Talk:Ducati Monster

The Monster is a naked Sports Bike, not a Naked Bike.

Some people seem to confuse Ducati's calling the Monster a naked bike. "Naked Bike" is not a class of bikes, it is a description of a style of Sports Bikes.

Touring Sports Racing etc

all refer to FUNCTION not the form. A Monster is naked in form, but its function is a sports bike.

best,

izaakb ~talk ~contribs 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet there is a difference. Lots of people shop for motorcycle based on looks. It should stay "naked" Mustangs6551 (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to aid in shopping. It is to be an encyclopedia. It is also not the job to be the judge of what a "true" muscle bike is or a "true" naked bike, any more than it's Wikipedia's job to decide what species an animal belongs in or whether or not Pluto is a planet. What you see in an article is there because the best sources we can find said it. Most of the time, sources will call a bike more than one thing: some say roadster, some say standard, some naked. Some will say custom where others say cruiser, or even chopper. All we're doing here is try to summarize what most of them have said. I would probably change this article to point out that some of our sources call the Monster a standard, or muscle bike, sometimes, though mostly the term naked is used.

It's true that sometimes bikes are classified by function, sometimes by mere appearance, some times by lineage, and sometimes by horsepower, or engine displacement, or wheel size. It depends on who is doing the classifying, and why. The article Types of motorcycles goes into a lot of detail about these contradictory classification schemes, and how ultimately they're in the eye of the beholder. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you have a vaild argument there regarding this not being a site for shopping, but I think it's still incorrect taxinomy to refer to the Monster as a "Muscle Bike". I made a post on the talk page bellow discussing this in detail. I cannot find any other source referring to the bike this way beyond the the Torque magazine, and I think that refference is incorrect on their point as more motorcycle oriented publications would not clissify the bike this way.

But moving beyond that, Wikipedia's definition of a muscle bike is a motorcycle "that puts a disproportionately high priority on engine power". Ducati Monsters come in engine size ranges from 400cc up to 1200cc. The monster 400 has 43 horsepower and weighs 384lbs. If anything, that bike is putting a disproportianately LOW priority on engine power. Over 2/3rds of the bike made have been under 900ccs and under 70hp. This is not a muscle bike.

I really like your idea of saying some sources give it all those deifnitions, and if we expanded it to say that, I'd accept saying that label could apply to a Monster 1200 or S4R, though I personally wouldn't call it that. Honestly, the whole page would probably be most accurate if it refered to the bike as a family or series of motorcycles. After all, a GSX-R 750 has a seperate page from a GSX-R 600, and they always have far more in common than say a M696 had to the M1100 or M900 had to the S4R.

(Sorry about the frequent edits, it's been awhile since I've written HTML and I'm remembering all the in's and outs as I respond here.Mustangs6551 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTSALES isn't just an argument I'm making. It's Wikipedia policy. Can't really get around that. Here's some more examples:

• Cycle World Magazine - Jan 1993 - Page 35. Vol. 32, No. 1 "... or, The Monster, is the handle that has stuck. The M900 (above) was conceived by Ducati designer Massimo Bordi as a musclebike variation of the standard-bike theme. Though it currently is powered by the 904cc VTwin found in the Ducati …"
• American Motorcyclist - Feb 1993 - Page 26 Vol. 47, No. 2 - ‎"'II Monstro' — the Monster. That's what the Italians are calling the newest addition to Ducati's street lineup. The new bike — officially designated the M900 — is a muscle-bike variation on the traditional Ducati 90-degree twin theme. Ducati …"
• Ultimate History of Fast Bikes - Page 236. Roland Brown - 2003 "Lean, simple, unfaired but at the same time aggressive and sleek, the Triple was from the same naked musclebike school as Ducati's Monster. With a torquey three-cylinder motor, high quality cycle parts, and no unnecessary frills, it was built"
• Eicher Motors closes in on Ducati; to make a binding bid of $1.8bn. Economic Times-Sep 6, 2017 "... division controls Ducati – maker of the "naked muscle bikes" like Monster – has been working with boutique investment bank Evercore to sell"
• Ducati's New Naked Monster 797 Bike Offers The Ultimate Fun... Droid Report-May 9, 2017 "Ducati's new naked Monster 797 has unveiled as the entry-level bike at this year's EICMA, Milan. Recognized as muscle bike or naked bike, the ..."

I'm not saying it is a muscle bike. But you can't say it's "wrong" to call it a muscle bike. There's too many reliable sources that call it that. Mostly they are using the term in the early 90s for the M900. Later, more smaller Monsters came out, and the hp of the M900 started to look less impressive as average horsepower increased. "Wikipedia's definition of a muscle bike" is nothing more than something I myself wrote in 2010 based on what the sources say. It's not Gospel. There is a reason we don't have Category:Muscle bikes or Category:Naked bikes. We just have Category:Standard motorcycles because that's the most we can be sure of. Whether a standard is a muscle or naked or streetfigher or whatever is too nebulous.

But it's not wrong to call the Monster a muscle bike. It's just incomplete. I would use the basic wording "The Ducati monster is a standard motorcycle" and then follow that up later in the lead, or down in the body that standard can be a synonym for naked or roadster, and the Monster is often called a naked bike, as well as sometimes being called a muscle bike. All true. The sources verify that it has been called these things. Are the sources wrong? Sometimes. But we can't prove them right or wrong. But we can be sure they said it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

fair enough. I actually went and looked for more sources referring to it as a muscle bike and didn't come up with any. If it's there, it's there. Give me a minute and I'll adjust to reflect something along the lines of "here's a few way's people categorize the bikes".

side note, would you have any objection to additional phrasing to reflect that Monster better reflects a family of bikes than individual?

Mustangs6551 (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

most crtical to me is the page not lead of with "The Monster is a muscle bike" as the very first sentence. I don't see a problem with it being in the article Mustangs6551 (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You see the Monster described as a muscle bike a few times, though Cycle World uses that term most frequently for the Diavel. Standard and naked seem to predominate:

• Motorcycle Consumer News's Performance Index has 12 Monster models listed, 11 of them classed as either Lightweight-, Middleweight-, or Open-Standard. The Monster 1200S of 2014 is called an Open-Class Naked. No muscle bikes on this list. http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/articles/2015_01PerfIndex.pdf
• In Cycle World p. 35 of January 1993, the M900 is called a "muscle bike variation of the standard theme". A muscle bike is a kind of standard. It's not a separate category.
• In 1993, Cycle World named the M900 Monster "Best Standard Bike". October 1993, p. 62
• In July 2000, the Monster S4 is mentioned as a runner-up for "Best Open-Class Streetbike". p 79
• The January 2014 CW Buyer's Guide p. 37 calls the Monster a "naked sportbike". On p. 38 the Monster 796 is called a "lightweight middleweight naked bike". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is my point. The article should not lead with defining the entire series of motorcycles as "Muscle" because it's not the predominate term used. "It's a motorcycle. Here's a list of descriptors people use for this type of motorcycle." Mustangs6551 (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

DML

Izaak, the DML is not merely a "fan site" (I can't find anywhere in the policy pages stating that fan sites are not allowed to be posted), but a community of people (forum) in addition to an informative website with a lot more relevant information that is posted on this wikipedia page. Many other pages have similar links (see Yamaha_Motor_Company and Honda_CB450 for example). I'm sorry you aren't allowed to post there (the DML) any more, but I feel like you're gaming the system because of personal feelings towards the administrators on that site. I placed the link in a "related links" category in the links section. I believe that would be in the spirit of the wikipedia guidelines. Dragsterhund 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragsterhund, links to forums such as enthusiast/fan sites are excluded under WP:EL and WP:FANSITE and specifically this guideline: LINKS TO BE AVOIDED Specifically #s four and eleven, to wit:

4 Links mainly intended to promote a website.
11 Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.

ALL external links to enthusiast sites are to be posted in the OpenDirectory, not directly in the Wikipedia article. Since you only joined Wikipedia recently, and have only edited this page, I understand your confusion about the rules -- there are plenty of them.

If you have external sites which are enthusiast-related, regardless who they are, put them in dmoz. They do not belong in any article, despite other editors being lax or ignorant of WP:EL. If you have any further questions, I can certainly help.

Please do not accuse me of breaking Wikipedia rules until you are certain; and since you are inexperienced with Wikipedia, perhaps at this point you should be asking questions rather than making accusations. Please do not re-add the link, or any other link to any forum.

have a good day. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent expansions

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)

Nice one. I look forward to it. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ducati Monster info

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)

deliberate

As the source stated " indicates to the observer that some deliberate thought has been given to the transfer of loads" - it does not however state that the use of the trellis frame was deliberate - it doesn't have to. It wasn't an accident, someone didn't start making a frame and suddenly say "ooops I accidentally made a trellis frame without any intention of doing so" You need to understand the meanings of the word "deliberate" before using it. 1. With intention. (ie. not an accident) 2. Carefully and slowly. 3. Not impulsively.

none of the above apply to this situation/article.

What the source is trying to say, is that the trellis frame has a structural function, but it also gives people an idea of it's stress bearing qualities, by way of the aesthetics. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to read this as if he thinks other types of frame choices are "accident". The whole point of the entire paper is that you can't construct a trellis frame without the deliberate effort to locate the load lines and make the trellis match those. It is the sense of care and consideration that he means, in contrast to the somewhat less amount of thought and analysis required to use a simpler beam frame. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the article is currently stating. You are picking one word from a source and using it to give a completely new meaning in the article. Your edits are borderline disruptive and harassment. Please calm down. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put different words in. It could be that the original editor who wrote that sentence, and I, actually understand what the source is saying. Your quotation is rather selective. You deleted the beginning and ending sentences: "As implied, any trellis or truss is associated with a structural purpose. The use of a truss in a given application indicates to the observer that some deliberate thought has been given to the transfer of loads; as opposed to this, the use of a beam may often seem less sophisticated (compare the beams and trusses in figures 5, 6 and 7). In short, a truss or trellis shows that the designer knows what he/she is doing".

Structural purpose, knows what they're doing. And later he says: "One of the better examples of deliberate use of a trellis as a styling element is found in the Ducati motorcycle frames." which is mainly what the lead sentence is saying, that the frame isn't just there for function, but to intentionally further the stylistic goals. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that while the source is in English, it is unlikely that the writer is a native speaker of English and is not fully aware of the subtle nuances of certain words. "Deliberate" can be considered as a synonym of "calculated" in some cases, however in this situation it implies a slightly different meaning. "Deliberate" does not imply consideration of the consequences - ie. the aesthetics giving an image of strength. Anyway, the current version is good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate also means "with deliberation". You're stuck on one meaning of the word. I think this Scandinavian dude might have a subtler grasp of English than you think. Anyway, it doesn't say deliberate any more, I changed it to "purposeful and considered", so what's this about? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

With deliberation? Are you sure? You think the use of the trellis frame was the result of long and careful consideration and discussion? Of course it wasn't. Ducati are known for trellis frames. The Monster's frame was based on existing frames from other models. :::It was a parts bin exercise. That is the exact opposite of long and careful consideration.

Anyway, the current version is good would you like me to make it any clearer? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Monster as a Muscle bike

I have never seen the monster referred to as a muscle bike. The cited source is very weak, Torque is a general motorsports magazine, not a specialized motorcycle magazine. I cannot find any other good sources reffereing to the monster as a "muscle bike". This category would define something like the Ducati Diavel, or the V-maxx, not a Monster. The Monster is widley considered to be the first production naked bike. I am going to insist on removing that citation on this page. Mustangs6551 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To continue, the book Ducati Monster Bible the Monster community considers to be the go to guide for all things Monster does not use the term "Muscle bike" or even the word "muscle" once. Link bellow:

The wikipedia page and associated articles define a muscle bike Types_of_motorcycles as "derived from either a standard or sport bike design, that puts a disproportionately high priority on engine power.". I would add that they're all engine and little suspension. Drag machines. Most Monster models, particularly pre-2007 produce around 80HP on a good day and are equiped with two valve, air cooled engines under 1000cc. This is porportionate with it's size. Even the highest performance models, like the S4R would only produce around 120HP, which is very fast, but not "muscle".

If we go to Motorcycle News' webpage, they classify the Monster as a "naked". Mustangs6551 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

My edit was reverted, I have again removed the phrase "muscle bike". The additional refference: actually supports what I am saying. The phrase "muscle bike" is used in that article to describe the Kawasaki Z1000's tribute to "muscle bikes of the 70s". The article explicitly refers to the Ducati Monster as a "Naked Bike" and nothing else. I believe this change should stay. Mustangs6551 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please lighten up. You're taking these terms way too literally. Nobody literally "classifies" any of these bikes. It's like debating if the weather today is "warm" or "hot". There is no actual difference between a standard, roadster, naked or muscle bike. They're just differnt words thrown around to imply different shades of meaning. "Naked" implies a sport bike with the fairings removed. It's a vague reference to the way streetfighters came about in the early period. Muscle just implies that it's more powerful than your typical standard motorcycle. It's an analogy to a muscle car. Sport bike vs muscle bike, sports car vs muscle car. Language develops by analogy. It's not a scientific, legalistic, deterministic process. It's messy. We aren't lawyers and this isn't a court of law and muscle, naked, streetfighter, standard and roadster are not legal categories.

It is a moving target: in 1990 a middleweight bike might only have 60 or 80 hp. In 2017 middle displacement can mean more like 100 or 110. But that's mainly in the US and Europe. In India, China, southeast Asia, and Africa (i.e. most of the world) far less displacement and horsepower is "standard".

The article only needs to say that the bike is called a naked bike, another word for standard or roadster, and sometimes it has been called a muscle bike to highlight that (some models) of Monster are kind of overpowered. In the opinion of whoever is using the term. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• That sounds fine to me. Without discussion of sources, and both terms sourced (at least at first glance), all things are equal--and "It has been referred to as a naked bike, characterized by an exposed engine and frame, and a muscle bike" is just a highly unbalanced sentence; "It is a naked bike, characterized by an exposed engine and frame" as a sentence is just much better. A qualification for the phrase like Dennis Bratland suggests is easier to balance, so what needs to be decided is how much weight either of the terms has, which comes through strength of sourcing (can't just point at one article) and the relative weight (importance) of the two terms, naked vs. muscle. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmies,I would say you are correct that the weight of the term matters, and also the poor sentence structure on that particular sentence. I am adamant that the term Naked is better because it really defines the bike. The Monster is a production Naked Bike, it came into existence through stripping the fairing off the existing Ducati 888. Prior to the Monster, Naked bikes were not produced out of the factory that way, they were just sport bikes that had their fairing removed. The monster created the genre. A muscle bike, is a bike where the manufacturer goes out of their way to put as much raw power into the machine as possible. This was never the case with the monster. Some models have received more impressive engines, and maybe could be called that. The original though, and most of them that have been made? No way.

If we look at weight, yes there are a places out there that will define models of Monsters as Muscle Bikes, can't refute that, but sources like this book that has a clear focus on understanding the bike never refer to it as such.

Look, I know it seems like I'm being pedantic here, but I have a special love for Monsters, I own one and have ridden a half dozen of them. I think this term is a misuse by people who aren't familiar with the bike. The term really should apply to the Diavel, Vmax, the Vrod, maybe the Streetfighter. Mustangs6551 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not going to argue with or against it--well, there were "nakedish" bikes. The Honda NTV650 came in such a version, but that was hardly a racer: where I'm from we called these naked bikes "cafe racers", racing from one bar to the next. I always wanted a Duc but could never afford one, though my wife finally gave me one for my birthday a few years ago--a plastic model, which sits on top of my computer. She didn't know I wanted a red one, of course, which is the only proper color. Anyway, I hope you and 72bikers can talk this out here, with the help of sources. If a magazine mentions something in passing, not so much weight. If it spends a few sentences on it and discusses its place in history, more weight. And the quality of the magazine/book/etc matter too. You both know all this, I'm sure, but it bears repeating. Take it easy, and, like my dad used to say, always ride with appropriate clothes on. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to talk it over with him, but he's content with undoing my edits and sending threats to my talk page, that's it. One day I hope you get that Duc. My first was a model of the 999 and then Casey Stoner's Desmosidici. Kids play with those now. Rubber side down. Mustangs6551 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

From your own admission you appear to be too emotionally tied to this subject. You state things as if you would like to exclude this term muscle bike, simply because you yourself dislike this term for whatever reason. Wiki is suppose to be void of personal opinions.

You said at one point that you feel like this line of bikes is not about power, but I would point out the name of the bike itself implies power. What do you think of when saying monster, a big hairy beast. Naked bikes generally implies a stripped down sportbike but this line of bikes are just purpose built muscle bikes unlike say Yamaha MT-10 or BMW's S1000R naked bikes. Your attempt to imply that this line was started through stripping the fairing off the existing Ducati 888. But the sourced content in the article says it was a "parts bin special" from multiple existing bikes. And no mention on the 888 article crediting it as the start of the monster line and that would also contradict your earlier statement "The monster 400 has 43 horsepower and weighs 384lbs. If anything, that bike is putting a disproportianately LOW priority on engine power. Over 2/3rds of the bike made have been under 900ccs and under 70hp. This is not a muscle bike." I would point out that KTM RC390 make about 43 hp, so this is high output for a 400cc bike.

The sourced content in the article says "he asked Galluzzi "for something which displayed a strong Ducati heritage but which was easy to ride and not a sports bike." and "Bordi's intent was to enter the cruiser market,[15] with a bike that was made to be modified and would eventually have a wealth of bolt-on aftermarket accessories rivaling Harley" Much like bikes you said should be call muscle bikes The term really should apply to the Diavel, Vmax, the Vrod, maybe the Streetfighter. And this sourced content from the article screams muscle bike "Galluzzi penned a "muscular" fuel tank and minimalist bodywork that produced a visual impression of mass and strength."

I also would like to point out it was not me removing sourced content and references, that were there for quite a long time, to simply serve my own like or dislike of any one term. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

72, Thanks for joining the conversation, and I don't mean that as a dig. I'm not trying to have a pissing contest here, I'd like to see this article accurate, because I see it sourced a lot.

I'll give you my bottom line up front if you plan on breezing through what I write. I cannot refute that some people do refer to this series of motorcycles as muscle bikes. You cannot refute that they refer to them as naked bikes, or middleweights, or sport bikes, or standards. These all could inform the reader of what possibly defines this motorcycle. Because of that, I think the solution I most recently offered, by moving the definition "muscle" slightly later in the article in a list of possible categories. As I've been listening to people the past few days, I can see how someone might call the monster a muscle bike, so actually I'd want to see it included there. I firmly disagree that it should define this class/family of bikes as a whole.

If we look at internal consistency for Wikipedia here. The page on Types_of_motorcycles is where I'm looking at that definition for disproportionately high priority on power. Compared to motorcycles as a whole, only the premium top-tier monsters like the S4R or 1200 have any high horsepower ratings. 70 something is nothing compared to the 120 or so a Vrod makes (off the top of my head).

Compare the monster to bikes overall and 43hp isn't a lot. Lets look at closer analogs, take a Twin cylinder, naked sport bike like the SV650N putting out 70hp at the rear wheel with a 650cc engine. A 2007 Monster 695, with an additional ~50cc's makes 73hp. Neither of these are impressive, they're decent, sporty ish numbers.

if you look for the term Muscle bike, you just don't find the monster associated with it. When you look at shootouts, the Monster isn't included

Type in the phrase "naked bike". First result will usually contain the monster.

Regarding the Monster starting as a 888, I cited that, page 6 of the Ducati Monster Bible. The book explains it's origins as being inspired by a stripped down 888 built by designer of the Monster Miguel Galluzzi. Claudio Castiglioni saw this bike he made and asked to make a production machine. This is a book, written not by someone cranking out a magazine article but by someone thoughtfully researching the subject, which I think makes weigh more as a matter of authority on the subject. It should be pointed out in particular that the word "muscle" isn't used in the book a single time. It also gives more explatation on the name: ″The term 'monster' was derived from the Latin word 'monstrum.' referring to a divine sign, a prodigy, or something exceptional. Originally a monster was the sudden emergence of something extraordinary that violates nature and acts as an omen and warning to mankind.″. The book continues: ″Out of a combination of existing components Galluzzi cleverly created a naked and minimalist street bike, with all the eminent sporting credentials of a Ducati″

Apparently I've triggerd a few wiki faux pas. It wasn't my intent to just bully my way in. I'm learning the system, so I'd ask you to excuse me and maybe work with me. It's very frustrating to see someone jump on, erase your change and not explain why, despite trying to engage on the talk page before I did anything. I do understand this is your hobby and you've probably seen this a lot. But would you consider someone might know more about this specific model than you if it's where they specialize? I'm just trying to make the page better/more accurate.

Mustangs6551 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Look you appear to be running around in circles and constantly contradicting yourself. Stating on one hand it is a striped down sportbike and then on the other saying it is grossly under powered. And then trying to deduce facts simply from your own opinions. My stance comes from cited information in the article. You would appear to think that your opinion should matter more than cited information, I would point out to you this is not allowed and is just "original research" WP:OR. I believe you have not dismissed any of the facts I have already presented.

I would like to thank you for providing the link to the "Ducati Monster bible" it was a nice read. Of which they only sate they were inspired from seeing a stripped down 888. You should go to the 888 article and include that information along with the reference. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point all you're doing is Ad Hominum attacks on saying I'm over emotional instead of engaging with the argument I'm making. People have biases on information. You're ignoring what I'm saying because YOU like the term Muscle, so how about we knock it off with that sort of talk and engage the actual argument being made. Saying something is not particularly powerful doesn't exclude something from being called a sport bike, the bike can be under powered but nimble and still called a sport bike. The term "muscle bike" requires high horsepower. We lack that on a lot of monsters. Source after source after source after source after source reffer to the bike as a naked bike without ever mentioning the term muscle. Even the article from Torq that to you seems to be the final authority on defining the monster prefaces their use of the term "muscle bike" with the word "naked".

I am arguing against the cited information, because other information contradicts it, as does logic. The obvious solution, if you're not completely married to the term "muscle", is to describe it as broadly as possible as a motorcycle or maybe sportbike and then mention later on some of the categories the bike could fit into. This makes a lot of sense, particularly considering that the monster is a family of bikes, not one specific model (another edit I think that should be made to this page). And lets not act like I'm changing somehting that has always been written on this page, the edit that added the term muscle appeared a year ago.

You're also arguing that this bike has more in common with the Vrod than Street Tripple. I don't know how you could find yourself fit to write about motorcycles if you make a mistake like that. Mustangs6551 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your personal attacks speaks volumes. You have not produced anything to counter the in-depth multiple source reasoning I have provided. I can truly say I have no like or dislike of the term muscle bike. It is simply what the sourced content of the article would sermonize. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

so your position is if one source describes thing "X" as "A" and another source describes it as "B", we should leave it as described as "A" because that's what's on the page. Even if "A" could only practically describe some of "thing Xs". Do you not see the illogic? Do you even understand the point I'm making? Mustangs6551 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

References

RfC on calling the Ducati Monster a naked, standard or muscle bike

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Survey

• Naked Four refs on British Google on [23], [24] (described in page tags as Naked) [25] (described as Naked), [26] (described as naked in Popular Mechanics). scope_creep (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

[27] Naked review. [28] (Different model, still monstered, and naked). [29] Naked review. Is this right, what I'm doing? [30] (naked review) and so on. scope_creep (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Naked I know it will shock you all that I'm not taking the position of muscle. The monster is often cited as defining the Naked category or being the first production naked bike "Some argue that the first manufacturer’s adoption of the naked bike was with the 1993 release of the Ducati Monster.". The officail Ducati museum describes the bike as "it is a motorcycle that has revolutionized the "naked" bike category" (absent is the word muscle from this very authoritative source. ). The designer of the machince, Miguel Galluzzi described the creation "All you need is: a saddle, tank, engine, two wheels, and handlebars." implying minimalist design, not an emphasis on raw power. Cycle World and other magazines consistently categorizes the monster this way in reviews and magazine tags and compelations or shootouts of the class . I've already laid out my argument against calling the whole class a muscle bike in depth above, but to summarize, the term is too narrow and would not define the whole monster line but could only be applied to the top tier higest performance variants of the Monster. Naked is the most specific term that can still apply to the whole family. Sport and Standard or even just "motorcycle" could also be used, but are less specific. Mustangs6551 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Naked, but... - The clarifier is unnecessary in the first sentence, for simplicity's sake. Also, the lede description of naked misrepresents that term - naked means upright more than having an exposed engine, at least according to Types of motorcycles#Standard. Here's how I'd write it:

The Ducati Monster (called Il Mostro in Italian) is a motorcycle designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi and produced by Ducati in Bologna, Italy, since 1993. It is a naked bike, characterized by its upright driving position.

Summoned by bot, BTW. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Standard or roadster. This is the common ground that all the sources agree on. Sources who call it a muscle bike or naked bike or whatever agree that these are kinds of standards. Naked is probably the most frequently applied descriptor for the Monsters (of which there are many different models) but the term is somewhat skunked, since the definitions are inconsistent. A sportbike with the fairings removed? A streetfighter, in other words? Or an upright motorcycle without fairings? Which is another word for 'standard'? The M900 of 1992 might have seemed power-heavy for that year, but as average horsepower increased, the later Monsters were hardly so muscle-ly. And certainly the Monster 400 was not a muscle bike. I like the wording at Draft:Ducati Monster, or anything that calls it simply a standard in the lead, using an actual category found in Category:Motorcycle classifications rather than one one that doesn't exist. Contrasting opinions about naked or muscle go lower down in the lead, or outside the lead and lower down in the article body. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a very good solution. Standard is absolutley fitting. Mustangs6551 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Standard per Dennis Bratland. Nailing down what exaclty "naked" means is a chore in and of itself.L3X1 (distænt write) 23:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• De-emphasize categorization (invited by the bot) In this case the categories are fuzzy and overlapping and it is disputed, and so any claims of classification are just eye-of-the-beholder opinion. I suspect that most of the time sources are using the terms just to communicate, and not as statements of singular or primary classification. Instead, just go a bit deeper into what the sources actually said (using the terms that they use) instead of trying to create a wiki-editor-derived singular or primary classification. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Standard: (summoned by bot) I ain't no biker, but from reading wikipedia a bit I see "standard" and "naked" are synonyms. In my opinion "naked" is a bit slangy for general readership, so I would go for standard in the first sentence. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Standard motorcycle. The edit/change to read muscle bike was controversial, being prominently displayed in the first few words of the lede replacing an existing link during August 2016, sourced from Google Books which presumably was keyword-searched. The lede is supposed to be a snapshot of what is to follow and this grandstanding needs to be explained further down, which it was/is not. It is simple to address (can't show active link or italics), viz:

The original 900 cc Monster was introduced in 1993, soon followed by smaller-engined versions; over the years, some writers have referred to the larger variants as "muscle bikes".

Other examples of this POV-pushing straight into the lead are here (permalink) (associated Talk here and here), and this change, where an editor had been edit-warring with Dennis Bratland in 2014 (see talk page) and had later found an unreliable source at an episode of made-for-entertainment Jay Leno's Garage, where Primary source COI Kawasaki employee Rick Herzog in 2016 quipped-in with some unencyclopaedic street-hommage perpetuating folk-lore, adding he was 12 years old at the time of the alleged-event(s) in early 1970s. Very recent 'talk' of it from the same editor is here (permalink). There is increasingly too much of this tacky nonsense on WP, deliberately using keyword searches to find modern unregulated websites that are promoted as acceptable reliable sources, being 'published' (very much in inverted commas - they can write whatever they want) ergo acceptable under WP:Verifiability, not truth. This is perhaps another opportunity for another essay, covering the rise of post-Wikipedia websites with no tangible archive resources or known affiliations, so presumably plagiarising content from elsewhere, including anecdotal accounts through email interactions, and similarly at video-sources where individuals assert their opinions-only.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• 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)

Re: Timtempleton said "the definition in the draft does not match what the standard article says". The most important information in Types of motorcycles is at the very top ↑↑↑ of the article: "There are many systems for classifying types of motorcycles […] There is no universal system for classifying all types of motorcycles." etc etc. It is trying to explain that these "definitions" are not definitions. It is telling you to not take them so seriously. It is saying that there is no general agreement as to what is a sport bike or standard or whatever. The definitions change constantly. They're often quite relative. So yes, it's true that Draft:Ducati Monster should probably say that mainly the reason the Monster is a standard is the upright riding position, and that it has no fairing, typical of standards. *Except for "standards" that happen to have fairings, or "sport bikes" that have no fairing -- because it's all just handwaving anyway.

It's like dying on the hill of saying a song is rap-metal and definitely not metal-rap and anyone who can't see the difference between rap-metal and metal-rap needs to go back to school. Seriously? It's just a thing some people call it. It's not an objective reality. You can't prove it one way or the other. If we can agree on anything we should agree to stop taking this terminology so seriously and present it to the reader as the nebulous, context-sensitive opinion that it is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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.

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 News's lead on these categories, by the way. But that only gets us so far.

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.

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)

very well stated – I think you have a Wikipedia policy essay in you somewhere. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guidance please: which Monster images are appropriate / meaningful / to be kept vs. to be deleted?

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)SeriousContributor

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)

Please stop with the "muscle bike" nonsense

"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)

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)

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)

Muscle bike

I bought a load of UK magazines, mainly 1980 to 2004 a few years back. Looking at Motorcycle Sport and Leisure (which morphed from the 1962-originated Motorcycle Sport, a two-wheel companion to the four-wheel Motor Sport (magazine)) for September 2000 - the early days of internet and pre-Wikipedia - and the buyer's guide section lists the following as Muscle bikes:

• Ducati Monster 900S
• Ducati Monster Dark 900
• Yamaha V max
• Buell M2 Cyclone
• Buell X1 Lightning
• Cagiva Raptor
• Cagiva V-Raptor
• and others

The other categories are:

• Sports Tourers
• Sports
• Adventure Tourers
• Tourers
• Trailies/Supermotos
• Scooters
• All rounders
• Cruisers
• Retro

--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Does it list the Honda CB1300? I actually owned one in Japan. It’s sometimes listed as a muscle bike, e.g. by MCN. But contradicts our definition at Streetfighter (motorcycle) because it has both fairing and windscreen in the Super Bol d'Or variant, called "muscle tourer" by RideApart, yuck. My point is it’s going to be hard to make any cohesive definition that matches everyone's usage of the term. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Brian, it's listed as Honda CB1300SF X-11; the other multis are Suzuki 1200 Bandit, Kawasaki ZRX1100, Triumph Speed Triple, Yamaha XJR1300. It's the magazine's take on lumping together comparisons, without any axe to grind or point of view to make. I only listed the V engines similar to Ducati, although V Max was a four and IMO crossover with Cruiser.

I didn't include Hesketh Vortan, being a type of exotica, and also Laverda 750 Strike as I didn't know what it was! You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel von Tell (2nd nomination). rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The Monster as a series of bikes has plenty of models that would fall well outside any reasonable "muscle" category(m620, m400, etec. 696), all of which aren't listed in this source. Given these examples that fall within the scope of this page, but outside the source,I think this source is insufficient to lable all monsters as "muscle bikes". Mustangs6551 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)