Jump to content

Talk:Suzuki V-Strom 650

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox

[edit]

Please do not remove the infobox. It provides a summary of data in a highly-readable, familar format. Ibanix (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it brings the article into a standard format for motorcycles, too. 842U (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V-Strom Picture

[edit]

In the interest of a good article, we should have a picture of the DL650 that:

Shows high quality detail of the motorcycle
Takes up the majority of the image (this is a reference article, not art)
Does not break page layout.

If you have an image that does so better than the current one, add it. Please do not revert to the wide, grey image which breaks page layout and has extra space not used to show the DL650. Thank you =) Ibanix 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Merger Discussion

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no merger. -- Ibanix 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 8 2007: why would anyone consider merging this link with a DL1000 link... the bikes are two separate models in the Suzuki line-up. There is some speculation also that the DL1000 may be dropped soon also.

Is it really necessary that every model have its own article? It seems like the models are similar enough that the information (including the differences) could be profitably combined into one article. Plus, right now, search VStrong redirects to only one of the articles. Nposs 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging the DL650 and DL1000 pages is a great idea, the information on each is sparse to say the least, it would benifit both models if viewers could see the evolutionary and techinical differences between the two at the same time. S burras 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As more than 10 days have passed without additional comment or action (see: Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages) I am proceeding with closing this merger. Also, I note that we should keep these as two seperate models to be consitent with Category:Suzuki motorcycles and the disambiguation page V-Strom. Ibanix 02:14, 1 May 2007 (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.
[edit]

The following links are in violation of WP:External_links and have been removed.

Please discuss relinking these sites on this talk page before re-adding them to the article. See also:

Nposs 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link list has been trimmed. The two user group sites contain vast resources to someone interested in the Suzuki DL650.

The two links are directly related to the Suzuki DL650, and while they require registration for membership, they will let a visitor view almost ALL the resources without registration.

They only require registration to prevent further spamming; new members are not otherwise vetted.

Their is no favoritism shown, the links aren't added primarily promote the sites, rather to serve someone wanting more information about Suzuki DL650.

DL650 sound recording external link?

[edit]

Would people find it useful if I add a link to a website I've set up, where I have sound recordings of this bike? (it would be a direct link to the specific page in question). The site link would be:

http://bikenoise.com/Manufacturers/Suzuki/V-Strom%20DL650/BikeNoise.aspx

Just want people to be sure its not spam or a membership only site. S burras 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find a couple of problems with the link in terms of the external link guidelines, WP:EL. 1) The relevant resource on the page is sound file. Linking to sound files is discouraged under "links to avoid. 2) A recording of the sound of a motorcycle isn't really an "encyclopedic" resource. 3) External links should provide sufficient content to warrant the link. It doesn't seem to be worth it in this case. Please understand, I am sure that this is an interesting resource for people who are interested in these motorcycles - but Wikipedia is not a directory of interesting links (WP:NOT). The fact that the site does not pass the external link guidelines is not a reflection of the quality of the website - which appears to be very high. 02:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section ???

[edit]

the notion that adding one criticism from a single person somehow balances the article, doesn't seem accurate. Can we get criticism from more bonafide sources -- like an actual road test by a noted motorcycle reviewer?

  • Sometimes you take the best you can. If you want better criticism sources, go find them. I'm re-adding the criticism I *could* find, because *any* criticism from a third-party who has reviewed the actual bike helps to balance the article. Ibanix (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism is fine, but Mark has the same notability as any other random page or blog out there. It's only a half-step better than using weasel words. Saying "something (poor) is better than nothing" doesn't remove the notability/credibility issues. Tedder (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced page is the #1 Google hit for "DL650 review". Ibanix (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section seems anecdotal — it's missing a credentialed, balanced source. The concensus is that this criticism section doesn't work. 842U (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could cite a Wikipedia guideline you are following, or elaborate on what it is you are trying to acheive. The article really shouldn't have anything PRO or CON... it should be balanced on its own. Is there some perceived "PRO" that you are trying to balance out here, because, I don't see it.

The credentials and accuracy of the criticism you cite aren't instantly "vetted" because they show up as a certain google hit... that doesn't "mean" anything, per se.

Notice that each of the criticism is anecdotal: "Bob says..." This really keeps the article from having a broad, encyclopedic tone.

Look to see if there are guidelines that will help us here. It's really not enough to throw in a single criticism of the bike. 842U (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I added three references from motorcycle-specific publications. What more do you want? Ibanix (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site is not a place to review the subject of the article. Because an article lists awards does not mean it must also include an anecdotal list of criticisms. Removed section along with the "Hey editors" section. 842U (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

The article says that the name is connected to the German language. Are there any official statements from Suzuki that this really is the case? Because I always wondered if they there was any connection to Maelstrom. Being German myself I never even thought about the possibility that a Japanese manufacturer would use a German word to name one of their products.--AoSpades (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for a reference. It seems Suzuki was gunning for the market BMW had established with the F650, so much as to introduce the DL650 in a color, a light silver blue-green (officially Euclase Silver) that strongly mimicked a color BMW marketed the F650 in. 842U (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following that argument the name may really refer to the German language, because the DL 1000 (which was presented two years before the DL 650) may have been aimed at the big BMW GS's market share. But this seems like guesswork, I'd rather have a real reference. --AoSpades (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Other motorcycle articles think, that MCN links might be useful. Nevertheless I put it on this article's discussion page first.

Je suis Nigérian (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links are tolerable under external linking policy, though we do still try to keep external links to a minimum. And the Motor Cycle News pages are always half reliable, half crowdsouced, which is problematic. The easiest thing to do if you want to add these links is to just cite them, rather than put them in the external links section. That removes all the handwringing over external linking, and makes clear why the link is worthwhile -- it supports facts in the article. Simple. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suzuki_V-Strom_650&oldid=1203655216"