Template talk:Infobox motorcycle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page Created

Created the template based on Template:Infobox Automobile. Removed automobile specific things and added some motorcycle specific categories (ie. "rake", "trail", etc...). Thoughts? --Roguegeek 10:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Added bore/stroke to the template categories Gaijin Biker 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow my additions

Nice. As you can see, I added some info (dimensions, power, torque) because the most motorcycle articles have this information. I already used it in this article: Editing Yamaha Virago 535.

In stead of removing my entries to comply with the automobile template, I propose to add the latter 2 also in the automobile infobox since these are standard data.

R U Bn @ e-builds 23:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

4 new variables

Hi, I've added 4 variables to the template:

• oil_capacity
• fuel_consumption
• turning_radius
• climbing_ability

for use in an upcoming article. I hope that is ok, done correctly, and can be used in some of the other articles from now on. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to please provide definitions in the "Meaning" section of the documentation? This will help avoid confusion as to what information should be provided in these new variables. Roguegeek (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. (I'm helping a new editor learn bits and pieces :) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

{{infobox}}

The new template is actually pretty extensive. We should use its functionality to design it the way it was presented in the past. Roguegeek (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Simplification

I disagree with the deletion of most of the data fields. I've partially explained the position at Template talk:Infobox Automobile#Oppose simplification. Also, I'm going to revert the changes until this has had a chance to be discussed further (either there or here). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggested similar to be removed here. Overall I think the infobox should include:

• name (make and model)
• image
• aka (any other names)
• manufacturer (just the manufacturer, I dont see the point of parent company)
• production (years of when the motorcycle was produced and sold)
• predecessor
• successor
• class (Type of motorcycle, from Types of motorcycle and its related articles)
• related (motorcycles of the same family or that share parts)

All the other fields just overcomplicate things especially since bikes undergo changes each model year. perhaps we could make a motorcycle equivalent of Template:Infobox Automobile generation that will have all the details for specific model generations. Chris Ssk _talk 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisSsk's proposal. The bottom line is the current reiteration of the infobox does not jive with the guidelines set by the manual of style and this revision addresses the problem. The people in the automotive group (which I am included in) were able to easily spot this and make the change fairly quickly. We should be able to as well. Roguegeek (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I suggest we keep "parent company" in the infobox. Motorcycle manufacturers in particular are rarely a standalone company. I think it would be nice to see BMW Motorrad as the manufacturer with BMW being the parent company. It also keep the template a little more consistent with the automobile infobox. Below are the fields I'd like to keep with full definitions:

• name - Include both the make and model of the motorcycle.
• image - A 'three quarter' view of the front and side of the motorcycles (eg: Image:2006HondaCBR600RR-001.jpg), preferably taken against a background containing no other vehicles and with the sun shining from behind the camera.
• aka - Any other names the motorcycles is commonly known as. (eg: the Honda CB600F is also known as the Hornet and 599)
• manufacturer - Brand, marque, division, or automaker of the motorcycle.
• parent_company - Industrial group which owns the marque/brand/division in the time the motorcycle was produced. Not always applicable.
• production - Model years of when the motorcycle was produced and sold.
• predecessor - Motorcycle of similar class that proceeded. (eg: the predecessor of the Honda CBR954RR was the CBR929RR)
• successor - Motorcycle of similar class that succeeded. (eg: the successor of the Honda CBR954RR was the CBR1000RR)
• class - Use article types of motorcycle to see different classes and descriptions.
• related - Motorcycles which share components. (eg: the Suzuki GSX-R600 shares components with the GSX-R750 and visa versa)

Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

valid point about "parent company" OK by me Chris Ssk _talk 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My main concern, is the loss of information. Perhaps someone could request a bot's assistance, to move information that is currently in the infoboxes into a new specs table? (it should all be a standard format, and hence easily extractable). Or at least add some details to the infobox doc-page, to explain that specifications should be in a table, and point to a good example (eg. Is Honda CB600F#Specifications the way we're meant to do it? or is that likely to be deleted by an overenthusiastic cleanup next month?). I'm simply saying that standards are good, and infoboxes shouldn't be trashed until there is a replacement strategy for a new standard. Information such as that found in the infobox for Honda PC50, just isn't available anywhere else on the web (in English). (This isn't my area of knowledge, I'm trying to help a new editor find his way on the Wiki, and he happened to start with motorcycles). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  See also the featured articles Mini Moke, and Holden VE Commodore (full infobox, and separate powertrain specs table) and the related B-17 Flying Fortress#Specifications (B-17G), or the equally useful/informative {{Infobox Automobile generation}} template in eg MINI (BMW)#Models. I can understand parts-lists and suchlike being excluded because "we are not a shop manual", but excluding basic specifications seems unhelpful. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

These 2 comments above, are copied from the larger thread at Template talk:Infobox Automobile#Oppose simplification.

Basic specifications shouldnt be excluded but they shouldn't be in the main infobox. The MINI (BMW) article is how it should be. Main infobox with name manufacturer production years etc., other infoboxes for specific generation models. The Holden VE Commodore is an article about the is the fourteenth generation of the Holden Commodore. Imagine however if the main Holden Commodore article hat the VE specs in the main infobox as if they are the specs of all Commodores. Thats how many motorcycle articles are/were . An example, an old revision of the SUzuki GSX-R1000 article Chris Ssk _talk 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So where are we at here? Roguegeek (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope that a clone of {{Infobox Automobile generation}} can be developed for Motorcycles, and a bot request made to transfer information out of infoboxes and into this new template. I'm not familiar with motorcycles or bots though, so would prefer to delegate that task ;)

Or, moved into a table, like at Honda CB600F.

As long as the useful/factual/encyclopedic information isn't deleted (or hidden behind unused infobox fields), I'd be happy with any solution. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)