Talk:Motorcycle/Archive 4

message: The current image is rather poor. I like the idea thata it includes two types of motorcycles, but the examples are too small for a thumbnail. I propose a new lead image should be found. I was going to suggest the recently added Suzuki image, but I could see where this would lead to an unnecessary debate over what type of motorcycle is best representative. Not to mention a debate over which manufacturer to feature. Better to have an image that shows a range of styles. Anyone have any suggestions? —M (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like the idea that it includes two types of motorcycles. Since the image is in the public domain, I edited it for contrast/brightness and cropped it a little, and I uploaded the edited version. I'll also keep my eyes open for a rally or something. Maybe I'll drop by the used bike dealer down the street and see if I can get a variety shot. --Evb-wiki 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ps - I like the old image better. --Evb-wiki 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Lead image needed 

message: The article currently makes the following unsourced claim: "most common type of motorcycle accident is caused by inattentive drivers making a turn directly in front of a motorcycle". However, according to NHTSA DOT HS 809 360, the October 2001 full report "Fatal Single Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
*"single vehicle motorcycle crashes account for about 45 percent of all motorcyclist fatalities"
*"half of the fatalities are related to negotiating a curve prior to the crash"
*"almost two thirds of the fatalities were associated with speeding"
*"collision with a fixed object is a significant factor in over half of the fatalities"
Seems contradictory. -AndrewDressel 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems contradictory indeed. Do we know who wrote the current statement? It could take some time to find who wrote that and ask where it came from, even if they are still about. It may have come from  here or more likely here. ww2censor 21:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not inconsistent at all. the first statement refers to a portion of all motorcycle accidents. The NHTSA stats only slice up the factors involved in fatal motorcycle accidents. Apples & oranges. Nevertheless, we should be able to find the stats in a safety/training manual or something. I found a discussion in a Gold Wing Road Riders Association Motorist Awareness Division "Playbook", but the stats were not set out clearly. --Evb-wiki 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this article, while British, it does make for interesting reading on the subject. ww2censor 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hate to have to learn a whole new language just to read a source. Can you translate it? --Evb-wiki 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL ww2censor 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a good source for m/c safety data: The Hurt Report Jeff dean 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: I added a reference to but then removed the following, because it really was not relevant to the "Safety" section it was in:
:Even though statistics appear fearsome, people still desire to ride motorcycles. A common justification given by new riders is "the feeling of freedom" associated with riding a motorcycle. fn.1 "Rider training in Europe The Views and the Needs of the Rider," The Federation of European Motorcyclists, Bob Tomlins - FEM Assistant General Secretary and Project Co-ordinator (September 1997). They like the openness of motorcycling, compared to the enclosure of an automobile.  They like feeling the wind and smelling the environment through which they ride. 
:While the reasons for people choosing to ride motorcycles are many and varied, those reasons are increasingly practical, with riders opting for a powered two-wheeler as a cost-effecient alternative to infrequent and expensive public transport systems, or as a means avoiding or reducing the effects of the crippling urban congestion. fn.2 "Rider training in Europe The Views and the Needs of the Rider," supra. --Evb-wiki 04:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff you removed is mostly covered in the Motorcycling and Motorcycle safety pages, so removing it seems a good idea. It might be useful to link to Motorcycling in particular in this social aspects section of the Motorcycle article. --Cheesy Mike 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common justification

message: Wow!  This article seems to be under "assault" many times each day.  Is it possible that this is the most "tweaked" article in Wikipedia?  Jeff dean 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff - there you go again with that paranoia of yours! Wikipedia is a collaborative, possibly slightly anarchic, environment with no concept of article ownership. I'd say that the edits over the past few days have been mostly constructive and for the good of the article. --Cheesy Mike 09:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am just surprised at how much this article gets worked over, normally for the better.  Paranoidly yours, Jeff dean 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You see Jeff IS paranoid, or is he? Maybe he is just paranoid about motorcycles, maybe not. ww2censor 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would respond, but I don't have time. I swear the FBI is trying to break into my house and kill me.  Or it might be Homeland Security, which has been watching me for years trying to get me. I have to be on guard at all times.  Wait ... here they come! ...  Jeff dean 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, that's twice in 2 days. Good going indeed. Cheers ww2censor 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most "tweaked" article?

message: I noticed that the "Replica of the Daimler-Maybach Reitwagen" image in the History section does not always clear the text. I have been unable to format it so that the image has a runaround and the text does not drop under the image. Anyone know how to fix it? ww2censor 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image tweak needed 

message: Plungers were not only superceded by swing-arm suspensions, they were preceded by them. Have a look at a 1914 Indian Electric special. A Whiting. A Matchless 1934 Silver Hawk amongst many others. Whilst Tragatsch is quite limited, a reading by most editors would perhaps open your eyes. M-72 12:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always interesting to read that Jeff Dean can't justify anything BMW! M-72 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always willing to debate BMW innovatiotion. Are you? M-72 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plunger suspension 

message: There's an image example of a shaft drive which is excellent. The article needs an example of a chain drive which is very characteristic of the common MC design. Anyone care to contribute? The two bikes I have easy access to are both shafts. —M (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use an image (or a photo montage) of tyres too. --Evb-wiki 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean "tires"? :)) Jeff dean 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could be ROFLOL or i could pull a gun out and shoot myslef - i really don't know Pickle 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO!! Tyres! I know what tires look like. --Evb-wiki 19:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chain drive 

message: This section needs some copy-editing. First, there needs to be some sourcing on the types of motorcycles. Second, there are too many subtypes listed. I suggest that we split this into two meta-types: street and dirt. From there we can discuss the different sub-types. These should be limited to a very basic overview. For example, street would encompas cruiser, chopper, sport, touring, and sport-touring. I would be bold and dive right in, but I'd like to pose it here for discussion because I could see this as one area where there could be a lot of contention. Please remember the policies of WP:V and WP:RS. —M (talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of motorcycles 

message: Is there any short for motorcycle (ej. in the same way of aeroplane / plane) ?
--Altermike 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK the most common short form is "bike" (as in motorbike). In fact the word "motorcycle" is rarely used. --Cheesy Mike 10:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bike is a disambiguation page and directs readers to Bicycle and Motorcycle. As you suggesting we include that in the intro as a name used in GB (only)? Maybe SA uses that name too! ww2censor 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bike is fairly common in US too. —M (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I rarely hear "motorbike" in the U. S., and when I do it tends to be nonriders who used that term. I do hear "bike" in casual conversation among riders, but when nonriders are in the conversation I hear "motorcycle." It's a big country, so most likely others have different impressions. Jeff dean 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I hear "bike" frequently but it is ambiguous in many situations whether one is talking about a motorcycle or bicycle. Brianhe 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  short 

message: In November 2006, the Dutch company E.V.A. Products BV Holland announced that the first commercially available diesel-powered motorcycle, its Track T-800CDI, achieved production status.[5] The Track T-800CDI uses a 800cc three-cylinder Daimler Chrysler diesel engine.c
Royal Enfield had a diesel-powered bike back in 1965. Given that reconditioned bikes can still be bought, I would guess it was "commercially available" back in 65.
:: The 1965 bike is a "Royal Enfield" not an "Indian Enfield" and is retrofitted with a diesel. Indian Enfield built the Taurus after Sooraj sometime in the 1980's. M-72 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the referenced source means "mass produced" or "only currently available." Anyway, E.V.A. Products' claim in November 2006 set off discussions like this throughout the motorcycling community. --Evb-wiki 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you checked out this link? Cheers ww2censor 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First to me means "first", not "first available in any quantity". I do think that should be clarified on the article page.  ~ Mlk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "First" means "first" to me too.  What does "commercially available" mean to you? --Evb-wiki 21:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can go out to a shop and buy it, as is the case with the RE. ~ Mlk 13:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First commercially available diesel-powered motorcycle 

message: Currently, standard motorcycles are listed as a subcategory of sportbikes, as a synonym of "naked bikes", which I don't think is correct.  Canonically, bikes like UJMs would be considered standards, but not sportbikes.  Examples of modern standards could be Triumph and Indian motorcycles (of course not the Thruxton), which again, aren't sportbikes.  Thoughts?
205.200.145.205
:I agree. Standard does not fit well as a subcategory of sportbikes. -AndrewDressel 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard motorcycles are sportbikes? 

message: The construction section is quite long and looks like a good candidate for a new article.  I can do this in the next few days if it is not controversial.  Brianhe 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several important article that are a long as this one and as the lead article for the topic, it really should be as comprehensive as possible. If we put it up for peer review again, maybe that will be a constructive comment though I doubt it. Cheers ww2censor 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, it's not much of an article w/o the construction section. The construction is the heart of the motorcycle.  Otherwise, it's just a collection of view-points and attitudes re motorcycling. --Evb-wiki 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can strip out Motorcycle history, Motorcycle safety, Types of motorcycle and even Motorcycling but a motorcycle is the construction of the vehicle. --Evb-wiki 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Another vote for keeping the section intact. --Cheesy Mike 07:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brianhe that's what I would have expected but I still don't like the idea until the whole article gets too unwieldy. Let;s put our effort into trying to get it to WP:GA or even WP:FA status instead of futzing with it in any major way. ww2censor 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, of course, free to create new articles at will. I just personally don't see the need for an article on motorcycle construction, as I view that as the essence of Motorcycle. In addition (or nevertheless or sumpin'), the construction section has only one (count 1) footnote. I'm not sure the sec. can stand alone as an article (and be any good) without more. We could sure use help filling out the sources here. --Evb-wiki 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: While searching for references to add to the construction section, I ran across this cite. While it's not the ideal reliable source, the author is identified and he does provide a list of sources. His work suggests our construction section may need a slight adjustment or two in structure. --Evb-wiki 18:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also looking through the Motorcycle Glossary, which is provided in as an external link. The Chassis entry, for example encompasses the frame, suspension and front forks. We use chassis as a synonym for frame. --Evb-wiki 18:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I broke out Motorcycle construction into a new article today.  Brianhe 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Break out construction to new article?

message: Just to let you know that a review of this article is underway, and I should be able to post something here in the next 24-36 hours.  Any questions throughout this process should be posted on my talk page --Fritzpoll 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, a few things in my real life caught up with me, and I didn't get back here to do the review.  I'll sort this out by Monday. --Fritzpoll 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No worries.  Thanks for the once over. --Evb-wiki 17:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note that this article was not listed as being under review on the WP:GAC page and I did not notice the above comments until completing and posting my own GA review of the article. Given the most recent comment above was posted two weeks ago I hope this is not a problem. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review in Progress 

message: Hi, I am going to fail this article for GA at present. There are several issues that need to be addressed
*Fails MOS lead section guide in that it fails to "Provide an accessible overview". This is currently a single sentence of two sentences, which is completely insufficient to give an overview of everything that is covered in the body of the article. This is a common problem with lead paras, people don't realise it is meant to summarise the content of the article.
*Fails to be factually accurate and verifiable in that is fails to "cite reliable sources", 22 cites in an article that length is very few, which is no problem on its own except that all 22 cites are to online sources, some of them obscure and/or colloquial. Whilst cites are not needed for general statements that few would dispute, when you are quoting exact figures (eg "Until the First World War, the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world was Indian, producing over 20,000 bikes per year") then you really need to be providing cites to verify this.
*Fails to be "broad in its coverage" in that it fails to "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details", the section headers are overpopulated and too much detail is gone into in content that would be best suited to daughter articles (a prime example is the 3-screens worth of detail on construction variations .
*Although not a GAC criterion, I would also mention that the article is overpopulated with images - fewer, more relevant and better images are preferred to many lesser quality ones. A photo of a helmet for instance is of only marginal relevance to the primary article on motorcycles on wikipedia.
I understand that such high-level articles are extremely difficult to write because of the competing demands of so many areas that it is necessary to cover, and I notice that similar problems plague both automobile and aeroplane so I wish you luck with a difficult task bringing this article to GA standard. I hope you will take this GA review in good faith as constructive criticism (the authors of some of the articles I have reviewed recently have been less than gracious when their articles failed GA) and work to address the issues raised in order to bring the article to GA status. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: Regarding the introductory paragraph for Motorcycle#construction.  I'm reverting a change to say that one- to eight-cylinder motorcycles are common.  Unless I'm mistaken there are very few 8-cylinder motors -- Boss Hoss is the only one I can think of and I've never seen one on the road. Obviously there are many variants that could be described here (diesel or rotary engines for instance), but I'm trying to cover the vast majority of machines in a simple summary.  The Motorcycle construction article would be the appropriate place to detail noteworthy experiments and niche market machines. Brianhe 06:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Construction: common engines

message: Hundreds of motorcycle terms and terminology, free resource, now it it's 4th edition. From #'s, A-Z. The largest Motorcycle Glossary of it's kind on the internet. 
Link: Total Motorcycle Biker's Dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalmotorcycle (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 August 2007
:We had an extensive discussion here about external links (now archived).  The consensus was, with rare exceptions, that external links should be confined to dmoz and one or two model-specific sites only (usually a manufacturer's site).  You are encouraged to use dmoz as a general purpose directory.  Refer to WP:EL for extensive reasons why this is a good thing or browse the Talk:Motorcycle archive. Brianhe 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to Total Motorcycle Biker's Dictionary? 

message: I think it is a little unfair to only have a link to the AMA in an international website, especially as the FIM is already represented.  Could we please add links to other large motorcycle organsiations such as FEMA, the ACU and BMF, etc. --Muthaf9cka 13:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably you could drop the AMA, all other governing bodies are mentioned through the FIM article. Not sure about other lobby groups though such as BMF, MAG etc. Pickle 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to other national bodies 

message: First, I believe there has been a consensus to set the pixels on the lead image higher than the default 180px. (Not my preference, but I've accepted it.) Also, since we went to the trouble of ensuring that image placement enhanced and followed the text (as far as relevance), I think dropping them into a gallery (which I feel disrupts the textual flow and article format) is against consensus. It at least needs to be discussed prior to implementation. I've made my opinions known. --Evb-wiki 12:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wherein lies consensus in this regard? What constitutes consensus? Motorrad-67 12:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Evb-wiki. A larger lead image looks better IMHO. Leave the other images in place as they are relevant to the text. --Cheesy Mike 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. I did not say "a larger lead image looks better." (That may depend on the image.) I said it's "Not my preference, but I've accepted it." (Acquiescence is a form of consent.) It's really not that big of deal to me, as the size of the LEAD image helps balance the blank space from the TOC (but, some people hide the TOC, so . . .), as long as it doesn't overshadow the intro paragraph. Of course, consensus can change. --Evb-wiki 13:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  .. "leave stupid fucking spelling edits" — Aha!  Now I understand "consensus!"   Motorrad-67 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on images 

message: Can somebody explain what's going on with all the recent edits and reversions? I have lost track of what is new and why all the undos.  Maybe we can discuss here & avoid an edit war. -- Brianhe 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as i can tell, other than the usual mass vandalism and link farming, its edit that has changed rather a lot of stuff in one go that raises issues of concern. some bits are relatively normally tidying exercise but others are major changes which were the result of a lot of talk and consensus forming. Pickle 07:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  September, 2007 reversions 

message: Hey all,
I've added in the auto templates for doing the conversions for many of the figures. One that I'm not sure if people want done differently is the kW to bhp is now saying "hp" instead of bhp. Dunno if anyone's got issues with that, if so maybe can use the auto bhp one for conversion instead.. NathanLee 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion templates