Talk:Triumph Thunderbird

message: What was the displacement of the 6T motor? Might include it. Trekphiler 02:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

message: Can it be considered to add more information about the differences in specification between the new production Thunderbird and the uprated Thunderbird Sport?  Also I have a link with an audio clip of a recording from the Thunderbird Sport to be considered for addition in the external links:
* Thunderbird Sport Exhaust Recording
S burras 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More techincal information and external link 

message: As part of the Motorcycling WikiProject I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes.  
There a loads of Thunderbird Models (mine was the Hinkley 900) so I would welcome views on this article being the 'home page' for a number of main articles which could all be expanded over time?
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) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category for British Motorcycles 

message: I propose that we create seperate articles for the different models and cross ref them using also, as all they have in common is the name.  Any views? Tony (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No replies so  Thruxton (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles for different models? 

message: There is a excellent photo in wikimedia commons entitled 'Triumph 6T 650 cc Thunderbird 1950' that perfectly illustrates the model and is a better title photo. The current one is useful to illustrate the later 'bathtub' style but otherwise not as clear an image.
Can this be uploaded onto this page ? 213.123.135.235 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo 

message: From what I remember at this time of my youth, the first three Thunderbirds were taken to the Montlhery track and run at 90mph - I have always understood 'for twenty-four hours', but perhaps you are right and it was only 500 miles.  One bike had a split fuel tank, which had to be replaced, and so averaged only 86mph.  'A spokesman' said at the time that they could have speeded up to complete the 90mph schedule, but they didn't bother. 83.33.80.149 (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Ping User:Dennis Bratland
The edit was reverted here per "...popculture sections are discouraged. external links section is necessary. where are the 3rd party sources saying this is relevant?" I thought the section was good. 
First, popular culture sections are everywhere at Wikipedia and are not discouraged. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. I'm not a big fan of them myself, but felt this is a good exception.
Second, the ext links section is not needed just to keep a commonscat link. That can go to ref section.
Third, this is a pretty big pop culture reference. That motorbike and those two fat ladies are pretty famous and there are tons and tons of sources that refer to the bike.
If the community thinks the section should not be there, fine by me. I tend to say my bit and then let things happen as they will.
Thoughts?
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That essay rejects including unsourced content. And anyway, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content is an wp:essay, or "unofficial guidance". The minimum number of editors required to write an essay is one (1). In other words, it's basically some/an editor's opinion. In order to raise the status of an essay to the next level, a guideline, a proposal must be made, and it must win the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community.<P>Which leads us to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, which is a guideline which has won consensus from many editors. The gist is "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided". It makes clear that it is not a reason do delete pop culture or trivia, provided it is well sourced. Well-sourced pop culture content should be integrated into the article. But no sources whatsoever were cited. The burden to cite sources is on the editor who adds the content. So.<P>If the bike on this show is so famous, and the TV show was so relevant to the Triumph Thunderbird, then that assertion should be demonstrable using third party sources that meet the minimum standards for reliability. It needs to be much more than the mere fact that the bike was on the show. Should we list every single TV show where someone wrote with a Bic pen or used a Mr. Coffee coffee maker? There's thousands of consumer goods in TV shows. The question is, why is this particular one so important? If sources exist, they would tell us what the relevance and importance of the Triumph Thunderbird being on Two Fat Ladies is, and then once we know what the relevance is, we will know what section in the artilce the information should be integrated. The essay on pop culture puts it like this: "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance".<P>If we absolutely can't find a place to integrate it (and if we can't, why must it be here?) then a section which consists of nothing but Two Fat Ladies information should be called Two Fat Ladies, not In popular culture. A few comparable examples: Honda CB77 (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance), Kawasaki GPZ900R (Top Gun) and Brough Superior (T.E. Lawrence). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You make good points. Perhaps others will give their views. As for whether or not it ends up in the article, I really don't mind that much either way. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture section