bicycle as we know it should I guess be referred to a "pedal bike" but who is going to say that?
I can't find any reference (such as pictures) to this original push bike. Can anyone find such a picture? —This unsigned comment was added by Doobleshaft (talk • contribs) .
* Re: "Pedal Bike" the use of the term "Pedal cycle" is standard in Irish and I believe UK legal documents/legislation.  --Sf 14:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I still don't think this term belongs in the lead section, but don't feel strongly enough to fight it. Sfahey 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if the term pushbike originally referred to a bike without pedals, in modern usage it means an ordinary bicycle. Graham 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of push bike 

message: Cycling has v similar information on 'Accessories', under 'Getting Started'. There is another list of accessories, incomplete, in the Category 'Cycling_equipment'. Perhaps 'Cycling Accessories' could be another page, together with a suggested list of purchases for different purposes; Or perhaps there could be a page dedicated to basic advice for new cyclists. This would be much clearer and have less duplication. Bards 16:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicycle Accessories 

message: On May 5, 198.36.23.57 (talk • contribs • [ page moves] • block user • [ block log]) made a large number of changes. Due to that IP's recent vandalism/experimentation at Dr. Seuss, i'd suggest someone look through the changes made here (they mostly look good, but are very extensive, and lack an edit summary). Thanks. -Quiddity 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check requested 

message: Currently, the article states: "Outside the West, use of helmets by utility cyclists is practically unknown. No correlation between decreased injury rates and helmet use has been demonstrated in whole populations." However, a recently published paper from Singapore contradicts both of these statements. See: Helmet use and bicycle-related trauma in patients presenting to an acute hospital in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.59.18 (talk • contribs) 
1) The paper cited does not demonstrate any reduction in injury associated with the use of cycling helmets among the cycling population in Singapore. (They only claim to show this for a subset who end up in hospital which is not the same thing).
2) The Singapore article itself states that utility cyclists eg "those who commute by bicycle, tended not to wear helmets".
Both these facts support the bicycle article as written.  --Sf 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicycle helmet 

message: There is a fantastic range of information here, but I think it is too long, and therefore difficult to find info.  Can some of the longer sections be hived off into their own articles? BrainyBabe 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. For example, motorcycle physics is its own article. Bicycle physics could be too. AndrewDressel 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to make AD's proposal myself. As good as it is, that section is disproportionately long. Any takers on writing a summary to leave behind in the main article?Sfahey     23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for cutting one section!  It's still too long, though.  The history section is lengthy, considering that there is already a separate history of the bicycle.  Recumbents are taking up a lot of room too!  Even the list of all the parts goes into so much detail that each one takes up all my screen.  I'd prefer about three sentences, if there is a link to an article on, e.g., brakes. Is anyone feeling BOLD enough to make big changes like this? BrainyBabe 06:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I miss something, or did the "bicycle physics" section just disappear. That's not "bold", it's reckless. What's s'posed to happen is that a shortened version be left behind in the main article. FWIW, I think the "history" section is the right length, whether or not there's a separate such article. Sfahey 15:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't just disappear; I moved it to a new separate article. I followed the example of the motorcycle article. There, motorcycle physics is only refered to in the "See also" section at the end. I was bummed when it moved, because I had spent some time on it, but that appeared to be the way things are done. AndrewDressel 12:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There, I put back in a couple of paragraphs with a link to the new bicycle physics article. Better?   AndrewDressel 13:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Good wiki-spirit. I almost missed it again with its new title (Balance). This section, and the give-and-take about helmet usage, were the main bugaboos in getting this to FA. The physics thing sort of went from the gyroscope thing to the college physics level and up to phd before it was settled.Sfahey 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Shortened recumbent description as well and added link to seperate article. Tried merging text, but couldn't find anything that wasn't already covered. Sorry to whoever took the time to write it all. AndrewDressel 12:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like the 'Performance' could also get this treatment. AndrewDressel 13:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. AndrewDressel 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Still 56k, down from 69k, but longer than the "preferable" 32k AndrewDressel 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the 32k figure, as suggested by it being in quotes, is arbitrary; broader topics are expected to be longer than most. I'm going to go check and see how big "Pepsi-can stove" was when it made FA last year. "Bicycle" deserves ~10X more space. Sfahey 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about moving sections 2, 3 and 4 of to their own pages? I'll wait a week for comment and then do this. Raelx 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a lot of what's in Sections 2,3,4 has references to 'more detail' pages - do we need to move more stuff into these pages? E.g. re 'Drivetrain', I could move quite a lot of this into Bicycle gearing. Murray Langton 06:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -AndrewDressel 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Keeps getting longer (now up to 49 kilobytes). The two main candidates to get moved out now appear to be Construction and parts and Uses for bicycles. Any arguments for keeping or moving one or the other? -AndrewDressel 23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Down to 47 kilobytes by abbreviating list of bicycle types. Removed text duplicated in List of bicycle types main article. -AndrewDressel 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved Bicycle uses into own article. Remainder is down to just 36k. Removed "Very long" tag. -AndrewDressel 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too long! 

message: Excellent work with the article; I've passed it for inclusion into Version 0.5. However, could we get the only unsourced statement with a citation? It's the only real problem with the article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations|v0.5 nomination]] 

message: I'm a bit sceptical about the reported efficiency for the drive train, especially for internal gearing. Most internal hubs have one direct drive gear, in which all the planetary gearing is effectively locked. Shouldn'd that be as efficient as the best external gearing or even a single-speed (given that the chain line should be optimal)? Moreover, Rohloff claims 95-99% efficieny for the Speedhub 500/14, and claims that to be "totally comparable with those of a high-quality derailleur gear system". --Stephan Schulz 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drivetrain efficiency?