Talk:Timeline of motorized bicycle history

message: fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

message: :Pat, I know Andrew Pattle personally so will ask him for some of his sources to follow this up. But will you please stop pissing all over the consensus here and trying to make a WP:POINT. There is a strong' consensus on this page for keeping history within this article unless and until it becomes too large (which it has not yet). Also, much of the stuff you (I'm assuming it was you, given the text) put into the timeline was irrelevant to the motorized bicycle as defined. It might have the makings of a timeline of motorcycles, or even powered two wheelers generally, but the BSA Bantam is a motorcycle, the Honda Cub is a motor-scooter, the horse-drawn cart, although undoubtedly available as a powered two wheeler, is not actually a motorised bicycle according to the formal definition. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well indeed, I put a bunch of information, but many new people have also done the same.   Please note:  motorized bicycle is a bicycle with an attached motor to assist pedalling (so with pedals)...  that includes pedaled moped (ethymologicily refered to as motor pedals).  Perhaps early motorcycle might fall in this category.  As discussed in the main article of motorized bicycle there are many jurisdictional definition that exist for a motorized bicycle.  Generaly scooter don't have pedals, and later motorcycles wouldn't have it place in here. We are getting into a technical area.  It would be worthy of editors that want to add a reference, add along with it a picture or a link, to the vehicle photo in question (This makes it easy for other editors to verify your information).  However, do to the pressing nature of this article, since it is up for deletion, some editors might not have the time to do so, feeling it is more important to get the basic source information down. --CyclePat 17:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the moped is separate and has a separate article.  One of the first things the motorized bicycle article does is to make precisely that point.  As I said below, I have no objection to changing this article to be a timeline of powered two wheel transport and its derivitives (which will still leave questionable cases like the SdKfz.2 Kleines Kettenkraftrad and the various cyclecars, but would remove questions about the likes of the Harley-Davidson No. 1.  If we take a permissive view and allow any powered two-wheeler or derivitive, which I think is the least contentious approach, then we have the potential for a useful article which ties together at least four overlapping streams of development: light cars, motorcycles, mopeds and motor scooters, and power-assisted bicycles (which, incidentally, is what I think motorized bicycle should be called).  But the subtleties of development of each stream is best done in their respective articles, where it can be explored in depth.  Timelines are about pivotal moments: first power-assisted bike; last in-wheel IC engine; first mass-produced electric bike - that sort of thing.  Otherwise it's too muddy and you can't see where the turning points were.  To say that in 1959 the original Issigonis Mini was launched is undoubtedly an important moment in car history.  To say that in 1990 several dozen companies all released minor variants on their supermini-sized vehicles is not just unnecessary, it is actually destructive, in that it obscures the genuinely significant data.  See what I mean? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading back into the history, And I don't understand.  It feels like on one hand you want a make the article broader but on the other hand (such as the afformentioned comment) you don't.  If we can take K-111 sugestion I think we might start out good. --Pat 02:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from disscusion of [[motorized bicycle]]

message: I've been wondering.  This article has a lot of information.  However there appears to be oppertunaties to add a lot more.  Should this still be considered a stub?  How many editors are now working on this article? (At least 3 right?)  16:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so, right now, but I think there is likely to be development once we've agreed what exactly it should turn into :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking, that's what I though too. --CyclePat 00:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article still a stub? 

message: I just cleaned it up a bit so it fits our format a bit more. I don't quite understand the need for an introduction, but if you want to reinsert it, whatever. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the Wikipedia:Timeline standards I am formating the article to have an introduction.  That means I will put the intro back.  (this is also based on the Timeline of the Big Bang.  I will also notice that the dates have been classed under events.  --Pat 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: b.t.w.: I changed my nick name to Pat, but I might change it back later on to CyclePat. --Pat 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not contender that this intro is the best thing.  It probably could choped down a little and still mean the same thing.  (or we could keep it the same lenght and continue expanding the events section)... --Pat 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I fixed the formatting of this article

message: Please take a look at this great bicycle history link.  Search the page for motorized bicycle to quickly find the appropriate info.  http://nbhaa.com/indexoakland.html --CyclePat 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just one more reason why the timeline needs to be powered two wheelers.  I believe several car (and other engineering) companies started out making motorcycles / motorized bikes / light motorcycles and then went into cars (sometimes via cyclecars).  I know for a fact that Humber made bicycles.  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For us historians 

message: Not much research done but do check out the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CyclePat/Sandbox.  It has a board we may us for the timeline.  --Pat 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before incorperating a table...  I would like to ask everyone opinion.  I am hisitant to do so after reading Wikipedia:How to use tables.  But I am apt at using it to incorperate the different colours to differentiate different types of vehicles as discussed in the delete for this article.  (Is it worth it?)  --Pat 14:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I  am asking everyone... Please put your voice down.  Do we want a graphy table now, should we wait until later, do we want one at all?  (please read Wikipedia:How to use tables before voting)  --Pat 12:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are putting the cart before the horse.  As far as I can tell we have not yet agreed what the (wider) scope should be; this will define how much effort needs to go into highlighting the various streams.  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Timeline Graphic 

message: I added tricycle to the timeline Introduction... Slowly moving on toward other vehicle types.  --Pat 16:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  added [[tricycle]] 

message: First time for everything!  I did it!
Image:A history of technology p424(coal bicycle).PNG
It looks like he's pedalling.  --Pat 14:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like the photo link you provided thought.  []  --Pat 14:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the chain runs underneath and we can't see it?  It sure looks like he's pedalling. Hold on let my call my great grand dady up! (just kidding) --Pat 17:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *If that is the case we should remove the reference to power on demand electric assist bicycles because these bicycles can be powered by only electric motor if the driver choses to... should be classed as a moped or motorcycle.  Whereas others may be motorized bicycles.  --Pat 03:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your agenda is showing AGAIN.  Nobody else appears to have a problem with this definition or the inclusion criteria.  Also, you have asserted that this picture is fair use on the basis that you assume it to be so, the author having dies in 1960.  That means copyright on the book persists until 2010 under English law, the book is not freely available on the web.  You need to prove fair use, not assume it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments about fair use for this picture can be found on the article's pages and the talk page.  Image talk:A history of technology p424(coal bicycle).JPG  You would be best to keep any discussion about that subject on the relevant page.  I also ask that you strike out the previous comments via adding your text for not only are they insulting but they demonstrate your lack of complacency to acknowlege "fair use" guidelines.  --Pat 05:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *No, Pat, I am not refusing to acknowledge fair use guidelines (and complacency means self-satisfaction, so I can't imagine what you mean by that).  Fair use is stated in the appropriate Wikipedia policies: it says that screen grabs of images on books on websites are OK.  This book is not on the web, it's on a private extranet.  There is no doubt that it is stil copyright, as copyright persists until 50 (now 75) years after the author's death.  I have asked the university of this is covered by fair use, they have not replied.  But what you must remember is that the burden of proof is on you - you have to prove that it is fair use, not assume it unless proven otherwise.  You have interpreted a small piece of text in the way which is favourable to you, but as I said it could equally be taken the other way.  Remember that everything on Wikipedia must be either public domain or licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.  I am not making this up, it's there plain as day on the image upload. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We both agree it is copyrighted.  We are not agreeing on the "fair us".  WP:FU stipulates the guidelines for "fair use."  If we couldn't use fair use documents, then wikipedia wouldn't have that section for uploads.  To aleviate this argument, we could probably use that picture you found...  but is the source reputable?  (does it need to be?)  Again, fair use is allowed so long as we are arguing something about the picture.  I think the fact that it looks like he might be pedalling is good enought discussion.  Anyway...  No image is inherently fair use, fair use is a matter of how you use the image.  Also, I think you may be confusing fair use and public domain. Fair use applies specifically to certain uses of copyrighted images.  Anyway, in their "Terms and conditions" set forth for that portion of the site they explicity say something along the lines of "Fair educational use of the contents of this Web site is permitted." Does uploading this image to Wikipedia qualify as proper fair use under our rules?  I find it very unlikely that Oxford University press would agree to license the image under a Free license or release it to public domain, so I think application of fair use is the best way to go here.  Also, for a weaker argument I would say useWP:FU#Counterexamples.  As per WP:FU I'll be adding the . so maybe we'll have a better image, GNU Free license or something similar, poppin up soon .  That's all for now.  Chow.  --CylePat 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: please look at the above link for any sugestions.  Or comments for this timeline.  --CylePat 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When we have a few dozens of separate articles to link that might work.  Right now we have a timeline, with relatively few articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[template:Mercedes-Benz vehicles]]