Talk:Motorcycle/Archive 2

message: The motorcycle.com page doesn't tell much unless you subscribe. I suggest taking them off the list of external links. What do you think? 66.174.79.234 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorcycle.com link at bottom of motorcycle page. 

message: I have added the appropriate tag; () tags to this page as I believe there are many areas which require a good look at for NPOV issues, see above conversations. Bennyboyz3000 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific. What problems do you see? I am sure you don't mean the whole article is NPOV, maybe there are occasional POV, so lets talk about them and fine the facts or a consensus. The talk page is an appropriate place to discuss such matters. ww2censor 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't agree that this whole article violates Neutral Point of View requiring the use of a warning tag. The sub-section on history could use a little clean up, and maybe the section on safety could be edited to read in more encyclopediac style. Tagging this entire article as violating NPOV is wrong.  Gregarious Lonewolf 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also do not think the NPOV tag is appropriate. The points of contention in the above conversations are either long resolved or about spelling. Without specific issues to work on from Bennyboyz3000 or someone else, I don't know where to start. -AndrewDressel 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV tag is meant for use in the main article page, or in a section of that page, as appropriate and not on the talk page. The talk page is the very place where NPOV/POV will be expressed and discussed in order to resolve specific issues on the article main page. So I am removing the tag from this page and unless some specific items are mentioned for discussion as NPOV I will remove the page tag too within a day or so.  Cheers ww2censor 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have removed the tag, very inappropriate without proper explanation. Bennyboyz3000 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[NPOV]]

message: Wikipedia reports that "This page is 35 kilobytes long." when I edit it. This exceedes the recommended 32k. One cadidate section for its own article is History. In fact, I'm surprised that Motorcycle history does not already exist. Any objections to moving most of the History section to its own article and leaving just a brief paragraph in its place? -AndrewDressel 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but with plenty of room for wordsmithing. That brings the article down to 33k. Perhaps the safety section can be shrunk as there is already a Motorcycle Safety article. -AndrewDressel 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could remove these bits from History as they serve no purpose in the main article and little in the Motorcycle History article.
BMW motorcycles came on the scene in 1923 with shaft drive and an opposed-twin or "boxer" engine enclosed with the transmission in a single aluminium housing.
Police officers have used motorcycles — primarily for the enforcement of traffic laws — from the early 20th century. Called motor officers in the United States, these officers call their vehicles simply "motors." M-72 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article getting long 

message: Getting started riding has been added. Even though the article is US-centric and the advice offered is illegal in some jurisdictions, I  won't rv it out of existence. I'd kick myself except that might offer pleasure when punishment is more appropriate. How did we (assuming you're all motorcycle riders). forget this? There is a need to supply this advice. HOWEVER, we get into the complicated areas of licences, definitions and legal jurisdictions. I don't think that Wikipaedia wants to be a legal source, but how do you avoid it in a tangent that needs it? Comments welcomed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M-72 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting Started

message: Unconstructive inflammatory comments removed.
:These comments are totally unconstructive and nothing to do with the article, so please stop and get on with making better articles. ww2censor 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all ridiculous, M72 had some of the best contributions to this whole page, but no one responded to them.  I'm sure he was simply upset at the people editing this article to remove other people's work rather to be all inclusive, and actually contribute.  I mean seriously wikipedia is all about how inclusive you can be, why else would there be articles on all kinds of deviant sexual fetishes perpetuated by pornographers who seek to promote them.  But the order is in from ww2censor, get on with work so that Jimbo Wales can profit!--Budlight 01:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Petty bickering