Talk:Honda VFR400

message: Deleted some rumours about these bikes being narrower than inline-4s (the CBR400RR of the time was narrower than either the NC30 or the NC35), and producing "substantially more torque", also not true.  I can't really read Japanese, but I have the Workshop Manuals for all three of these bikes (as well as the bikes), and Honda's own figures appear to show identical PS and torque for both the NC29 and NC30, and slightly less torque for the NC35.  Surprised me, too! JZH
Yes, NC21/24/30 have identical torque and PS values, the NC35 has slightly less torque.
The NC29 is an inline 4 (CBR) so not relevant.
Neosophist (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

message: It isn't the best picture, not from the best angle, and the bike has many aftermarket bits... but it's better than nothing so I added it :) -- Borb (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The section telling us how to derestrict the bike is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is apparently not a how to guide that would be wikihow so this section should be removed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.116.151 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to 

message: Why remove the links to the other 400s when they all have significance due to the revised licencing laws in Japan. I believe that the links to the other 400s should be replaced as they were all Japanese bikes in the same class competing against each other. They were often compared in UK bike magazines as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.61.57 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The related field is intended for bikes made by the same company - typically those using the same engine or from the same family. There used to be a "similar" field in the template intended for bikes from other manufacturers but this was removed. --TimTay (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: b.t.w. If you have examples of the VFR400 being compared with other manfacturer's 400cc bikes in magazines, why not provide a summary and citation in the article. It will add real value. --TimTay (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Related

message: A couple of us have reverted additions of the v4power website. After a message on my talk page I took a proper look at the site. Wikipedia has comprehensive guidelines (not rules) on what should not be linked at WP:LINKSTOAVOID. It could certainly be argued that the site should be avoided because of criteria #11, which excludes personal websites, blogs, fansites (except those written by a recognised authority). It could also be argued that it falls foul of the very first criteria #1 which excludes any site which does not provide more information than the article would if it were improved to feature article status — although personally I have never agreed with that particular bit of guidance. If an article is not FA then any external link which provides more information to the reader is to be welcomed.
So, having said all that and having read the external site in some depth, I am personally happy to see the link added to this page. It is well written, contains some useful information, is not a forum (something I hate seeing added to Wikipedia) and I think it adds value. However, I won't reinstate it until others express their opinion. --TimTay (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I don't feel it should be included. First, it is failing the WP:DUCK test. In other words, it comes across as WP:LINKSPAM or at least COI; the editor who is adding it hasn't done anything else on wikipedia except try to get the link added. Secondly, it resembles a fansite and/or personal site- just because someone registers a domain name doesn't make it NOT a personal site. (statements like "When I bought my NC30" and "Meet the NC30. Ok, meet my NC30! She is a 1991 Mk.III," seem to substantiate the 'personal site' theory). tedder (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions on external link?