Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 6

message: *Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive.  Do take the time to vote. --CyclePat 18:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *No vote, I do not se the need.  What are the POV issues?  It would have made more sense to debate them here first. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, it was the idea of what to include vs not-include in an article.  There are a few examples we touched upon.  We discussed the CCM bicycle.  The Steam Engine bicycle (still on this talk page (above)), we have resolved or stated clearly (I think) that a moped may be a motorized bicycle, (to which my fingers are still smoking from all the typing).  Right now, I'm moving on toward the second paragraph of motorized bicycle.  We say something alon the line that it can be is especially pedaled "easily."  The thing is...  there are some new electric bicycles that are being manufactured.  They look just more like a scooter.  The only reason they are a moped or "motorized bicycle" is because they have these ugly pedals (which are dangerous b.t.w.) sticking out from the side.  In Canada these are generally considered "power-assisted bicycles",  but so is my modified electric mountain bicycle.  (Actually this bicycle is everything!!  It's a motorized bicycle --> Power-assisted bicycle --> moped --> limited speed motorcycle (according to my insurance and in other jurisdictions) --> it's not a vehicle according to the one precendence and the criminal code of Canada (if I'm pedalling) --> ???    Well all that to say I think the "and especially mopeds" is a little pushy.  We could simply put mopeds...  I would have thought especially would have gone on motorcycles more.  (Anyway, I'm not sure if it has been mentioned already, I'll read through the article to make sure and at the same I'll try and find a place if it ain't there. Then, back here for sugesting.) Finally I though a 3rd opinion would have been nice to see if anyone thinks the article is POV.  --CyclePat 16:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *So your POV is different from the others editing the article - that's not a "POV issue".  A "POV issue" is where the subject is not stated in neutral terms ("X is the best thing since sliced bread"), or possibly where the subject of the article is inherently subjective (e.g. "ten best films of all time").  The article already discusses local jurisdictional differences tidily, I'd say.  It defines motorized bicycles clearly and unambiguously, while at the same time acknowledging that the boundaries between a motorised bike and a moped are blurred.  I still can't see why you have such a problem with that! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[motorized bicycle]] has been added to: 

message: I remember a while ago, I think it was woohookity that asked,...  laws or cultures in other countries.  well, here is link to transport culture in china.  http://chinaunique.com/business/transit.htm  --CyclePat 04:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: here is a link for triumph... I know I had put some info on the wiki somewhere at one point but it has disapeared  http://www.wilsonmar.com/1history.htm
Here is a list of other manufacuters:
http://www.uk-dir.co.uk/Business/ConsumerGoodsandServices/SportingGoods/Cycling/Electric/
:Wrong article, I think: these should probably be in the timeline, if refactored as proposed, or motorcycle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triumph information links 

message: I have trimmed the categories down to the following: Transportation, Road transport, Vehicles, Electric vehicles, Cycle types, Cycling, Alternative propulsion.   I could easily be persuaded to re-insert Hybrid vehicles, but all the othger members of that category are cars, so we might want to think about that for a bit first.
I am a big fan of categories, they are self-maintaining and (to me) intuitive.   I can't, however, see much point in having a separate category for motorized bicycle which contains three articles and one user page, with the articles being this, the timeline and moped (which is not, by common consent, a motorized bicycle).  For what it's worth I don't see much value in the moped category either.  Once we have a significant number of individual articles on individual motorised bicycles that view will of course change.
I could, on the other hand, very easily be persuaded of the merit of a category for light motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds and motorised bicycles, if I could think of a name for it.  There are surely enough to make a useful group.  I seem to recall somebody making a passing mention of a Canadian company who motorised a delivery bike at some point - that's exactly the kind of article which could be added to such a category.  If only I could remember who it was...  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OOuh!  Ouuh!  Ouh!  hey!  OUh!  OUh! Pick me!!  I think the category for hybrid should remain since it is part of the definition of our vehicle.  --Pat 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not averse, but if you look at the category page it does stick out like a sore thumb. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here comes another analogy:  When I went to high school, with my nerdy hair, big ears, and weird manerism I stuck out like a sore thumb.  They still kept me categorized as a "student" there.  (People might have been mean, wanting to bash my anoying fucking little head in, but I'm pretty sure I was a student there!) category:garneau?  --Pat 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put some of the discussed categories back in.  --Pat 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest removing the motorized bicycle category - at present it includes the two articles and your user page, and there are simply not enough articles on individual motorized bicycles to make it menaingful at present. Most articles have fewer categories, although I am a fan of categories this article does seem a bit excessive at present..  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I could remove my user page.  But you seem to have a lot of opinion based on precendences (that's actually good if we have some example, source, analogy) that might not be appropriate or similar for this subject.  We are talking about categorizing a type of vehicle.  (Similarly, water can be cattegorized in: liquides, chemicals, lakes, rivers, oceans...)  I don't know if this is the best example or the best thing to do but this is only logical.  Though motorized bicycle is not technically a tricycle, it is a type of motorized cycle.  It could be in this category.  (perhaps this category doesn't have room for much expansion in your mind, however it might create a list of all the articles that are related to motorized bicycles... all the different vehicles that exist, different manufactures, etc...,  CMM should be in there!!) --Pat 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A category for motorized bicycles will be warranted as and when there are enough articles on individual bikes and manufacturers to need collecting.  Right now there are very few, and some of them also make unpowered bikes, so I'd leave them in :Category:Cycle manufacturers.  At this point in time I would suggest that you should be devoting your energy to fleshing out the history of development of motorised bicycles in the history section of motorized bicycle, because that is what needs doing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: In comments in the article and on the talk page I see an awful lot of reference to legal definitions.  Why?  I could understand a mention of these confusing and inconsistent definitions, but there seems to be a lot of unjustified reliance on this.  Like something is a "motorized bicycle" if and only if the law in some jurisdiction (which one?) says so?  Mopeds are "motorized bicycles" because the law says so and therefore the articles should be merged?  Seems like weak reasoning to me....  --Serge 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to tone it down.  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliance on legal definitions - why? 

message: Join MBIC
Have you been wondering... Where?  When?  What do we do next?  Well, perhaps it's time we started the MBIC category (a group of wikipedian that like editing the motorized bicycle and related articles) (anyone want to start the category:MBIC)?  Anyway...
I think we need some directions in what to add.  That is, what should we concentrate on next?  We could go through a voting system where everyone puts their sugestions down.  Then we concentrate on that?  
*I've recently been reading up on motorcycle war History (mostly canadian documentation of WWI and WWII and the significant impact on the development of motorcycles.)  I'm working on adding a quick blurb on that.  To make things fair however, I am ready to change my current field of specialization.  That's if anyone has any propositions.  --Pat 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MBIC (Motorized bicycle improvement campaign) 

message: Changes that have occured at line 18, box 2, (in yellow) (made by user:Just zis Guy, you know?) make me believe this article is possible POV.  (the History section of the article [motorized bicycle]) currently states: "Electric bicycles are gaining acceptance, especially in Europe and Asia, in response to increasing traffic congestion, an aging population and concern about the environment."  The recent changes that you, "Just zis Guy, you know?", removed creates an unfair representation of the social exceptance of this bicycle.  Inclusion of the comment (here below) (which was removed) eliminates this POV becaus it covers other jurisdictions.  "They are however in some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, or New York, being restricted by laws and regulations."  Again, removal of this statement make that section a possible POV. I have added that to the article. --CylePat 01:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Addition of text "They are however in some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, or New York, being restricted by laws and regulations." to a section from which regulation has been removed, adding it to a proper section on regulation below, is possible POV by the person who has a vested interest in the legal position of motorized bicycles (which I do not).  The legal position is covered in the legal section, and in a separate article on motorized bicycle laws.  For some reason twice is not enough for one editor, the rest of us appear to feel it is quite sufficient. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd NPOV section. 

message: OK, at present we have: a VeloSolex and a Derny, an example of the Whizzer (which I believe is the most common aftermarket IC ocnversion, but I could be wrong; does anyone have stats for this v. the various Bike Bug conversions?), and two mass-manufatured electric bikes one hub motor powered and one driving through the pedal drivetrain.
This leaves us needing, IMO, at least one more picture, an image of a very early (ca. 1900) motorised bike, of the experimental variety.  I can get a picture eventually by visiting Sammy Miller's Motorcycle Museum, but in the mean time if anyone can find a decent picture of a really early experiment that would be a great addition. 
Also, an aftermarket electric conversion (e.g. the hub motor conversion for a Trice) would round the article out. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images wanted 

message: Can anyone help put this image de:Bild:Pedelec mit radnabenmotor modell wildwind.JPG in the gallery.  --CylePat 04:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: I will be making some changed to the motorized bicycle#see also section.  I will be bassing this on the example found at telephone#See also.  --CylePat 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why change it?  It only has 4 items, and those 4 items are sufficient right now.  Why not devote your energy to creating articles on the Singer motor wheel, Tanaka Bike Bug and other important topics which are as yet not covered, rather than fiddling with what is already a pretty good article? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Paradoxilly, it's not really change.  It's more of an evolution!  --CylePat 02:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say.  I looked at the telephone article, it has several tens of links in the "see also" section.  This has four.  I suggest that the change you propose is a waste of effort which would be better spent adding genuine content as per above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  see also... 

message: As per Talk:Mother Teresa/FAQ and Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages I sugest we concentrat our efforts on refactoring the talk pages.--CylePat 01:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my previous comments, I suggest we concentrate our efforts on creating articles for the redlinks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: according to Utah Code http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2002/bills/hbillamd/hb0171.pdf (line 108) a motor-driven cycle:
:"Motor-driven cycle" means every motorcycle and motor scooter, moped, electric assisted bicycle, motor assisted scooter, and every motorized bicycle having an engine with less than 150 cubic centimeters displacement or having a motor which produces not more than five horsepower.
Perhaps this definition would be more appropriate for our article's main title?  --CylePat 03:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motor-driven cycle 

message: This information is being proposed for inclusion as RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology#Technology and engineering:
This information is listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues 03:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a refactored comment from User:Just zis Guy, you know? 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *It could well be that I saw a slightly different model.  However: what point in the article does this illustrate which is not already illustrated?  Maybe it is a good one to go higher up in History after the Millet model, maybe not. If the pedals are funtional (and the one I saw there was one, used for starting only; this does seem to have two, but looks odd because of the angle the fornt one is at), is it a motorized bicycle or is it better in moped, since it is clearly not designed to be able to be powered by pedals alone).  And why are we still faffing around with tiny details of this article when there are redlinks for important related topics? I'm working on other articles at the moment, having obtained some authorities on Robert Hooke, de Havilland and Handley Page. Incidentally, making the RfC comment small was not appreciated. Two of the three RfCs on that section were also relating to this subject, but the questions have both been settled by consensus so I removed them.  I think there have now been four or five RfCs on this subject, which is ludicrous for something so trivial.  Each seems to have been related to changes you made or wanted to make.  I think you should try looking at some other subjects! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Triumph Image:  The question of removal of this picture from the article?   

message: I own some electric bicycles.  One is registered, plated and insure here in Ontario.  I am part of an association called EVCO.  Many don't go through all this hasle.  I also know one person from Guelph, the case of McShine Joseph, who is being charged for riding his electric bicycle in Ontario.  specifically sections 7(1), 32, and 104.  My ministerial correspondance with the M.T.O. says, though it is possible to register, etc...  they highly recommend we do not register this type of vehicle (defined as a Power assisted bicycle in the Motor vehicle safety regulations.  I have done much research for the last 2 years and have many letter that sugest this ain't a vehicle.  Mr. Joseph wants me to be his agent. I believe the only way I can get him out of this situation is if the judge doesn't consider this a type of motor vehicle. (some case laws that I have researched, recyprocical agreement, etc.)  However, if the prosecution sucessfully charges for Mr. Joseph I find that the M.T.O should be held accountable.  Any comments?  --CylePat 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat, I don't mean to be a party pooper, but Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum for issues.  Talk pages should be used to discuss changes to articles, and only that.  (Sorry!)  · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 04:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: understandable.  Sorry.  Let me rephrase the question.  Should the dismisal of the case of McShine Joseph and my ministerial correspondances be included within the article.  (all of which are in regards to electric bicycles.)  --CylePat 19:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow... still no comments.  You guys are eager to delete such information but barelly comment upon before hand.  Is there a problem?  --CyclePat 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think that's appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 04:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what is not appropriate... the afformentioned comment (witch is a stereotypic comment from my previous experience with you guys that of witch I failed to demonstrate on whitch arguably may or may not belong here because it has to do with editing the content of the article) or the information that I want to include?  --CyclePat  12:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any discussion of legal details pertaining to individual jurisdictions in any case clearly belongs in Electric bicycle laws. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 17:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Pat, you asked if there's a problem.  Yes, and you are it.  You have an agenda which is clearly at odds with most if not all other editors of this and the related pages.  Your latest fork at pedelec is just one more example - you undoubtedly know enough about Wikipedia by now to know that the right way to merge that content was to translate it offline and add what is not already here, to this article.  If you need WP editing tools you do it in your user space.  That is also the way to achieve your ultimate aim of a separate article for electirc bicycles, since policy states that one time a fork is acceptable is where an article grows too big. But actually what's needed is someone whoi knows about electric bikes (this means you) to start filling in the redlinks tothinkgs like battery storage density, or finding an article where it is discussed in significant detail, since that is missing content, whereas definition of pedelec is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A class action lawsuit? 

message: :understandable.  Sorry.  Let me rephrase the question.  Should the dismisal of the case of McShine Joseph and my ministerial correspondances be included within the article.  (all of which are in regards to electric bicycles.)  --CylePat 19:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... still no comments.  You guys are eager to delete such information but barelly comment upon before hand.  Is there a problem?  --CyclePat 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think that's appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 04:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what is not appropriate... the afformentioned comment (witch is a stereotypic comment from my previous experience with you guys that of witch I failed to demonstrate on whitch arguably may or may not belong here because it has to do with editing the content of the article) or the information that I want to include?  --CyclePat  12:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any discussion of legal details pertaining to individual jurisdictions in any case clearly belongs in Electric bicycle laws. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 17:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Pat, you asked if there's a problem.  Yes, and you are it.  You have an agenda which is clearly at odds with most if not all other editors of this and the related pages.  Your latest fork at pedelec is just one more example - you undoubtedly know enough about Wikipedia by now to know that the right way to merge that content was to translate it offline and add what is not already here, to this article.  If you need WP editing tools you do it in your user space.  That is also the way to achieve your ultimate aim of a separate article for electirc bicycles, since policy states that one time a fork is acceptable is where an article grows too big. But actually what's needed is someone whoi knows about electric bikes (this means you) to start filling in the redlinks tothinkgs like battery storage density, or finding an article where it is discussed in significant detail, since that is missing content, whereas definition of pedelec is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What to include in the article

message: JzG, You indicated a vote against the merger of this article with moped. One of your reasons being was because the two strands of development are entirely separate. (devils advocat) Do you have any proof of this? What are the major diference between these two strands of development? And if so, could this not be inferable for the use with the "entirelly" different strand of development between electric pedelecs (or electric motor assisted bicycles) vs fossil fuel IC motor assisted bicycles? --CyclePat 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat, I was not the only one who resisted that merge: the editors on moped didn't think much of it either.  Why not devote your energy into filling in the redlinks instead of endlessly rehashing past arguments? You are personalising this beyond all sense. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JzG Moped vs Motorized bicycle?  (again!)