Talk:Triumph Bonneville

message: As part of the Motorcycling WikiProject I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes.  To make things easier to sort out I have created a category for British motorcycles.   Please will you add to any British motorcycle pages you find or create.  It will also help to keep things organised if you use the Template:Infobox Motorcycle or add it where it is missing.  I've linked the Category to the Commons British Motorcycles so you could help with matching pics to articles or adding the missing images to the Commons - take your camera next time you go to a rally!  Thanks  Tony (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category for British Motorcycles 

message: There is an editor's comment in here and it is becoming an unreferenced mess, was going to park the section in here but left it, perhaps someone with more knowledge on this model could tidy it up. Nimbus (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Bonneville 

message: If there are reliable sources saying X affected the Triumph Bonneville's sales or its design, then it belongs in this article.  But if not, the information should be moved to the article about X, if any, and deleted from here.  See WP:WPACT and WP:POPCULTURE.--Dbratland (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the Popular Culture section needs to go 

message: The whole section entitled 'Development History' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't describe development from the earlier Tiger110 or the arrival of unit construction. It is a rant against Jap bikes. Does the expression 'yamy-hamies' as a pejorative have any place on Wiki? Dean1954 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's original research and soapboxing. It would be helpful to have an accurate background of the motorcycling market in the late 1960s, but not that. Removed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2015

message: I'm not sure if I did everything right, according to long-time Wikieditors protocols, but I added a section for the new Modern Classic bikes (2016-present) because I hated that there wasn't one. First editing attempt, be gentle. :) AmenMoto (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to describe the 2017 lineup but you can't just copy-paste from advertising or press releases, even if they encourage Fair Use copying. Wikipedia does not use copied text. And even if it were original prose, it hast to be neutral in tone, not promotional or use peacock language. I would look for articles about the Modern Classics marking campaign in mainstream publications and summarize what they say about it in a neutral, reserved tone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Dennis. Also, I think that the "Modern Classics" section should be at a level equal with the New Bonneville or T100 sections, as the Modern Classics are not PART OF the "New Bonneville" line, they are a new iteration, just as the "New Bonneville was a new iteration when it came out. Don't you agree? ScottyatAmenMoto (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it further, I still think it's erroneous to classify the Modern Classics (2016-present) bikes in the same section as the New Bonneville bikes (2001-2015). Air-cooled is probably a more correct designation now, with the Modern Classics being water-cooled. (That's how the Triumph Rat forum segregates their discussions). Interested in hearing your thoughts, Dennis. ScottyatAmenMoto (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Classics