Jump to content

Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9


Mopeds

I really wonder if we need anything on Mopeds. I say that because Mopeds are a different animal. From what I understand, mopeds weren't originally meant to have pedals, but they were added so they wouldn't be classified as motorcycles. Well, motorized bicycles are exactly what they are...bicycles with a motor. I'm not sure why we even have to mention mopeds here. It's a different animal. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out the section on mopeds. If someone objects, I'd like to hear why. :) From what I've read, mopeds just aren't the same thing. Motorized bicycles are basically what's pictured. Anything else is something else entirely. The reason why I can see keeping nuclear and all of that is that at least, they are still bikes, not mopeds. A moped is not a bicycle. Nuclear and such are just different engines you can use, but they are still motorized bikes, not mopeds. I think I understand that right. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Moped are a type of motorized bicycle and we should talk about them in our article. Just like I previously discuss in the section "Ontario Moped," (I think the issue of merging moped with this article should be brought up)(b.t.w. why the double standard, Moped is motorized bicycle and when we attempted to merge it with this article you guys objected, however electric bicycle is a motorized bicycle and we merged the article quite nicely. I will try to find a place to incorporate this within "motorized bicycle." --CyclePat 16:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Mopeds are distinctly different beasts from bikes with helper motors. Mopeds have pedals, but the pedals aren't intended to be the primary motile force. Early Triumphs, Harleys, Indians, etc. all had pedals, two wheels, and a motor, too. --Charleschuck 17:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's discuss it and come up with a consensus first, because I and at least one other person don't think it should be in here. A moped is a moped, not a motorized bike. From what I've read, the only reason why pedals were ever put on mopeds is so that it could meet existing laws at the time of their introduction. If you include mopeds, than we'd have to include motorcycles. From what I've read, mopeds were meant to be smaller versions of motorcycles...basically like a scooter. Motorized bicycles are not like a scooter or a motorcycle or a moped. Basically, motorized bicycles started as bicycles but then a motor was added. With mopeds, they started as motorcycle wannabes but just didn't look like them at first. This is right from the mopeds article...
"People have been adding motors to bikes for over a hundred years. A bicycle with a small motor added used to be known as an autocycle or cyclemotor. [4] These eventually evolved into mopeds, which really aren't bicycles as they were never actually designed to be pedalled, though pedals were fitted to comply with regulations and to aid in starting."
I just think this is another attempt to achieve your goal of making this article so bloated that then you'll have a reason for a separate electric bicycles article, because you sell electric bicycles. No.
PS- We usually don't move sections of talk, but I moved to this to the bottom so we can get other opinions. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My take is this: we mention that mopeds are a development of motorised bicycles, but that they are designed to be run primarily on motor power with the pedals present in order to overcome certain regulatory restrictions. A single, short paragraph, nothing more. And it can go at the end, or at the end of History, or somewhere else, I don't really care which.
As for the rest, the parallels between the vélomoteur and the electric bike are, I think, sufficiently strong as to make it difficult to separate the two without substantial duplication. The article is nowhere near the length limit, I see absolutely no need to split it. And I have no axe to grind. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


    • "Vélomoteur" and "electric bike"? Do you see these types of "motorized bicycles" in the article? "My take is this: We mention electric bicycle are a development of motorised bicycles, but that they are designed to be run primarily (or not) on motor power with the pedals present in order to overcome certain regulatory restrictions. A single, short..." The article is nowhere neer the lenght limit because some people have decided to remove and place some sections elsewhere (ie.: mopeds) --CyclePat 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment/Suggestion Just a point of interest, in my state motorized bicycles and mopeds are legally considered the same thing. Probably because mopeds evolved from the motorized bicycle, are are essentialy similiar in many ways. Early mopeds are basically motorized bikes, the line that seperates the 1950's moped from the 1950's motorized bicycle is hazy at best. Because there is already a page for the moped, I think that this evolutionary relationship should be mentioned there. On this page the moped warrants mention in so far as that its earliest iterations were largely influenced by the postwar helper-motor craze, and that as mopeds became more integrated ("ready to run") machines they essentially replaced the bolt-on motors in everyday transportation, and ended the postwar popularity of the bike motor. In fact the Garelli moped started life as a bolt on motor - then the company began making frames specifically for their engines, and eventually began producing fully operation mopeds. If no one objects, I would like to add this to the history section (or somebody else can if they choose to, and there are no valid objections). User:K-111

I think that was very interesting and would be good for this article and the moped article. You should add it. You might have someone try and revert. But those that have enough sense to have looked at this discusion, I hope, might only remove the parts where you don't put sources cited. (I guess you'll have to go to that british moped thingy article... I think that's where you got your info right?) --CyclePat 21:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

EDITING

You are breaking your own rules in editin the talk page. Go figure when I was writting this you went and made another edit... forcing me to put this in another section totally unsubtianting my comments however.: here it is: --CyclePat 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Woohookitty, you often do make quick reverts (practically starting edit wars (reference to the electric bicycle page), perhaps we should take a little more time to discuss other peoples changes instead of reverting them write away. In the mean time anyone that wishes to add work on a text before incorperating it can do so in my user:CyclePat/sandbox that way you save from losing your information from people that revert quickly (and believe they might own the article) --CyclePat 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
No. I'm trying to keep this article as tidy as possible. "Breaking my own rules". How so? Moving a section to the bottom to spur discussion is not unprecented. It's done to get a consensus and since this moped issue isn't going away, I thought it'd be a good idea. If the consensus is that we should include a paragraph on it, great. I'm here to uphold the consensus, whether I agree with it or not. I don't know when you decided that I'm making this article for my own personal gain, but nothing is further from the truth. I'm actually trying to keep it up to Wikipedian standards. I'm sorry but most of the edits you have attempted and that the anons have attempted have been full of misspellings, bad grammar, etc, etc. And you know, I don't see the others (Alynna, Just diz guy, Katefan0, AdinaBob) complaining about how I'm handling this. I wish you'd quit painting me as this evil bastard who is trying to ruin your life. I'm not. Why did I revert last night? Because the anon who was doing edits added a section that did not belong here. And then he/she complained when I reverted a bit at the end of their editing, even though they had left a link to www.example.com, which doesn't even exist. I make edits like that to keep this page from becoming a joke. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Btw Pat, all I did was archive and move the one section down towards the bottom. I wish you'd read the stuff fully and see that instead of assuming that I removed your comments or something. You've done this several times now and then you have to correct yourself. Patience. This isn't a race. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The question "Are you making this article for your own personal gain?" I think everyone has something to gain from working collectively together. I am personally gaining, hopefully, the ability to try and work in group and overcome some personal issues. I don't know why anyone would say I have anything to gain more than that because wiki is a place anyone can edit and eventually remove bias opinions. Some people have suggest that owning a bicycle shop creates a bias towards this article. Why does owning a bicycle shop creat a bias? Is there really a personal gain to editing articles? --CyclePat 17:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm glad to hear that about working together. I like you Pat...I always have. You just have to accept the fact that I'm trying to uphold what's been agreed to. I have no personal interest in this. I don't even own a bicycle. Anyway, as for the personal bias Q, owning a bicycle shop can create bias here because obviously, you want to further the cause of electric bicycles and their use in Ontario's roads because it could mean more work and money for you. If you look at the versions you've submitted, they've all been pro the push for Ontario to accept PABs on the road in one form or another. What you need to learn is to go for the greater good. The thing is. I'm afraid I've been too harsh on you at times. Burying bias for the greater good is VERY difficult. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
OUh! geesh! (blush) Thank you. Yes, I have had to be pro for PABs in Ontario because all the comments in the article seemed to be against it. (Even the web page provided by the ministry of transportation on three wheeled vehicles is biases(propaganda). (I've decided there's no us talking to the ministry, I might as well bring that up with the Ontario Ombudsman service) I've called up some engeneers at MTO whome indicated that the page only applies to one type of PAB (the one in the picture). Honestly, the one reason I became a company is because I kinda needed to, so I may register my bicycle. Secondly I do this part-time (I have another job elsewhere, that actually pays) Thirdly, the main idea behind my company is "political statement." (My company is there to mock the government as much as it can!) All this to say; Now, if I tell everyone that I own a fully registered PAB, explain to them how to do it and legally opperate on road (even though it seemingly contradicts the facts stated by the MTO) does that makes me bias? Okay, so maybe I might want to eventually start making profit of my sales, and might make me bias? So, you're right about the first part but not really about the second part (money!) Hum... could it be that I do everything with passion? Does passion=bias? B.t.w. Like I've said, you do some very fine work and though I get unerved/stressed/uneasy at mistakes other people make (or even my own typos) I admire your patience toward my lack of wiki etiquette. I do like you too... essentially you've become a mentor for me and that's why I'm trying to still help out. And though I stirr up some stink in unconventional ways I'm glad we're on the same team. (Right?) Right! Thank you. --CyclePat 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC) p.s.:(Now what do you think about this edit I...)--CyclePat 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, bias is a tricky issue. The main thing is...you don't want an agenda here like pushing PABs on public roads or political activism. Like I said, it can be a hard line to walk and honestly, some folks can't do it...and that's not a knock against them. Staying objective is difficult. And no, passion doesn't automatically mean bias. It can. But you can also use it to try to write as factual an article as possible. Honestly Pat, if this article is unbiased and objective, it can still be used by you to get people into bikes. I mean we do mention the emission free part and how enviornmentally friendly these bikes are. That appeals to alot of people. I'm not sure you have to tell them that they should allow bikes on public roads. Oftentimes, being objective can be as attractive to people then if you try to tell them to do something...in fact, I think being objective is always more helpful. People respect it more I think. Anyway, I'm rambling. :) -Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Improvement sugestions:

Please add you suggestion

(sign your name after each one)


  • Suggestion #1: to add a section pertaining to different uses of PABs in society... recumbent bikes, trailor, and (ie. Wavecrest's press release on how police use electric bicycles). MAke a reference to LEV (light electric vehicles). --CyclePat 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't object to that at all. Not sure how others feel, but mentioning their uses is probably not a bad thing. But let's keep it to non-speculation. In other words, let's make sure that these are all actually being used. I don't want something like the links we had in here originally to stuff that didn't exist yet. And make sure we have sources like to the press release you mentioned. I know. It feels like lots of rules but I just want to make sure we have our ts crossed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I was actually thinking myself of starting up a 'uses' section sometime in the past... Yes, I think it'd be a good idea. But it does need to be sourced. --Alynna 23:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I added a section for use by different people and organisations. However affordability was incorperated together. I originally intended that to be a reason why people use this type of vehicle... Should we have a different section for this?--CyclePat 01:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Sounds good to me. I think we should find a better name for "Constuiencies". Maybe Official uses? I dunno. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"Official uses" sounds too, er, official. Maybe just "users." Also, I don't agree that "affordability" needs its own section. This section already describes who uses these things and why; affordability is certainly one of those reasons and should be incorporated with the rest. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"Users" would work. "Uses" would work. I was just trying to combine uses with the fact that these are not just personal users. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no problems with that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
My only problem with having a technical part is that this is supposed to be a general article on motorized bikes. If people are interested in the technical parts of the engines, they can click on the links to the articles on the engines. This article is supposed to just basically be a primer on these things. We don't want it overly specific, I don't think. And like I said, if people want to learn more about...say...2 stroke IC engines, they can click on the link for it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestion #4: Addition of section "Terminology". (Like on the EVCO web site):
Terminology--CyclePat 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Electric bike or Electric Bicycle is the general use term for bicycles that use an electric motor to power a two or three wheel vehicle with or without the addition of muscular power.--CyclePat 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Power Assisted Bicycle is used in the Federal Legislation, but is carefully defined to only apply to electric motor assist, and specifically excludes internal combustion engines.--CyclePat 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • '???(anymore here)???
I have major problems with this. We already have a section that lists alternate names. I just don't see where this is necessary. Again, let's not get bogged down in details. Let's pick 3-4 common names and stop at that or else we're going to get into minutie. I think we should integrate it with "Names and legal status" since that's intertwined. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
You mean in the electric bicycle laws? --CyclePat 03:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the last sentence of that paragraph has names for motorized bicycles. I wouldn't object to you adding 2-3 names to that list. Oh and don't fret about forgetting to sign your posts. I've been at this for a year and I STILL do it. :) It's easy to forget. I don't even note it in edit summaries anymore when I go back and sign. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion #5: at the end of article Globe and Mail News Article on electric bikes in Ontario from Nov. 10th there are various models. We should do the same for our article. --CyclePat 03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Constituencies

I found an interesting article that talks a little about motorized bikes (electric) (and other stuff). What do you think about the source? Is this a fiction novel or is based on reality? Anyone from France have a say on that? (Asside: I understand France if a very politically active country (Revolution, etc...) and the present riots. I hope that you/they may find a healthy resolution to their political debates.) http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/044181.html --CyclePat 03:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is largely redundant. The issue of mobility impairment is a couple of additional words in History (where it discusses why motorised bikes are becoming more popular), the point about licensing is also already covered elsewhere. That leaves a small note on who uses them, which might arguably be added to History. The tone of this para is also evangelical and runs against the general style of the article, which is already in danger of becoming fragmentary. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Is the information trust worthy though?--CyclePat 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Found some more sources of info for this section:

  1. Globe and Mail News Article on electric bikes in Ontario from Nov. 10th
  2. China laws and PABs
  3. World business council for sustainable development (talks about some laws in China (this link is taken from within the URL above) (There you go woohookitty) Found you some instance of Asia! mohohoho!:)(*breath)(*sigh)--CyclePat 03:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I added some of the information to the article. Thanks! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Fill the ______

I won't do the edit yet since you might be working on the article yet, Pat, but you need to fill the ______. Otherwise, your edits look good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Humm... I can't find anything right now... I guess I'll have to take it off. --CyclePat 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I can do it. I'll just reword it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Humm... Cool! Thank you. Well I tried to re-word it myself. Maybe you can try again. Something still doesn't seem right about it. (just had the idea of adding the section for ICE engines... I have so many ideas. but... I'll get back at it tomorow. Happy editing, Gnight! --CyclePat 06:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Well, try to integrate it into the existing motors section if you can. If you need to make a subheading for it under Description of Motorized bicycles or maybe under one of the engine headings. If you haven't figured out, you are the creative guy and we're the editors. :) It seems to be working ok with the last few edits you've done. Just try to keep it focused and not too technical if you can. If it is too technical, we can always edit it. So far, your ideas have been good the last few days. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Museum of Science and tech! New info

hey! I'm off to the museum to check this out and take some better pictures. but if anyone wants to add this in the mean time, Thank you! http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes5.cfm --CyclePat 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Couple of pictures in this article...please...no more. :) 2-3 is good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If you see any other exhibits in there that could lend themselves to illustrate other Wikipedia articles, by all means shoot them. Sometimes obscure topics are difficult to illustrate with public domain images. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Didn't get any pictures but there are some available at the museum's web site http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes5.cfm (I believe that's public domain!)  :) --CyclePat 05:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a little helpful note about the edits I did

No need to link things more than once in the article. It's one of those unofficial Wikipedia things that most articles follow. No biggie. Just thought I'd point it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yah! I went all out on my linking. This started because I noticed some "links" where not quite appropriate for the term being used in the article. Anyway, Thank you. Sorry. --CyclePat 05:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I ended up restoring your links. :) Motors/bikes/engines are kind of the gist of the article, so linking them more than once is probably alright. I was beihng a bit hasty. The general rule I follow (and this really varies among editors) is that if it's the subject of the article, linking it more than once is ok. But anyway, that's good what you did with links that didn't match up where they were supposed to go. That's *very* common on here and I think it shows your growth that you noticed it, because some don't. I run into articles every day where they will have a word like "1984" linked where its pointing to the year when it should be the album by Van Halen. It's a pain. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Question for CyclePat

It's about this line: ""Motorized bicycles" generally have pedals. ". Don't they always have pedals? If they don't, then we need to modify the opening paragraph since right now the opening paragraph says that motorized bicycles have motors to "assist pedaling". We'll have to add a "usually" or something like that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In my oppinion. yes. Motorized bicycles should have pedals. If they don't it would be a motorcycle. (I'm not sure exactly what section you are refering to, however if you do change it, make to pay extra special attention to see if there was not an attempt to compare to a motorcyle.) (otherwise change it!) --CyclePat 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Then again, generally... could be a better term. Its not so exclusive. Mean a someone could have built a motorized bicycle with a bicycle that had pedals but removed them... (but then again, that would be what? a noped? (but that's a term that we use here in Ontario... so we get into the name game thingy, maybe in Germany it's still a motorized bicycle or "motorisiertes Fahrrad"? (I really don't know anymore) (I do know that in Ontario though you take the pedals off and it's a noped.)--CyclePat 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
That's kind of what I thought, but I wanted to double check. I'll edit it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

History section updated!

After my excursion to the museum today (for about 40 minutes)(for free after 4 pm.) I got some info that I added. Though I tried a little, a lot of it I could not really put in my word so we might want to be careful of copyright (I'll reread through it in the next few days)--CyclePat 05:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

CCM bicycle

Humm... you know there's something wrong when you have more precise information in another article ("motorized bicycle") then with the original "CCM (bicycle manufacturer)". --CyclePat 05:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well actually, I want to address that. The history section is nice, but it's way too Canada centered. We need to generalize it a bit. I say too Canada centered because you could've used Schwinn or many other manufacturers. I'll try to generalize it a bit. I'll keep some of the information, but it just needs to be given more of a "world view". In fact, the specific stuff on CCM should probably be in the CCM article. I'll see what I can do. I'm good at merging stuff. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and moved what you added tonight to the CCM article. I did that because we're talking about motorized bicycles here, not bicycles in general. So instead, I included a "see also" link to the history of the bicycle. Pat, this is not something you know unless you've seen lots of articles on here, but generally, that's what's done. I.e. if you did an article on the history of a specific brand of car for example, you would include "History of the Automobile" as a link. As we've said, it's a steep learning curve. :) That's why I usually recommend reading as many articles as you can on here. It'll help you alot. Anyway, I would definitely add to the CCM article if I were you. It looks like you found some good stuff. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


It looks like everything I added was removed. Even the "pixie" motor to the CCM bicycle? Why? This is a documented fact about the firt motorized bicycle? (I could understand all the other information about the history of bicycles, but why the information of around 1940's addition of the Pixie motor?) It doesn't seem right? When you look at the article bicycle a lot of the information from History of bicycle is repeated. It just seems prety harsh to totally remove some information, put it in another article, and not even link to it. Maybe it's time we think about merging the article bicycle with motorized biycle (I mean the article motorized bicycle with biycle? (I've been thinking about for a day or so) I think the inherent history of a motorized bicycle puts in jepeordy many other article such as moped, motorcycle, etc. and essentially, as we have stated in the article, is like a bicycle. What do you think? --CyclePat 15:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
And I'm not asking this to, how do you say, go against comon procedures, I'm serious. (well to a certain point). What really qualifies "motorized bicycle" to have it's own article? The answer to that question, should it be in the article? --CyclePat 15:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
(Okay! I'm a little frustrated so I might be giving you some lip. Sorry in advance if the tone offends you.) Well, I see someone changed the name of "History" to "History of adding motors to bicycles" ... does that mean our article should change names too? Adding motors to bicycles? What about adding engines to bicycle? (motors are more limited then engine?) (now doesn't that just seems appropriate). Now I understand there is a difference from what was there previously and what you might expect to be there. (A discusion would have been worthy) (Just as I'm pretty sure you don't like going through I finding relevant information, I don't either) However, I will have to do that, and repost relevant information. (this article needs serious re-writing and pen-menship skill) (I'm not one for that... but I tried pretty hard last round and felt prety offended not to see one litle bit of information left over... until of course I point out specifically what should be put back. Why is it everytime I add something, You delete it. Do some of your own edits. Then often, eventually it ends right back up there? (Never mind... actually, the real question should be... why is it not possible to pay a little more attention when deleting someones additions? Anyway, we still have to talk about the history of motorized bicycles? And if we defined a motorized bicycle as being a bicycle with an attached engine, it is un-avoidable not to talk about the history of bicycle. Again, I find it awfully rude to delete a section (history), change the name (history of adding motors bicycle). I think we might have to rewrite (or paste) a lot of that info. Again the history of motorized bicycle can not be explained without talking about the history of bicycles. How will we explain the difference between pedaled bicycles, non-pedaled. Motorcycle, Moped, Scooters,... All these are a type of motorized bicycle that needs to be explained in the article (even if they are not necessarilly "technically" a "motorized bicycle") It is a common name used by many to describe a two-wheeled vehicle that has an attached engine. Again, like the article, bicycle a lot of the information is repeated from history of the bicycle. I also would like to bring into question the validity of the information concerning "autocycle" or "cyclemotor." (Do we have any other sources?) Finally, the article seems to have a few sections that repeat and say the same thing. (That's my beef) --CyclePat 21:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to tackle what I can. First of all, we might want to try to explain why it should have its own article BUT remember to avoid self-references. In other words, you have to avoid language like "This article is being included because" or "This belongs in Wikipedia because". Secondly, I removed the content you added, Pat, because it didn't belong here. From what I see, CCM was a bike manufacturer. You spent an entire paragraph talking about CCM. Why? From what I see. They didn't have a major role in motorized bikes. They produced one, yes, but other companies did as well around the same time. Save that kind of information for the CCM article. And you know what? A discussion would have been worthy before you pasted the section in. You should've asked if that would fit into the article. I still don't know what you want, Pat. This article is about motorized bicycles, their history and their use. It has to have world scope. Listing CCM is fine as a company who made an early motorized bicycle, but we do not need their company history in here. How does it possibly add to the understanding of motorized bikes?
NO! NO! Don't go saying I only talked about CCM. I might have talk a bit more about them... Yes, That's because they have an important role in the developement of our "motorized bicycle" (as you realized and put a small blurb back... still lacking some key points, which I will attempt to fix after my nap) I disagree with you. I think they had a major role with motorized bicycles. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly. Because they manufactured a stronger, steardier, lighter frame bicycle than the previous (afformentioned somewhere in that now deleted section of the article) it made place for the ability to easily attach a "pixie" motor. It's is preciselly that type of naivety that make me mad. Saying that because they only produced one bicycle that's not enought. The US produced one H bomb? Then of course many more.... Seriously I only quote one example that I found. If you feel that their are other bicycle companies during that time produced motorized bicycles.... than name them... add them to the article. Again, you are removing information, to suite your perception of the world. The is destructive. Become construstive and add some information to be merged... and if Schwin did exist, and if Schwin did have some motorized bicycle during that time than find some info... put the source and incorperate to the article. The more the better someone will be able to make an educated assumption of when the first motorized bicycle was constructed. We all know that what was there had a lot more. (Talking about motorized bicycle from CCM is a documented fact in an Internationally recognized museum (that just happens to be in my back door), it is not some biased opinion) You also missed the point... the history of a the bicycle is an inherent property of the history of motorized bicycles. We need to begin talking about the bicycle before we can elaborate on the motorized bicycle. Call it pre-history! That's a good idea. (bring it back and call it pre-history) (Well not all because of course it will never be quite the same but some good parts) There will be an overlap somewhere... we will need to explain the shape of the bicycle used... was the first motorized bicycle a high-wheel... or was it a diamond safety style bicycle (such as we kinda know it today!) What was the first motorized bicycle based on? Did it have more than 2 wheels? What or who are the major key player in the developement of this type of bicycle that lead to eventually a motorized bicycle? Where these bicycle originally constructed for the addition of a motor? Are they now contstructed for the addition of motors? (ie.: electric bicycle?) Many of these questions where answered by this section... I think a pre-history section is good. (Just as bicycle give a section of history)... however (I haven't read further down... if you feel there is no need for so much info, then I guess a new article called History of the motorized bicycle might be appropriate?--CyclePat 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
As for the history of the bicycle, you say "How will we explain the difference between pedaled bicycles, non-pedaled. Motorcycle, Moped, Scooters,... All these are a type of motorized bicycle that needs to be explained in the article (even if they are not necessarilly "technically" a "motorized bicycle")"
No. You don't have to cite the history of bicycles to explain motorized bicycles. That's what the link to "History of the bicycle" is for. I'm still not sure you quite understand Wikipedia. Bicycle is the most general 2 wheeled category. So it has a full, all encompassing article. Motorized bikes are a class of bicycles. We do not need to explain the history or scope of bikes here. Why? Well, #1 chances are good that people that run across this article already know what a bike is and they are looking for information specific to motorized bikes. And #2, that's what links are for. The beauty of Wikipedia are the links. If people want more information on bicycles, they can click on the bicycle link or the history of the bike link. We don't need to recap what is already on the site.
Actually, I think it is necessary for this article to have a disctincly written history that covers the development toward motorization. Perhaps a pre-history --CyclePat 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
For our purposes, having the history of the bike link and saying that a motorized bicycle is a bicycle with a motor on it is all you have to say about bicycles. If you start going into detail about the history of bikes, then you are repeating information from 2 different articles. And yes, the history of the bike article repeats information from the main bike article, but that's ok since the reason why the history of the bike article was split off from the bike article was that it was getting too long, so they decided to give it its own article.
You mentioned rewriting. What do you want rewritten? And honestly, I didn't appreciate the "do your own edits" comment. I've had to edit your contributions for spelling and grammar since we started this process. And I did do some of my own research...and...I've been responsible for organizing this into a readable article. Like I said, Pat, my job here is to get this article to conform with the usual format here. And yes, I'm the one who changed the "History" section, because for awhile I had 2 history sections until I decided that the CCM stuff didn't belong here. I was going to change it back but I had to go to bed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
What is the "usual" format? Actually what is Usual? Please someone explain? Because the last time I saw something that was usual, well... he was stealing a bicycle? (ironically)Okay! Well you, see, the common etiquette that I've had when working in project is... you sugest something... (or put it down).... someone says... yup... no... change this. So I guess, all I can say is I feal like you've made this your article now? I understand. Until that's resolved I will go explore other venues in the mean time. Heck, I have a business to run! --CyclePat 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia Manual of Style - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Btw, I don't see alot of repeating. I do see some between the intro paragraph and some of the sections, but that's normal. It's sort of like a school paper where the introduction introduces the main topics that the paper will cover. You will have repeated info. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
btw I think I remember what I said. Sorry. You often do a great job editing often fixing many of my typos. I will, in the future attempt to reciprocicate the favor. Thank you.--CyclePat 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting

OK, I am now working through the article trying to polish up the flow and development. There have been a lot of edits, some of which which have been moved or partially backed out, leading to the same concept being addressed in more than one section (mopeds, for instance). Nothing big, it just reads slightly disjointed (natural with multiple editors). FWIW, I believe the major historical development of IC engined motorized bikes was in France, the Veolomoteur goes back to the early years of the 20th Century. But I am still researching that trying to find a categorical answer (it may well have developed in several places simultaneously). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motorized_bicycle/Archive_4&oldid=853213279"