Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 2

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

Translation request

I am at the moment requesting a translation for the All Japan Road Race Championship which would be an interest for people interested in Japanese riders the request is listed currently on top of that page. Feel free to make any further edits if possible. Willirennen 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Weight definitions

Does anybody have a good handle on dry weight versus wet weight versus curb weight? The wet weight article needs to be written. Thanks! -- Brianhe 06:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Quickly created wet weight, but upon reflection it probably should be shifted to wikitionary Pickle 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a problem. As currently defined, wet weight and curb weight appear identical to me: standard equipment+oil+fuel+coolant. However, the curb weight article says they are not the same. -- Brianhe 09:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For RV machines -

  • Dry Weight is the empty weight of the vehicle or trailer. Dry weight may or may not include the weight of appliances, slide outs, etc.
  • Wet Weight is the weight of the vehicle with fuel, oil, and coolant onboard. Wet weight should, but may not, include the weight of the LPG (propane or butane) in the tanks, and fresh water. (Water weight is 8.34 lbs./U.S. Gallon so a 100 Gallons weighs 834 lb..)(A motorhome site said "without options")
  • Curb weight, or Net Weight should be the weight of the unit as it is sitting on the lot, without the personal load you will be adding. http://www.rversonline.org/ArtWtandBal.html

I assume the difference between wet and curb on a motorcycle would be minor. Seasalt 10:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Are you aware that the :Category:Motorcyclists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and :Category:Fictional motorcyclists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are up for deletion and it looks like the deletion will happen unless there is a big swing against it? No one from this group seems to have put in their 2 cents worth (except me as of now). Check it out here and please contribute if you agree this is a useful category to keep. There is no point in having it deleted and then recreating it again only to have it up for deletion again. ww2censor 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dumb me, I did not have this page on my watchlist so I missed the chance to vote. The CFD debate just ended with the decision to remove the category. Brianhe 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Save MotoCzysz

MotoCzysz has been proposed for deletion. This sounds like an opportunity for our project to not just oppose the deletion, but address the editorial concerns about the article by expanding and improving it and introducing more links to it. -- Brianhe 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

its a bit beyond me on a superficial look, how can we help (as i see no list of what particularly is wrong or any place to vote yay or ney)...... Pickle 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As it says in the deletion tag "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days. This template was added 2007-02-18; five days from then is 2007-02-23." and the rest of the tag says "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." So if you improve anything in the article about this company or bike, you could add it to the article but I don't know anything about it so cannot help you. Cheers ww2censor 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add MotoCzysz to List of motorcycle manufacturers but I'm not sure it's kosher since they're not actually producing bikes for market yet. Any opinions on this? Or anybody have knowledge of when they will actually go into production for Superbike homologation? - Brianhe 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added the {{future}} tag to the topic page and hope that will delay any deletion prospects but I doubt you should add it to the List of motorcycle manufacturers yet. ww2censor 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle Userboxes

motorcycle userboxes created and added to index here User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Automotive, did not mention on project page, not sure if needed? mr_uu 09:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

some of this sutff will be useful to our members;
Code Result
{{User:Mr_uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Austria}} User:Mr uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Austria
{{User:Mr_uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Britain}} User:Mr uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Britain
{{User:Mr_uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Germany}} User:Mr uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Germany
{{User:Mr_uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Italy}} User:Mr uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Italy
{{User:Mr_uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Japan}} User:Mr uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Japan
{{User:Mr_uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Russian}} User:Mr uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle Russian
{{User:Mr_uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle USA}} User:Mr uu/Userboxes/Motorcycle USA
we've also got two sets of user boxes for project membership and the banner


<Template:User WP Motorcycling
Template:User WikiProject Motorcycling


Template:Motorcycle member

Especially for Honda CBR600: {{User:Telempe/Userboxes/CBR600}}
This user rides a Honda CBR motorbike.
Telempe 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Valid External Links?

Nposs has removed all of the External Links from the Suzuki Bandit Series article. He has explained his reasons on the Talk:Suzuki Bandit Series page.

At first glance, the links that were removed would seem to be in violations of policy. However, having been through a number of model-specific articles, I know that similar external links are being used extensively in motorcycling articles. So, this becomes, in my opinion at least, a much larger issue for WikiProject Motorcycling than just the links in the Bandit article.

My quandry is that there is very little motorcycle model-specific information available in traditional sources. No one publishes a magazine or journal dedicated to the Bandit, for example. Motorcycle magazines will give good coverage to a model when it is first introduced, but after that it usually gets no more than the occassionaly paragraph. Manufacturers in general publish nothing but advertising copy. For example, even Honda's Heritage webpages are devoid of anything but complimentary facts, for motorcycles that haven't been available for sale for decades. And some which have well-know "issues."

Webforums and mailing lists are, in my experience, the best source available for information about a specific motorcycle model. Yet the ocean of information available in those venues is never translated to a more formal format, be it magazine, journal, book or even a FAQ. The search function of webforums frequently takes the place of informational webpages or FAQs. If someone wants detailed information on a motorcycle, an appropriate webforum or mailing list is simply the best place to get that information. And sometimes the only place to get that information.

How do we point someone to such a forum, if we don't allow any external links to those sites? -- Pi3832 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it can be hard to follow official External Links policy in many articles so I have not wiped out links to web forums when there are no other sources given. Rather I try to find references online or in printed media and introduce those instead. For example, see my appeal in Talk:Sport touring for non-web forum sources. On the other hand, when an article has plenty of sources and the web forum links are gratuitous I feel free to delete them (Bajaj Pulsar seems to attract these for some reason). I hope this is reasonable and could be the basis for a policy appropriate for articles under our care. --Brianhe 05:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Your concern that the best information about motorcycles can be found in forums and mailing lists is certainly valid. But the question shouldn't be "how can we point people to such a forum?" but rather "how can we improve wikipedia?" Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and general linking to a forum poses many problems for verifiability (WP:V) and "no self-published sources" WP:SELFPUB. I don't deny that forums and listservs contain a wealth of detailed information - but there are two issues I see: 1) Is that level of detail appropriate for an encyclopedic article? 2) Do external links or references based on these sources meet standards of reliability and verifiability? Some of these sites may contain specific pages with encyclopedic content that could be deep linked as an external link or reference. (For instance - a history of ... page when another source is unavailable.) So I am not suggesting an indiscriminate ban on these links, but rather hoping for a better strategy than just linking the general forums. Nposs 14:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(Replying to both Nposs's and Brianhe's comments.) There are two different issues as I see it.
  1. References (external links used to verify information)
  2. External Links (Links provided as pointers to more information)
The first is not really what I had in mind when I started this discussion. Webforums and the like are not good sources to use as references/cites. Barring any other source, I can see using them as kind of a placeholder until a better reference can be found, but they should definitely be discouraged, as I believe Brianhe is advocating.
I was really more concerned about the second: external links as pointers to more information. There appears to already be an answer to that problem. On the Wikipedia:External links page, it recommends linking to DMOZ. Sure enough, for the article which prompted me to start this discussion, Suzuki Bandit Series, there is a DMOZ page for Suzukis. (It doesn't list Maximum-Suzuki, but that's a problem to fix over at DMOZ, not here.)
So, I propose that external links either need to meet the External Links Guideline or be currently used as a reference for a specific part of the article. For the latter, they should be moved to a References section and eventually replaced with a better source. Comprehensive references or "more-info" pointers should be replaced with an appropriate DMOZ link. --Pi3832 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If you know the articles I tend to watch over, you know I struggle a lot with anonymous posters simply posting forums and fan sites. These are, for the most part, now allowed under the current EL policy and I'm very quick to remove them, especially if there's a dmoz link. When there is no category set in dmoz, I'll usually leave the sites until I can set up one. I believe as soon as a dmoz link exists, forums and other stuff not permitted should be removed immediately. I also think all references should only include reliable sources at all times. No forums. No fan sites. They are not a reliable source. I'm really interested to hear some feedback. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that Brianhe just removed all the links in the Honda ST1100 and Honda ST1300 articles. While I agree with the policy, I also think that removing a small number of useful links which add value to an article and replacing them with a single very generic DMOZ link is rather silly. By all means add DMOZ and trim the number of links, but don't get rid of all the links. I'm happy to discuss on the talk pages of both articles which links are really valuable and which aren't. --Cheesy Mike 07:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a little to my comment above. If there is a clear 1:1 match between the article and the DMOZ category then I fully support removing all external links from an article. A good example is the BMW motorcycles page which is a perfect 1:1 match to DMOZ Recreation: Motorcycles: Makes and Models: BMW. However, in the case of the articles that I reverted there is no Honda ST1300, Honda ST1100, not even Honda ST series specific category in DMOZ. In fact the DMOZ Recreation: Motorcycles: Makes and Models: Honda page only contains one ST1100 specific link. In cases like this replacing a small number of valuable links which add value to the article with a generic category in DMOZ makes little sense to me. --Cheesy Mike 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I just don't think any of those links benefit the article. Remember, this is an article about the bike not a general resource for people who want to tinker with it. Let's take the ST1100 links for example. We have:
How is a single one of these encyclopedic? If/when dmoz creates sub-categories for these models the dmoz link can be tweaked. Till then, sorry these still don't belong. Brianhe 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Tell me what is wrong with forums? They can be an excellent source of advice on specific bike models. I concede that there may be there are too many forums listed, but listing one or two definitely adds value. Pan Clan is not a web forum, it is the Pan European Owners Club - definitely a useful addition. The Irish site contains an online manual and various useful links for people who want to find out about the bike, own it, ride it and (yes) tinker with it. The last site (farkles aside) contains useful maintenance information on the bike - such as valve adjustment and timing belt replacement. That list could be reduced to maybe 5 links but getting rid of all of them is just plain silly. --Cheesy Mike 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we've been over all of these arguments before. WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided is pretty clear on blogs and web forums. Blogs and webforums are weak on authority and should not be used to substantiate facts; and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Pi3832's suggestion above seems like a reasonable relaxation of these rules only for instances where other sources are inadequate, and only for specific citations. Brianhe 01:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps also consulting this "Spam" page too will give you the guidlines regarding blogs, etc. ww2censor 01:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
See the thing is, I can't tell what's spam and what isn't at a glance. For instance this blog was added to the ST1300 article recently, after I nuked the external links and Cheesy Mike restored them. Is there valuable information there for the article? Probably not, with a grand total of 15 blog posts ever, and I don't really care to grovel through them to find out. That's what the dmoz editors love to do and we should let them do it. Plus, the mystery 1-contrib editor who dropped in this link could easily be the blog author, which brings up conflict-of-interest and self-promotion considerations. All this can be avoided just by letting dmoz handle the external links. If we could at least agree to a policy of not linking blogs and web forums (per well established WP:EL policy!) I'd be happy to let this drop. Brianhe 01:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong info

Jeremy Mcgrath has won 72 main events in the 250cc class. Not 74.

216.226.180.2 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Justin216.226.180.2 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It says 72 in the article Jeremy McGrath, can you tell us where you found the incorrect information, and even better, what source you have for the correct number? -- Brianhe

Visordown magazine?

I can't find anything about Visordown magazine on the Web, but it is in our to-do list. Can anybody give me a pointer and I'll attempt to write a stub? Note, there is already a Visordown article but it seems to be a web-based British club. Brianhe 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

visordown is a british website and forum. it was bought by two magazine and is now their main front. more details at http://www.visordown.com/about/aboutvisordown.html http://www.visordown.com/two/ http://www.magicalia.com/news.asp?ID=96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.10.126 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive needed

This page has gotten quite long and I recommend that we archive messages more than a few months old. Here is a template that can help: {{Archive box}} Brianhe 04:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done ww2censor 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Buell Motorcycle Company

Hello, I'm glad there's a motorcycle WikiProject... I was looking at the Buell article, and it needs some work. If anyone knows about these motorcycles, it would be nice if you could add to the article, and maybe even make an article for each of their models... or just something to add to your project's to do list... - Adolphus79 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I bought a copy of The Illustrated Directory of Motorcycles and see there are four pages about Buell. You can view the book contents at amazon.com by using the Search inside this book link just below the cover illustration you can look for Armstrong. Try this link. Maybe there is anything extra there you can use. Cheers ww2censor 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
well, I just did a semi-major cleanup on the article, removed some POV, and redundant information... I didn't add any information though... I also made links to each of the models just as Buell Blast, Buell Firebolt, etc... if there's any information in your book that isn't already in the article, please add it, just don't forget to source your info... - Adolphus79 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki project on speedway

Myself and another user wish to set up a new project specifically to cover the sport of Motorcycle speedway (the common name for the sport being just speedway). However, as speedway is covered by this project I wanted to ask on here what your thoughts would be on this? The proposal would be for it to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycle speedway. We would prefer it to be Wikipedia:WikiProject speedway, but realise that with speedway meaning the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the name of the town in which it is raced in North America this probably is not possible.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Will there be a lot of articles covered by this project? If you include everything in Category:Speedway there are probably enough articles to make a case for creating a project so I'd tend to approve of it. By the way I did not see this in the Speedway article, it might be useful to note the distinction between it and flat-track racing in the USA. Brianhe 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that it should be handled as a "sub project" (if that the right term) of WP Motorcycling. A good example is how WP London Transport, and WP UK railways are all sub projects of WP Trains. Pickle 06:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD nomination for Wolf Pack Motorcycle Club

... is currently underway. Perhaps some folks would like to review and comment? Thanks! Mmoyer 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FZR600

I've added Yamaha FZR600 as it was a request page. I regret that I can't provide any references, but as is noted below, it's very hard to find any sources on the web for a bike that was made between 1989 and 1999. In particular I searched for but could not find references for the 1989 AMA 600cc superbike title having been won by an FZR600. If you can find and correctly reference this, I think we would all be greateful =) (and yeah, I liked my FZR600 even if it was old tech for today's standards). Ibanix 07:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cruisers

Given the popularity of this style of motorcycle, the existing Cruiser_(motorcycle) article seems woefully insufficient. Anyone else agree? ZiggySpeed 05:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved your comment to the bottom of the list ... the page is chronologically sorted. Thanks! Brianhe 05:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD debate on many Yamaha motorcycles

Someone is proposing to mass delete unspecified Yamaha articles via the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha Banshee 350. It's not even specified what the AfD covers and the logic is that they are "too incomplete." Recommend that members of this project go and vote no on this. Brianhe 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review?

Is it time that Motorcycle went up for peer review again? The last review is archived here if you want to read it. It is the lead article for this project and should really be at least be at Good Article status. It is 5 months since the last review and has had many excellent edits since then. Besides reading well, it has a good few inline references and no redlinks. Who thinks it is up to it this time? If we get a good reaction we could nominate it. ww2censor 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, a bit of work needs to be done gathering sources to support much of the article. Fifteen cites is weak for an article this size. --Evb-wiki 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So, Motorcycle history had a peer review, and as with Motorcycle's review last Dec/Jan, no constructive suggestions were made, so I think we are on our own unless we can get some more knowledgeable editors to contribute directly. Any views? Maybe we should do some work on one or both of these and submit for WP:GA or WP:FA anyway and see if that elicits any better response. ww2censor 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a bit disappointed. Go ahead and nominate Motorcycle for good article consideration. Then we should get at least one thorough review. Just went through GA process with Architecture of Houston, and it only needed additional references, which was then quickly fixed for a successful promotion. It won't hurt to give it a go. --Evb-wiki 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I nominated Motorcycle for Good article today. ww2censor 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Retired members

I've removed User:Jeff Dean from the page. It would appear that he has invoked his right to vanish and we should honor it, especially since he used his real name. I question whether we need a retired members section. IMO, once a Wikipedian, always a Wikipedian; some people just go on really extended wikibreaks. If someone "retires" they probably wouldn't bother to update the project page, and we would not likely notice unless they were a prolific editor and their contributions suddenly dropped off. —M (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing images

I've aded a category to the to do list for articles missing images. There are many motorcycle articles that are missing that I haven't been able to add to the list. If you find one not on the list, please add it. Or better yet, go get take photo of that bike, upload it to commons, and then add it to the article! —M (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of deaths by motorcycle accidents listed for AfD

As the List of deaths by motorcycle accidents has been nominated for AfD which is listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by cause of death, feel free to have your say about it there. Willirennen 00:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep this list and all the other related lists that were nominated for deletion at the same time. ww2censor 04:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ducati SuperSport

The article Ducati SuperSport needs wikification. Can anyone help me on this? Please message me on my talk page --Guroadrunner 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little. Brianhe 19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I did a reorg on this so the areas for expansion can be seen more clearly, and I think it reads better; there wasn't any pressing need to differentiate the sections on one model. MSJapan 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man TT results

Many of the individual Isle of Man TT race results pages from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s have little else other than tables of results. It would be great if editors working on these pages could also add some commentary about that particular year's races as has been done with many of the earlier years, basically up to the 1940s. A few years, such as 1957 the Golden Jubilee year, do have decent or even excellent introductory information besides the results tables. Follow them from here. TIA ww2censor

Cat problem...

There's overlap between "Motorcyclists organizations" and "Motorcycle clubs", which doesn't appear to be logical - the AMA is not the same as the Yonkers MC. Is there a project policy on differentiating the two? MSJapan 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply put don't go there! There is a long standing "issue" shall we say about what a "Motorcycle club" is, etc (see the Motorcycle club talk page. The AMA is a sporting governing body, made up - in part - of clubs, but also a lobbiest group. I'm not we have the right cats to cover the AMA correctly, but off the top of my head we only have the FIM, ACU & AMCA as vaguely similar organisations with pages on Wikipedia (so far!). Pickle 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome aboard the project, MSJapan. Yes we have had some massive derangement in the motorcycling categories, which I've somewhat corrected, but there's a long way to go. I think that this would be the right place to try to distinguish the clubs/orgs categories and ensure articles are in the right one. Just by scanning the current members of each category, it looks like the current distinction is that "clubs" are local but organizations are national or trans-national. Brianhe 06:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
First, we might change the name from Motorcyclists organizations to Motorcycling organizations but I don't think it should even have any entries just the following sub categories Motorcycle clubs (local), Motorcycle clubs (international) and Motorcycling governing bodies, and possibly even do away with Motorcyclists organizations altogether.
I was thinking three cats, actually, which would go under motorcycling: clubs (limited to those groups that call themselves whatever "MC" (Pagans, Warriors, HAMC, etc., but with no national or international differentiation) , governing bodies (like the AMA), and owner's groups (HOG, etc.). MSJapan 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That might work too and do away with any geographical distinctions. Cheers ww2censor 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
All three sound good, but it will still leave some article that don't fit into those eg Motorcycle Safety Foundation but thats not too many at the moment. Pickle 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We had a bunch of cats already, so I did the following (which was not quite as I stated earlier): Motorcycle clubs (pre-existing cat) is for law-abiding clubs, gangs (pre-existing cat) is for 1%er-type groups. I created motorcycle owners' groups (BMW RA, HOG), and tossed AMA and such into motorcyclist organizations. I also separated gangs and clubs and speedway teams into their own cats, as opposed ot being club subcats, because they're totally different. I moved some other stuff around for display purposes, so take a lok at the main cat to see if there are any problems. MSJapan 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK had a look, I'm quite happy with that. Pickle 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD on websites cat...

I went to see what the websites cat had in it,and there was nothing. My reasoning may be off, but I thought that any notable websites were likely to be associated with notable groups of some sort, and wouldn't stand on their own, so I CfDed it. MSJapan 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Honda CR250R

Hey, I just saw the article Honda CR250R, and as I know nothing about the subject, I thought I'd link it here, and see if someone else knew what to do with it (I don't care for deleting it and tags are meaningless if people who might help aren't aware of them). Anyway, the article, as is, could be speedy deleted, as its just praise for its being teh best ever, or something. If you are interested, I think it should be fixed instead. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I stubbed it, but on a cursory pass with few R-related sources, I think the best solution might be to merge the CR250M and R (and others) into one article - I can't find a lot of info on the R and the M article isn't much better. MSJapan 16:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
OK I've written quickly a little bit more. But i have no "proper" sources to hand (other than having read too many off road journals for too long!). I've got lots of photos in my vast photo archive so if someone's desperate I'll dig one out and put it up. Personally the CR250M and CR250R are chalk and cheese, one is a "pure" MX bike while the other is a "trail" bike (not really that enduro ish, but I've only ever ridden a CRM125). You would also have to place it in context with the XL range (more enduro esque IMHO) and off course the latest generation of fourstrokes (eg CR450F is direct replacement), etc. Pickle 14:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, and looking around there is a lot of confusion and not a lot of clarity. On one hand there are article that are of similar (stub) length that cover the wholes series (eg Honda CR series and Honda CR series), while there are these specific stubs. There also appears to be a "North American" slant in the coverage, and my experience of these models (admittedly only the last 20 or so years) sounds different from what is written there. What I'm saying, is if you want to do some sort of big clean up of all these stubs I could work with you as I've never really dared to attempt it before! Pickle 14:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedway article up for deletion

A newly created article on Swedish_speedway_1950s is up for deletion here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 10 August 2007

I am not really surprised because there is no narrative to give the topic context and the majority of the links are red, so those club articles need to be written. As it stands it is just a list of links to non-existent articles not an article in its own right. Sorry but I agree it is not ready yet and should be deleted unless you can fill in some detail quickly. ww2censor 15:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorcycling/Archive_2&oldid=1144734289"