Talk:Quad bike

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quad bike redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I've taken this from the All Terrain Vehcle page for the reasons i specified on the talk page there. This was made to describe the UK deffinition of the Quad bike including car type quads as designated by the DVLA and all powered Quadracycles. I'd appreciate it if motorcycle and motor trike info were kept to a minimum and that given my intentions this page remained in UK English. The article needs alot of work so any contribution that sticks with the original purpose would be apreciated. If you've objections to the mission statement please tell me so that they can be rectified, Please don't delete this page without first saying something.(Morcus (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I can't find a reference for the weight restriction deffintion but I heard Jeremy Clarkson explain it and have seen other people refer to this weight here [1] Amongst other places. as Its Jezzas Jod to know this sort of thing I feel its acceptable to have here untill such a time that it can be verified by a UK government source or else disproved.(Morcus (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to also see some reference of the weight restriction to have it be a credible piece of information. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be available through the DVLA but I can't find it on the website.(Morcus (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have foun it on a form available from the DVLA website and shall now put it into the page.(Morcus (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

References

I have re-inserted the Ref Improve tag. this article has only three footnotes that support only a tiny fraction of the information presented here.

As Wikipedia:Verifiability says:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

I have tagged the paragraphs that require references to support what they say. These tags can be replaced with inline citations.

For anyone who doesn't think it is important for Wikipedia to be scrupulously referenced, I suggest that you read this CBC article. A lack of references can cause real damage in some cases. This is a biography case, not a vehicle article like this one, but it does show the problems with unreferenced articles. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got some of them done. I understand how important verification is. I'll see if i can get some more cited later.(Morcus (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think you are doing great on it! You might call me a "reference enthusiast", but I feel Wikipedia is only as good as its references! For a recent example please see RU-38 Twin Condor - I try to ref each para! - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was: merge. No such user (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this merger because a quadbike is, in a technical sense, exactly the same as an ATV. This article only provides a brief description about what the quadbike is, and the main purpose of the article is to give regulatory information about the ATV in the UK. Both of these articles have worldwide view issues, and transferring the legal info concerning the UK to ATV could help improve this. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - makes sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no need for two articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - content that should be in one article is currently devided arbitarily into two. -- Thomas.hori (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see any evidence that the two are different subjects. starship.paint ~ regal 05:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Please merge this with the terrain, it is unnecessary to keep it as a different article --Sstangerman1 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.