Talk:List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies

Yamaha bicycle manufacturer?

Is (or was) Yamaha truly a bicycle manufacturer, as opposed to a motorcycle manufacturer? Mecanoge (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

yes it is --Panoramedia (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Added R+E Cycles (Seattle, USA)

I figured out how to edit pages well enough to do it right, I think: Added Seattle's R+E Cycles (http://www.rodcycle.com). c3k (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Var discussion and disambiguation

I removed the link for Var because none of the entries on the disambiguation page corresponded to a bicycle manufacturer. From a google search, it looks like maybe they actually manufacture bicycle tools (not actual bicycles)? Anyway, I guess a new page will have to be created if someone wants to re-link Var.

AdamMorton 00:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongoose Bikes Not listed

The Mongoose Bicycle Manufacturer was not listen on this page so someone needs to add a proper link that takes the user directly to the Mongoose Bicycle Manufacturer "stub". Perhaps that was why it was not listed in the first place. I would do it myself except I do not know how to direct the link so it goes to the Mongoose Bicycle Manufacturer page instead of the Mongoose (animal) page.

Generally speaking, the link should be "[[Name (bicycles)|Name]] -Dhodges 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Look here: Mongoose (bicycles) --Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the Bontrager bicycle frames

Ever since I bought my Privater in 1998 and now have a Single Speed modified Racelite I have wondered about the evolution of the Bontrager bicycle.

http://www.arkansasvalley.net/bontrager/

is a good site to start..

http://www.eandsweb.com/me/bontrager/

has more details but is limited..

http://www.ridesmarter.com/archives/archive_main.htm

from the horses mouth.

Still a lot of un-answered questions-

What is the differance between a OR and a Race? When did they switch from the squared off frame stickers? What about the two part seat stays? What about the front derailleur pulley? Dates and possible reasons why. Rocklobster Nontragers are made from NOS Tange Prestige from the Santa Cruz Bontrager closure. Does that mean Bontrager frames were made from Tange? I thought they were made from True Temper. What about colors? Did Race and Race Lites come in different colors? Were the colors year specific?

I saw these posts on MTBR

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...ontrager+frame

so I know there is a huge knowledge pool out there.

It can be something as simple as. ***THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE*** and not meant to be accurate

1) 1989 Bontrager cycles is born and the OR frame was made. 2) 1992 Bontrager cycles expands from one man shop to production; OR is discontinued and Race is introduced. a) Frame changes; monostay is capped; horizontal to verticle dropouts; canti hanger from pin to welded stud (functional art). 3) 1994 Frame stickers change from square to pointed; front derailleurs are changed from bottom pull (w/pulley system) to top pull. racelite is introduced. 4) 1995 Trek buys Bontrager 5) 1996 Trek introduces Privateer

Again some of this is just made up. My hope is there are enough Bontrager aficionados out there to make this work.

Brad Goodwin Onespeedbiker 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criterion

Anyone considering adding a manufacturer to this list should keep in mind the following from the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline:

"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."

To test the reasonableness of your expectations, you may want to create the article on the manufacturer first and then add it to this list. UnitedStatesian 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am re-adding Samchuly: THE major bike company in ROK. I am not re-writing the Samchuly article, which I spent a fair amount of time writing a couple years ago. Some-one must have erased it. (One of the problems with Wik is that if an article gets erased, the editor's record of it gets erased, too.) Before any-one removes Samchuly, look at its home-page or any page about international bike makers. In 2005, Samchuly, makers of Lespo had 61,568,054,000 WON in exports alone. Kdammers (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia "feature" of erasing the editor's record when an article gets erased sounds like a bug; has it been reported as such? Having no record of erasure sounds contrary to the goal of quality control. Mecanoge (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So, if we are going to change the long-standing practice from only allowing entries that have their own articles, how are we going to judge whether "it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future?" Shall we simply allow, for example, links to the Guess disambiguation page, or must we argue each one here on the talk page? The previous criteria was simple to explain and simple to enforce. Is the alternative simply to have no policy at all? -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is this list being Policed so heavily? The above quote says ideally each entry should have an article, not absolutely everyone must. I added a couple of names to the list. Thinking some one with more time and expertise might create the article or I would get around to it. Instead the changes just got undone. It seems to me, we would be better having a list, where some of the names aren't linked than one which is missing lots of manufacturers. As mentioned previously if anyone questions a manufacturer it's easy enough to do a quick Internet search to confirm they are a manufacturer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.123.57 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The quotation above is a general guideline for the entire encyclopedia. The particular rules enforced for this article were reached by consensus, and there has not yet been a compelling argument to change them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Have a key for the types of bikes made; F= Folding, R=Road, M=mountain, P=parts, H=hybrid, R=recumbent, Rw=Rowbike, Hd=Hand Cycle ect. Each company would have a series of symbols after the name indicating their products. That way one list of manufactures could be used for all bicycle related articles. Geo8rge 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the key for types of bikes made, how about some indication (such as an asterisk) if the company no longer makes that type? Mecanoge (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do it, be bold.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, wouldn't that make this list a tad busy and so unlike other lists?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Enigma Titanium Limited is labeled as unaccomplished company and denied by Wikipedia

I created this page so that this list would show it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bicycle_manufacturing_companies why should Enighma Titanium Limited not be listed ? Go ahead and see the debate at Enigma Titanium Limited page or at my discussion page if they delete the page prematurely. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some manufacturers that might be added to the list

and of course they would also need articles:

• Co-motion Cycles (Eugene, Oregon, USA)
• Canyon Cycles (Germany)
• Salsa Cycles (USA)
• Pegoretti (Italy)
• Kildemoes - DK http://www.kildemoes.dk/Zosma (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's a reason for keeping these companies off the list and out of Wikipedia, I'll start adding them. --Simplem (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the above section Inclusion criterion is worth a look, as is Write the Article First, the main thing is "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia". While there are exceptions, I don't see why those particular bike companies would qualify for special treatment. It seems that it would be more useful to get a bit of a start on an article on one of those topic than just adding a redlink. Do others agree with me?--Keithonearth (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

as the promoter of the inclusion criterion, I obviously wholeheartedly agree with you, KoE. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll start with an article about Co-motion Cycles. I note that there's a German-language article on Canyon Bicycles on de.wikipedia.org. Is the normal practice to get a translation of that article for en.wikipedia.org? Zosma (talk)

A few more manufacturers that don't have articles:

Airborne, Banshee, Canfield, Commencal, Foes, Intense, Knolly, Maveric, Niner, On One, Pivot, Ritchey

These are mountain bike manufacturers that have manufacturer forums at mtbr.com. Personally I think articles with names that start with "List of" should be as exhaustive as possible, because even if wikipedia doesn't have information on a particular entry, at least a reader who knows that it exists can look for information elsewhere. Since that's not how these lists are maintained, though, I'll just leave these here and hope that people with more experience here than me or more knowledge of these companies will write articles about them. -2602:306:CF7C:8480:CA60:FF:FE73:23E7 (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that those manufactures should be in this list, then you should not have a problem taking the time to write the necessary articles. Otherwise, the burden rests with others to confirm the suitability of each inserted link by some other means, which has already been decided by consensus to be impractical. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing for Montagner, Vicini, Benotto and lots of other italian bicycle brands and manufacturers. You missed Rog from Slovenia and also Favorit from Chekoslovakia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.178.112.200 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging French bicycle industry and/or List of French bicycle manufacturers into List of bicycle manufacturing companies

I think the suggestion to merge the article and/or the list ignores the unique history and character of the French industry. The bicycle was invented by the French, as was bicycle racing, and the French bicycle industry grew up around those twin facts. To merge the French industry into a larger list would be to lose sight of the French contribution to cycling. I think the article and the lists in the article should remain as they are. Blue Order (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That is so weird because the current bicycle history article says "The first reliable claim for a practically-used bicycle belongs to German Baron Karl von Drais, a civil servant to the Grand Duke of Baden in Germany." I know wiki articles aren't great sources, but perhaps we need to correct it, if in fact, the "bicycle was invented by the French." -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal

The question of this article is, how many of these listed there subcontract another company to make bicycles for them, such as many of these known for being car manufacturers, therefore this make them more of a bicycle brand than being a manufacturer of bicycles. An example of this is Hummer, who has a bicycle manufactured by Montague Bikes, Land Rover is another; also I doubt highly any of these German car manufacturers actually make their own bikes - hence making them a brand name of bicycles.

I'm sure if Nike and Adidas sell bicycles under their own brand, chances are very high that it will be on this list, hence the proposal to rename this list (to possibly List of bicycle manufacturing companies and brands). Donnie Park (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose renaming. I think the better solution is to purge the list of the non-manufacturers. I think if we add all of the brands the list would get unmanageably large, and violate the WP:SIZE guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree to rename, makes more sense than two have two seperate lists with many of the same names. For example Trek, the largest US brand and manufacturer, who produces its own bikes but also has them made in Taiwan and China, and now possibly in Europe. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of bicycle brands

As a response to the above proposal, I have removed bicycle brandnames listed on that list starting with manufacturer that is notable for other things (cars), unless they had history of manufacturing it themselves. Also bracket indicates who manufactures the bicycle. I will transfer this lot and added a guide of which brand is produced by which mfr.

• Alfa Romeo (by Compagnia Ducale)[1]
• Audi Design (by ADP Engineering)[2]
• BMW (by BOSSBi)
• Cadillac (by Kent International)[3]
• GMC (by Kent International)[4]
• Ferrari (by Colnago)[5]
• Fiat (by Compagnia Ducale)
• Hummer (by Montague Bikes)[6]
• Honda by (Cycle Source)
• Jeep (outsourced to unnamed manufacturer)
• Kawasaki (by Cycle Source)
• Ford (by Cycle Source)
• Lincoln (by Cycle Source)
• Mercury (by Cycle Source)
• Kawasaki (by Cycle Source)
• Land Rover (by Ultimate Cycles)[7][8]
• Mercedes-Benz (by ADP Engineering)[9]
• International (by Cycle Source)
• Porsche Design (by Votec, then Storck)[10]
• Polaris Industries (by Cycle Source)
• Renault (by Gitanes)
• Saab (by Gary Fisher Bicycles)
• Smith & Wesson (by Cycle Source)
• Subaru (outsourced to unnamed Japanese manufacturer) [11])
• Tonino Lamborghini (by Kent International)[12]
• Victory Motorcycles (by Cycle Source)
• Maserati (by Milani and Montante Cicli)[13][14]

Donnie Park (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• This current state of this list is no better either, also since when Halfords made bikes, their Carrera brand is made by Merida, also they don't make the Broadman either, they act as a middleman for Chris Broadman to sell bike under an exclusive contract neither do they make Apollo. More like a store brand than a manufacturer.

Also, we now got a list of companies including some that is more like an administrative offices (if not importers and distributors) to ask the Taiwanese/Chinese to make bikes for them. I think the line between bicycle manufacturers and bicycle brand is becoming blurred, therefore the quality of this article is doing down the pan. To conclude my comment, this list look like it is produced by somebody who know nothing about bicycle brands. Donnie Park (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Terry Bikes

74.225.54.88 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)I am a woman 4'8" and would like to purchase a road bike. It isn't easy to do so. I had my heart set on a Trec but they don't make a frame small enough. I was told about Ellen Terry Bikes and can't get any information about the company. Does anyone have any suggestions? 74.225.54.88 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Trek WSD or Terry Bikes (for women).--209.213.220.227 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Terry Bikes here: [15]--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And Trek WSD here: [16]--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't Terry on the list of bike brands???

Because there isn't an article about Terry. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

goods-2-go

Since an article published by the Globe and Mail has mentioned this company(goods-2-go).Then should not goods-2-go be included? They are currently still in business. Please update recordsLite ride (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

it's there!!--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, it was. Someone removed it.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

MOVED

I moved List of bicycle manufacturing companies to List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies‎ as their seems to be some issues between the differences between brands and manufacturers. Rather than create a second list of which will largely be a duplicate of the first list, I made an all inclusive Brands and manufacturers.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on this current state of this list

Since the addition of brands into this list, this article have rapidly gone down the pan, as it has turned itself into as an edit war prone list. IMHO, I really don't know what to say other than that my only option left is to nominate it for AfD as my patience is running thin. Donnie Park (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How about you just leave it alone. it's not just yours. Others are entitled to their opinions also. If you think there should be two separate lists for brands and manufacturers, then make one. There will be lots of overlap. Don't just quit.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for missing brands (some defunct)

• Brennabor (Germany, also motorcycles and automobiles)
• Diamant Fahrradwerke AG (Germany, since 1885; http://www.diamant-rad.de/)
• Dürkopp (Germany, also sewing machines, motorcycles, automobiles and micro cars)
• Presta (Germany, might be inventor of Presta valve)
• MIFA Mitteldeutsche Fahrradwerke (Germany, http://www.mifa.de/)--Chief tin cloud (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bicycle and/or motorcycle manufacturers?

• Allright
• Bismarck (Germany)
• ESWECO
• Meister

All of them were available with Saxonette auxiliary motors by Fichtel & Sachs. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No CIOCC listed?

One of the best bike manufacturers in the world... http://www.ciocc.it/index.php/en/ 70.211.11.167 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Write an article about them and then add them to the list. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Defiance Cycle Company

The Article on Wikipedia on the above has been written, it also has a number of links to a number of sources. Will you please leave it on the list as the list is referred to in the article. Other entries of cycle companies on this list do not have such good references and the rules of the site do not state that the article must not be in draft. There is currently a 2 month waiting article for approval. If, for some reason the article is rejected for good reason then please feel free to delete the entry, but please leave it on for now. Canol (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have undone the edit in question again for the following two reasons.

1. The reverted edit also contains a typographical error, which was reinserted with the revert. Please don't reinsert it again.

2. The linked article is not only a draft, it has not even been submitted for review. The time require for review and the fact that the article links here make no difference. When it is a real article, it can be listed. That the linked article has better references than some of the other articles already listed makes no difference.

Finally, the "rules" don't mention drafts because drafts are a new feature. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I don't think you should delete an article because it has a typographiocal error, rather, why not correct the error thus build on the knowledge base.

As for the new rules, under the old rules the article would have been self certifying and would have been an article straight away. Articles certified and non certified are not red links they are clearly articles so have blue links.

I apologise for reinstating comments on your personal talk page when you feel they should have been inserted here, but I felt that, as only you had issue with my post, I should address my comments to you. Canol (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove the link you added because it had a typographical error, but you did restore your typographical error when you reverted my edit.

Yes, before the draft feature, a new article could appear immediately, until is was deleted for being deficient. Now, thanks to the new feature, we don't have to follow up the deletion of a deficient article with deleting all the links to it.

Obviously, only one user may revert a single edit, so the fact that I reverted your addition absolutely does not mean that I was the only editor who had issue with it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There are links to the Draft Defiance Cycle Company page from other wiki pages and no one else has seen fit to delete them. I would like to reinstate the Company to see if any other readers here have issues with it here. I also have reason to believe that these were the first chain driven bicycles in the world, although I cannot yet get any citations for this so have not stated it. Please don't hold yourself up as Judge, Jury and Executioner to my edit, please reinstate Defiance Cycle Company and see if anyone else has issues. I put it up in good faith for the benefit of all, but, due to backlogs, it's going to be a long time before anyone even bothers to read and authorise it. So again I appeal to you, put it back on the list and let's see what happens. Canol (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Other wiki pages do not have the policy that this page has: that there should be links only to existing articles. Also, only one other page currently has a link to the Defiance Cycle Company article, and it is not clear if anyone is even watching that page, so it is not clear that anyone even noticed that other link. This page, on the other hand, has 80 watchers.

I believe the reason for not linking to the Defiance Cycle Company article from here, while it is still just a draft, are well established and clear. The only reasons you have given in favor of a link are an uncited assertion and that you really, really want it. Neither of which are sufficient. Nothing has to happen on Wikipedia now, now, now. If and when the article is accepted, there will be plenty of time to include a link to it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reprinted the criteria for inclusion on this page for clarity:

No red links. Every entry in this list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia, with reliable sources to support inclusion, else it will be removed without warning.

1. Defiance Cycle Company is not currently a red link

2. It is a current Wikipedia article albeit in draft form at the moment

3. It has reliable sources

As I stated there is a backlog with authorising articles so it will take some months before the article gets its draft tag taken off, the citations are good however. As we are continuing to be at loggerheads over this, can I suggest we get a third party view. Canol (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Canol, please post a link to your draft and I'll look at it.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Degen Earthfast. I have reinstated the Defiance Cycle company on here for third party views. I think it is a valid cycle company for this page, just click on it and it will take you to the article and its citations. Canol (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What is a Brand versus Manufacturer?

This article could be improved by explaining what a manufacturer, brand, product line, and company each is, and how they are related. An example might be the Delancy P. Harris Manufacturing Company (not notable) who made the Rollfast (not notable) brand of bicycles, with parts made by the Homer P. Snyder Manufacturing Company (not notable), with models such as the Hopalong Cassidy boys and girls bicycles (not notable). Perhaps the article could also explain the close relationship between assembly and manufacture. I believe the statements that "brands manufacture" and "manufacturers that are brands" reflect the heart of this article's problems. Statements such as those could be better explained as "companies that manufacture" and "companies with eponymous brands" (i.e., the brand is named after the company, rather than the brand manufacturing something). Also, the article could be improved by listing former manufacturers that went bankrupt as defunct, even if their assets (e.g., trademark brands) may have been acquired by a receivership. For example, Pope was reorganized into Westfield (not notable), then by Torrington Company (not notable), and then by the Modern Tool and Die Company (not notable), and then final bankruptcy in 1980's or so. This would help explain the difference between a former American manufacturer, and a present multinational conglomerate in Canada that sells Chinese bicycles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

The criterion that items on this is stated as that each is sufficiently notable to have its own page, and that seems to be vigorously enforced. There's considerable leeway on the criteria for a list, as described here. I would favor being more inclusive, but perhaps there is a history of problems that I don't know about that this choice was intended to solve?

Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's vigorously enforced because otherwise lists of this type, and this one in particular, tend to attract spam, as in people putting plain links to their small garage businesses into the table. These lists are not meant to be indiscriminate lists of every person or business that's ever welded a frame, they're meant to be a listing of manufacturers that meet some standard of notability (see also WP:LISTCRITERIA). It's reasonable for that standard to be "has a Wikipedia article". It might be reasonable to expand the criteria somewhat, but where do you draw the line, and why? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks explaining your thinking. What if the criterion were (has a Wikipedia article) OR (has at least N dealers)? A minor custom builder would not qualify. A small, but famous custom builder, or a notable manufacturer with direct-to-consumer marketing, could qualify under the first; other notable manufacturers worth listing but that don't yet have an article could qualify under the second. I would choose N somewhere between 10 and 100; I haven't come up with any examples that would qualify based on 10 but not on 100. I'm inclined to err on the low side, just because if someone is manually counting a list of dealers it gets tedious and error prone beyond say 20, so maybe 20 is a good number?

Note that I did not intend to imply I would support an indiscriminate list. I said leeway on the criteria, not no criteria, and I and pointed to the same article you did. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I vigorously oppose changing the inclusion criteria. THe current system has worked well for years and is easy to explain, justify, and implement. "Has at least N dealers" sounds like an infinite and needless can of worms. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also strongly oppose any change to the inclusion criteria. An arbitrary number of dealerships for example would then exclude companies who principally sell on-line as an example; and how would the number of dealerships be established ? What independent source would quote such a figure? Without the need for evidence of notability (which is what a Wikipedia article provides) this would simply become a directory, and Wikipedia does not support directories.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's not that I want to discourage possibly widening the criteria for inclusion, it's just that inclusion standards based on arbitrary numeric criteria (e.g. N dealers, or P annual revenue, or M employees) tend to drift and become indiscriminate over time. They become open to debate - why did we decide that 10 is the number of dealers and not 50? 9 dealers is close enough to 10, and so is 8, and so on. Any generally reliable criteria that we could come up with here would likely already qualify a manufacturer as worthy of having an article, so keeping the inclusion criteria as "has an article" is generally sensible. Or to put it a different way, if there's a noteworthy manufacturer not included in this list, write up an article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems quite clear that my view is a minority view. Thanks all for explaining the reasons for your opposition. While I still disagree, at least I know now that it's a well thought-out position shared by many. I do want to clarify to Velella that my proposal would not exclude manufacturers who sell online--I was proposing inclusion based on either criterion, and both would not be needed. I do agree with Ivanvector that companies I would want to list do merit having articles as well, and, if I had time to do so, I would create articles for them. Perhaps I'll find time to do so for some. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Split?

Basically what the template says, given the length of this list, would it make sense to have the defunct brands and manufacturers in their own list? 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose One of the many purposes of Wikipedia is to enable readers to find the information they seek. A reader will not necessarily know whether a company is active or defunct. Splitting the list would require a reader to search in separate places. It does concern me that we already have country specific lists which already makes searching more difficult. Personally I find list articles like this less than useful and in an ideal world I would nominate this and very many other "list" articles for deletion but I know that the "List makers of Wikipedia" (soon to be turned into an Oscar winning film) will fight back with vigour. While we retain such lists, I would strongly urge that we keep them simple, listing only notable items and maintained as singular lists and not divided by some arbitrary property.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The Kildemoes brand

There is a bicycle brand called that is not mentioned on the list. They are also in the Cycleurope Organisation. Fazzy007 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What of it? They are already listed here as being part of Cycleuropa Group, and there is no article for the Kildemoes brand so they don't get listed separately. Meters (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Indonesian Bicycle Manufacturers

Don't forget to add United Bike, Pacific (maybe), Exotic (maybe) and Element. They are from Indonesian too. Hariman Muhammad (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Do any of them have Wikipedia articles to show their notability? As the edit notice says "No red links. Every entry in this list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia, with reliable sources to support inclusion, else it will be removed without warning." Meters (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)