Talk:Ducati Monster

message: Expect more expansions in the next week or two, this article is a collaboration for the James Madison University Student organization, Sadads (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. I look forward to it. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent expansions 

message: There is information re the Ducati Monster in an archived page of the Miguel Galluzzi article, linked here.  The information was too specific to the Monster for the Galluzzi article, but anyone interested in improving the Ducati Monster article can find valuable information here. 842U (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ducati Monster info 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ducati Monster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117020007/http://ducati.com/bikes/monster/796/tech_spec.do to http://www.ducati.com/bikes/monster/796/tech_spec.do
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the Ducati Monster be primarily described as a standard motorcycle, naked bike or muscle bike? Or none of the above? Example approximate phrasing options:
*  The Ducati Monster (called Il Mostro in Italian) is a muscle bike designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi and produced by Ducati in Bologna, Italy, since 1993. It is a naked bike, characterized by an exposed engine and frame. 
*[...] is a naked (or more generally, a standard or roadster) motorcycle characterized by an exposed engine and frame, originally designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi and made by Ducati in Bologna, Italy since 1993.
*[...] is a standard motorcycle, originally designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi and made by Ducati in Bologna, Italy since 1993. [...] The larger-displacement Monsters such as the M900 have been called muscle bikes, and it is frequently called a naked bike.
*[...] is a motorcycle, originally designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi and made by Ducati in Bologna, Italy since 1993. 
Actual wording and article layout and organization are left to later editorial discretion. The RfC question is only which term to emphasize. Please read the sources cited in the lead of the current version, and the footnotes at standard motorcycle ad Sport_bike#Variations. Copies of offline sources can be emailed upon request or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Naked review.  (Different model, still monstered, and naked).  Naked review. Is this right, what I'm doing?  (naked review) and so on. scope_creep (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Summoned by bot, BTW. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a very good solution. Standard is absolutley fitting. Mustangs6551 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The definition in the draft does not match what the standard article says – that it’s an upright sitting motorcycle. If we go with the draft, we’re going to have to change that other article also. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm not a motorcycle expert at all, but am an expert editor, and can quickly see when something is inconsistent.  I'll take your word for it that whichever term is used doesn't matter, but what does matter is being consistent everywhere, or at least including qualifying language as you suggest; otherwise, it weakens the encyclopedia by giving picky people (like me) a way to challenge its reliability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only level of consistency that's possible is within the scope of a certain period, and geographical location. Articles like KTM 390 series or Honda Super Cub give some explanation about why this is so. In the present age, bikes in the ~250-350 cc range are called "big bikes" in markets like India, where most people see ~100-200 cc bikes every day (though India, China, Brazil, etc are fast changing and will be different in 5, 10, 15 years). In the US and Europe, the same 250 cc bike is called  "little bike", a "tiddler" or beginner bike. Kawasaki triple gives a sense of how breathlessly astounded the US motorcycling press was with ~450 lb bikes in the early 1970s that had 60-70 hp. This was considered an insane sport bike, too much for most riders to handle. Now I ride a 2014 Triumph Street Triple, that weighs less, has the same exposed frame, and upright riding position. And has over 100 hp, dwarfing the "insane" Kawasaki triples. But this modern bike, while kind of sporty, is well understood to be a standard (or "naked" or "streetfighter", in terms of cosmetics). It's just too tame to be called a sport bike these days.<P>Even limited to one time period and one market, there are variances. Motorcycle Consumer News is reserved and serious in how it categorizes bikes, while Cycle World and Motor Cycle News are more fanciful, and relatively more willing to go along with manufacturer hype in giving "new and improved" names to old bikes. If you want a source with gravitas similar to a proper encyclopedia, I'd follow Motorcycle Consumer Newss lead on these categories, by the way. But that only gets us so far.<P>Or forget about motorcycles. Look at all the Featured Articles about music. Musical genres are not absolute laws of the universe. They're descriptors attached to their context. "Pop" in 1960 is not pop in 2010. Not that science like Genetics or Astronomy give us absolute, neat categories to place everything in.<P>What weakens the encyclopedia is taking the uncertainty found in our sources and shoehorning that into certainty for the sake of having neat and tidy articles. It violates the core policies of verifiable and no original research to deviate that far from our sources. If you want to be able to stand up to anyone who challenges a motorcycle article's reliability, then that article needs to have a tone which tells the reader that categories should be taken with a grain of salt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  very well stated – I think you have a Wikipedia policy essay in you somewhere. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  all that's pretty spot on. Take that point of view that we're discussing relative riding positions when we say "upright". A standard fits between the sport bike riding position with clip on handlebars and the standard cruiser position that has a rider very upright. A standard distributes weight between the wrists and butt/inner thighs. On a cruiser the weight is all on the butt. On a sportbike you're weight is on the wrists and your gut resting on the seat, with little in your legs. Mustangs6551 (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on calling the Ducati Monster a naked, standard or muscle bike 

message: *Naked Four refs on British Google on ,  (described in page tags as Naked)  (described as Naked),  (described as naked in Popular Mechanics). scope_creep (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Naked review.  (Different model, still monstered, and naked).  Naked review. Is this right, what I'm doing?  (naked review) and so on. scope_creep (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Summoned by bot, BTW. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a very good solution. Standard is absolutley fitting. Mustangs6551 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The definition in the draft does not match what the standard article says – that it’s an upright sitting motorcycle. If we go with the draft, we’re going to have to change that other article also. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *This is all rather detailed; your last paragraph could also include: Terms and conditions apply. Your mileage may vary. Errors and omissions excepted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a motorcycle expert at all, but am an expert editor, and can quickly see when something is inconsistent.  I'll take your word for it that whichever term is used doesn't matter, but what does matter is being consistent everywhere, or at least including qualifying language as you suggest; otherwise, it weakens the encyclopedia by giving picky people (like me) a way to challenge its reliability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only level of consistency that's possible is within the scope of a certain period, and geographical location. Articles like KTM 390 series or Honda Super Cub give some explanation about why this is so. In the present age, bikes in the ~250-350 cc range are called "big bikes" in markets like India, where most people see ~100-200 cc bikes every day (though India, China, Brazil, etc are fast changing and will be different in 5, 10, 15 years). In the US and Europe, the same 250 cc bike is called  "little bike", a "tiddler" or beginner bike. Kawasaki triple gives a sense of how breathlessly astounded the US motorcycling press was with ~450 lb bikes in the early 1970s that had 60-70 hp. This was considered an insane sport bike, too much for most riders to handle. Now I ride a 2014 Triumph Street Triple, that weighs less, has the same exposed frame, and upright riding position. And has over 100 hp, dwarfing the "insane" Kawasaki triples. But this modern bike, while kind of sporty, is well understood to be a standard (or "naked" or "streetfighter", in terms of cosmetics). It's just too tame to be called a sport bike these days.<P>Even limited to one time period and one market, there are variances. Motorcycle Consumer News is reserved and serious in how it categorizes bikes, while Cycle World and Motor Cycle News are more fanciful, and relatively more willing to go along with manufacturer hype in giving "new and improved" names to old bikes. If you want a source with gravitas similar to a proper encyclopedia, I'd follow Motorcycle Consumer Newss lead on these categories, by the way. But that only gets us so far.<P>Or forget about motorcycles. Look at all the Featured Articles about music. Musical genres are not absolute laws of the universe. They're descriptors attached to their context. "Pop" in 1960 is not pop in 2010. Not that science like Genetics or Astronomy give us absolute, neat categories to place everything in.<P>What weakens the encyclopedia is taking the uncertainty found in our sources and shoehorning that into certainty for the sake of having neat and tidy articles. It violates the core policies of verifiable and no original research to deviate that far from our sources. If you want to be able to stand up to anyone who challenges a motorcycle article's reliability, then that article needs to have a tone which tells the reader that categories should be taken with a grain of salt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  very well stated – I think you have a Wikipedia policy essay in you somewhere. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  all that's pretty spot on. Take that point of view that we're discussing relative riding positions when we say "upright". A standard fits between the sport bike riding position with clip on handlebars and the standard cruiser position that has a rider very upright. A standard distributes weight between the wrists and butt/inner thighs. On a cruiser the weight is all on the butt. On a sportbike you're weight is on the wrists and your gut resting on the seat, with little in your legs. Mustangs6551 (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: I am admittedly new to editing, but I uploaded a photo of an S4R, which another editor just deleted shortly after my addition thereof to the Monster page.  My question is simple: Why delete it?  What is the standard for keeping vs. deleting?
Other than the fundamentals (meaning: the photo is a decent image, in focus, not altered or retouched, properly cropped, and there is no underlying copyright violation of the image (as I took it myself), etc.), I notice three basic things: (1) for the Monster to be such a popular and high-grossing bike for Ducati, its Wikipedia entry is fairly short, limited in substance, and lacks the wealth of photos etc. that many other bikes' pages have -- given that Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, more information, greater coverage of sub-models and specifications, engines, color schemes, etc. is therefore welcome, together with more visual support such as photos of various models for identification; (2) there is currently no image of this model of the Monster range (the S4R), so there is value in having it depicted, especially in the (rare) blue-and-white color combination; and (3) the user who deleted the photo has one of his own photos uploaded that forms part of the Monster article (namely the 1200 Monster).
I don't have an issue with the deletion per se (especially if its rationale is well-founded, or I am missing some major Wikipedia guidance here); I would just like to get some other editors' input on the reasoning for this edit / deletion, perhaps even the deleting user's own explanation for it?
Thanks.  SeriousContributor (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In general we look for the highest quality image for a model, properly framed and without pincushion, dirty lens, or other degradation to the image. Quality (prosumer/professional) equipment is preferred to cell phone imagers. We follow WP Automobiles standards which can be found here Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Minimum standards. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidance please: which Monster images are appropriate / meaningful / to be kept vs. to be deleted? 

message: "Muscle" is an opinion. It's relative. It depends a great deal on what your local region, your generation, your period in history, thinks of as a "normal" power output for a "normal" bike. It varies widely by market and over time. Some models of Monster that were made over the years can be said to have had a disproportionate amount of power, but not all, and not even that many. It's definitely a "standard motorcycle", and you can call it a "naked bike" if you prefer more esoteric terminology 9that cries out for a lot of unenlightening explanation), but not everyone calls it a muscle bike, and nobody can call all monsters muscle bikes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dennis, I guess you are in favor of this edit by an anonymous editor. Is there any motorcycle that in your opinion should be called a "muscle bike"? Should the section Types of motorcycles#Muscle bike even exist? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bri I was the author of one of those edits changing "muscle" to "naked", I kicked off the RFC a couple of years ago that ended inconclusively. I've made an exhustive attempt above to show why the term "muscle" bike is incorrect. MOST Monsters would not fall under the category of Muscle Bike, certainly none of the Desmodue/2 Valve motored ones. I'd also like to highlight, that the main opponent to my changing the entry has since been banned from wikipedia for abusing the system. The one source used to call the Monster a Muscle Bike was a non motorcycle magazine that I would say was an exceptionally poor source. Regarding what could be considered a Muscle Bike, the Harley VROD and Yamaha VMAX are prime examples. Very powerful engines, lack of emphasis on handling. The --Mustangs6551 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop with the "muscle bike" nonsense