Talk:Naked bike

message: When is the term Naked bike first been used and who does: 1993 Ducati created the first production naked bike, the Monster and, are they calling it a Naked Bike?++Scooterman 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: term

message: The Café racer in my opinion was the first "naked bike"
And Ducati didnt produce the first production "naked bike." In fact the Suzuki Bandit 400 came out in 1989 and I am sure they were not the first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.60.130 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Café racer 

message: Naked bike is nearly all rambling opinions and soapboxing.  It's lore passed down by oral tradition and somebody's idle speculation.  The short definition over at Types of motorcycles#Naked/Standard could have some fat trimmed away too, but it more or less does the job.  The reader gains nothing by reading that, and then coming here and finding more hot air, hopefully taking it all with a grain of salt.  If a future editor does find decent sources to write a trustworthy article, the redirect can always be removed and a new article created.  Until then, keep nothing and redirect to Types of motorcycles#Naked/Standard.  --Dbratland (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Do it. tedder (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Rather than merge I would like to see the Naked bike article improved (and renamed to Naked motorcycle). I think it should be a standalone article as with the other classifications. But I do agree that as it stands it is pretty poor. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of improving the article, but I think it doesn't stand alone right now. My suggestion is to merge this info into types of motorcycles right now. If the information within that section becomes dense enough, then maybe we can spin it off into a stand alone article again. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The principle is to say little or nothing until you have something solid.  Having one article per motorcycle type is a good goal, but that should be secondary to the need to stay mum unless you can verify what you're saying.  I've actually been thinking about naked, standard, streetfighter, traditional, UJM, cafe bike, rat bike, etc. for quite some time and the best answer I have is that it's in the eye of the beholder. --Dbratland (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. So it looks like we're at least reaching a consensus to merge to the main one. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also supporting the merge, but I'd like to see "Standard/Street" separated from "Naked"; I ride a Street bike that's no-frills, but, to borrow a phrase, I'd like a little crowbar separation, please! The implication that I'm doing street racing, dropping my bike and knocking parts off... well, I'm sorry, but I think street racing on a motorcycle is active Darwinism. 99.235.14.154 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge to Types of motorcycles 

message: The original "naked" bikes were the café racers of the 1950s and 1960s, which were bikes that were stripped down for riding and racing to the many transport cafés (hence the name "café racer") that had sprung up along the highways. However, the "modern" naked bike trend (as the first motorcycles could be classified as naked bikes as well) started in Europe, during the late 1980s.
This disputed paragraph is not exactly wrong -- in fact I think it's probably true, in a loose sense.  This is largely a question of semantics over a word that was coined in the 90s for a subject that had existed prior to the 90s.  The real problem is that it cites no sources.  For now I think the best solution is to merge the sourced material into Types of motorcycles (see discussion above) and don't bother merging any  of the unsourced stuff.  A future version of this page can always be created, once decent sources are gathered. --Dbratland (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't unusual for "later" terms to be used to describe something that existed previously. The Art Deco movement wasn't named such until ~35 years after it began. I'm not sure this should be merged back- pruned back, perhaps, but I tend to think it should exist as a freestanding article. tedder (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing gives me a headache.  Part of the rationale for "naked" is that a "normal" sportbike of the late 80s or early 90s had a fairing.  But fairings were not standard before then, so applying the term backwards is arguably of true, and also arguably wrong.  For me the bottom line is that a good article would included on all of these points -- enlighten the reader as to why you would, and why you would not, call a cafe racer a kind of "naked bike" and let the reader understand simply that people's opinions differ.<P>You could have the same discussion about "superbike" -- by today's standards the original superbike, the CB750, is now a "standard" or UJM, but in the day it was "super".  And you could go even further back and try calling a BSA Gold Star single a "superbike" if you wanted to.  Maybe terms like proto-superbike or proto-naked bike should be coined.  Or is it ""?<P>I would really like to find or create a better policy on how to handle this kind of terminology.  Your Art Deco example suggests the issue might have been addressed elsewhere on Wikipedia and resolved already.--Dbratland (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cafe racers