Talk:Roadster (bicycle)

message: The word "heavy" is used 12 times in this short article.  Once or twice should suffice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stadsfietsen (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word 'heavy' overused 

message: The link from European city bike here says the difference is that the Roadster is lighter.  This is especially ironic seeing the comment above that the word heavy is overused here--Zachbe (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose a merge with the so-called "European city bike".  The roadster has a better defined history, and characteristics, ECB is an ambiguous term used loosely to refer to any comfort bike that looks European.  Merging them would just make for a confusing article.  (I guess my posting this is fairly unnecessary as this idea seems to have spured no interest, but I just wanted to add this just in case)--Keithonearth (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, but we must remember that contemporary "European city bike" are Descendants of the English Roadsters. There's plenty of data that will eventually be added and separate articles will be necessary ∞  Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be combined with '''European city bike'''? 

message: We have tried several lead images lately, but all have been rejected by another editor for some reason or another.
File:Brosen city bicycle.jpg|Nice and clear with full chain case, but no rod brakes
File:Man on bicycle.jpg|Pretty clear historical example, but no chain guard of any kind.
File:1968 3-Speed Raleigh.jpg|Good example with rod brakes, but no chain case and dark background hides frame
File:Sohrab bicycle.jpg|Good clear image, but no chain case and double top tube is not archetypal
Seems as though we need a better image. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal preference would be the Brosen - roadsters don't have to have rod brakes.  The modern ones don't and even some of the pre-war ones used Bowden cables.   I'll change it to that image unless anyone has any objections. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: My recollection of the US "English racer" of the mid-late 50s was that it had a cable-actuated 3-speed rear hub, not derailleur shifting as the article states.  Note that most of the images in the article show non-derailleur bikes (with chain guards) -- some apparently single-speed and some with cable-actuated rear hubs.  Generally cable-operated rim brakes were used on the US "English racers" of this era.
(Other de rigueur features of the English racer of the 50s were a frame pump and a headlight.)
drh (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English racer? (History section) 

message: The article City bicycle was substantially improved since this issue was evoked. I suppose the two articles should be merged. What do you say? João Pimentel Ferreira 23:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Totally Opposed; City bicycle has nothing to do with a Roadster Bicycle. A Roadster bicycle is of another breed ″that nowadays it adapts to city use″, a roadster bicycle was, in its glory days, not necessarily used in the city but also in the countryside as well as for carrying freight [sort of  a pickup truck]. A Roadster bicycle was originally built for multiple uses, as well as racing when it was adapted as a Path Racer. Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here further info about Roadster Bicycle @ Encyclopædia_Britannica/Bicycle, section [913]: Frames.—Fig. 1 represents a road-racer. A full roadster would have the handles a little higher relatively to the saddle, and would be provided with mud-guards....   Let's keep Wikipedia enciclopedic. - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Parroting Britannica from 1911 his hardly what we mean by "encyclopedic". That's one definition of roadster, and it matters in the context of what they thought in 1911, but that should be balanced with all the other definitions that reliable sources have attested in all the other periods. Personal enthusiasm for "glory days" or whatever isn't relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be combined with [[City bicycle]]? 

message: From reading the article's introduction and first paragraphs, and skimming the rest of the page, it's really not clear to me what makes this type of bicycle different from the bicycles that are more common today. I think it would greatly improve the article to have that information clear and upfront. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute it, since I don't have that information. Cotoco (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's not our job to create or invent definitions of things. That would be original research. We merely report what significant sources say the definition is. Perhaps this type of bike isn't different from others, but if sources speak of it as if it were, our job is to convey what the sources are saying.<P>You won't find a bulletproof definition of SUV or station wagon, or of road bike or BMX bike. And don't even get me started on much abused terms like crossover or hybrid. If you find a Wikipedia article that claims to give you the one true definition of these things, it's likely the article is ignoring significant points of view, not giving due weight to all significant sources, and oversimplifying what the sources say.<P>Vehicle marketers like to invent new categories for their products to reside in, so that they can achieve the coveted "in a class by itself" status, or simply to seem newer or more with it. Terms like roadster are historic in nature, meaning one thing in 1890 and something else in 1920 and something else in 2019. What makes something exotic and sporty in one decade is merely utilitarian in a later decade.<P>So yes, people disagree on what precisely a roadster is, and the meaning has changed over time. I know many would like for Wikipedia to invent an intensive definition that is logically consistent in all cases, but as someone once said, Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets. Just write an article that faithfully summarizes what sources say. The sources don't need to be consistent or all-knowing. They merely need to be reliable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better definition / differentiation