Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Can we expand Charge, Zero Emissions/Maximum Speed?

This article about a motorcycle documentary is in jeopardy of being deleted per WP:GNG. I am having trouble finding a solid source for it. Motorcycle.com has a review [1] but is a marginal source, IMDB doesn't seem to have it listed. Was it direct-to-DVD? — Brianhe (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's widely distributed, which would fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). http://chargemovie.com/buy_dvd.html says the DVD is only for sale from them in the US and Canada, and without significant coverage like reviews in major media, there's not enough. I'd redirect to Mark Neale for now and if the documentary ever gets wider release and more coverage, bring the article back. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is roadster a meaningful type of motorcycle?

Discuss at Talk:MZ Skorpion#Sport tourer or roadster. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

New navbox

Here is a new navbox in my userspace for motorcycle components. It hasn't been added to any articles yet; I'm seeking comments on it first. Feel free to click the "e" at the top to modify it. Brianhe (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Orsoni (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting and editing. I've moved this out of my user space for public use. Brianhe (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work!

We kind of should to mention Pre-unit construction and Unit construction, but those articles are so excessively detailed and the navbox should cover higher level topics. What we really need is Motorcycle transmission. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Very good. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
For Motorcycle transmission we could use the text at Motorcycle components#Transmission, but it currently has some inaccuracies such as this: "All two-wheelers use a sequential gearbox." -- Brianhe (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the article almost writes itself. There is a lot of material that can be upmerged. Besides Motorcycle components#Transmission, and a summary of the contents of the two unit/pre-unit construction articles, there is Driveshaft#Motorcycle_drive_shafts, Continuously variable transmission, Slipper clutch, and in fact, almost every article in Category:Motorcycle transmissions. Well, maybe it doesn't write itself, exactly, but a good start can be had by summarizing what we have in these other articles, without feeling obliged to go into great depth.

I should back up and say that I think that motorcycle final drives and transmissions should both be covered under Motorcycle transmission, as well as the subject of Traction control systems. Which overlaps into ABS and electronic engine management. But that is precisely the nature of motorcycles -- the sub-systems are highly interdependent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Did some cleanup/merging as suggested above, I'm going to take a break for a bit now. — Brianhe (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Harley-Davdison an Indian company?

Template:Two wheelers in India needs to permanently have Harley-Davidson and Yamaha removed. H-D has a factory in Brazil too, but they are not Brazilian. Honda has factories all over the world -- as do many of these multinationals. That's why we call them multinationals. But Honda is still Japanese. H-D is a US company. I realize India has a more than 100% tariff on foreign made motorcycles, so they ship the parts to India and assemble them there, but calling them Indian companies is incorrect. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but this actually needs to go up the chain for a wider debate. Also have a look at Template:Cars_in_India - there are some real wonders in that one. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a separate article on Yamaha's Indian subsidiary, India Yamaha Motor . But then American Honda Motor Company exists too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A reference to Motorcycle Fairing wikipage

I think a reference should be made to the number 1 source for motorcycle fairings on the following Wiki Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_fairing

www.fairingkits.org has over 800 motorcycle fairing kit designs to choose from, and offer free worldwide delivery too.

Maybe, just a link to http://www.fairingkits.org/ would do for the anchor text Motorcycle Fairing on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_fairing

What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlster (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to come across as unfriendly, but there is not a snowball in hell's chance of that business getting a listing on Wikipedia. See WP:ELNO, which sets out what links are not acceptable on Wikipedia. What is amazing is that this website is trading with a .org domain, when they are blatantly a commercial company. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd also suggest reading any or all of the following links to understand appropriate ways you can promote your company on Wikipedia:

BMW K1600

Is it necessary for a 3 paragraph article to have 8 reference links? 4 of which point to the same website! 2 are by the same author! All of which are pointing to the same specifications type data. I have replaced all these with a manufacturer press release containing all the required info, which these 4 websites merely rehash into a story. However a contributor disagree and thinks it is perfectly acceptable to have repetitive links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoindustrie (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 October 2011

Articles with only a single source are sometimes tagged with {{One source}}, but since that isn't the case here there's no reason for great concern. Obviously it could be improved by citing additional sources, and you are more then welcome to do so. I take it you have no dispute with the facts themselves? That could explain why nobody has felt the need to cite further sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
A manufacturer's press release is a primary source. A respected journalist's analysis and representation of that material is a secondary source. If you look at the guidance on primary/secondary/tertiary sources (WP:PRIMARY) then you will see the specific advice "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources", which is exactly what you are proposing when you say that manufacturer's publications should trump all others. Journalists like Kevin Ash, and printed publications like Motor Cycle News are trusted sources in the motorcycling community (in the UK at least), as are US printed and web publications such as webbikeworld, motorcycleusa.com etc. Those sources have been used as references in motorcycle articles on Wikipedia for a number of years. You are very welcome to question the reliability of individual sources - as is anyone on WIkipedia - just make sure it isn't because you are trying to make a point such as getting back at someone who deleted all your COI contributions promoting your own blog/website. Make sure that you are doing it for the right reasons. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing journalist / magazine work

Does the point of view of a bike journalist have any place in an encyclopedic / academic material? There is a place for hobbyist websites, magazines, blogs and reviews etc etc, but an encyclopedia should not cite point of views of individuals, especially since the content is highly likely to be a sponsored content (either directly or indirectly) and the comments are more likely to be irrelevant to readers in other countries (different tuning, specs due to local regulations and different consumer taste). Reviewers often get treated to all expense paid media trips, and various perks that either directly or indirectly influence their writing. I have nothing against bike reviews, but those are hobbyist materials and are not suitable for citation in an encyclopedia. There are far too many instances of comments by the likes like Jeremy Clarkson (who is actually an TV personality-writer-entertainer, not quite a motor journalist) saying things which are completely irrelevant to the target consumers of these products.

Please take some time to read this piece by American Journalism Review - Taking Readers for a Ride http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=5141. I have concerns regarding contributors who actively choose to remove official press materials in favour of content from bike magazines / websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoindustrie‎ (talk • contribs)

First, "encyclopedic / academic" is rather confusing. Academic publications are generally meant to expand human knowledge, so they are based on original research and primary sources. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia, and so rejects original research, and prefers secondary and tertiary sources, and avoids primary sources if it can be helped -- see WP:PSTS. None of which addresses the use of subjective opinions. As explained in WP:PSTS, and more specifically in Wikipedia:Describing points of view, "At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." The question isn't whether you may cite subjective opinions, it is how you handle them, and how much weight is given to each point of view.

The pages I just linked to give advice on how to do so, and I also like to follow the examples in Wikipedia:Featured articles, since they are, by consensus, the very best content of Wikipedia. Featured Articles like Star Trek V: The Final Frontier contain sections on critical response with statements like "Critics generally gave The Final Frontier mixed or poor reviews. Rob Lowing of The Sun Herald called the film "likeable but average".[1] The Chicago Sun Times' Roger Ebert and The Washington Post's Rita Kempley gave the film poor reviews, calling the film "a mess" and "a shambles", respectively.[2][3]". The featured article for Talbot Tagora, about a model of car, includes such statements as "As the British magazine What Car? opined, the Tagora 'has such a complete blandness of style as to disqualify it instantly in a market where character and status count for so much.'"

Keep in mind that many of the same charges leveled at motor journalists could be said about film reviewers. Or art critics, yet we have many featured articles that quote the opinions of art critics. Having said all that, the AJR's criticism is well founded. We should place more weight on wholly independent sources like Consumer Reports than those that are dependent on manufacturers to supply test vehicles and other perks, like Motorcycle Consumer News, and even less weight on those that also accept paid advertising, like Cycle World. If we were looking at a case where these sources disagree, I'd favor the most independent ones.

So my question is, what is the contenet dispute here? Are there facts or opinions in Honda Crossrunner or BMW K1600 or BMW 3 Series (F30) which are disputed? Because honestly what I see here is a blogger who wants his web sites, motorindustry.org and autoindustrie.net, cited as reliable sources, and who is jealous that other sites like ashonbikes.com or motorcycle-usa.com have been treated as reliable. These are separate issues. If you want to eliminate a source, state why it fails the criteria in WP:RS. If you think motorindustry.org and autoindustrie.net meet the criteria of WP:RS, then state why. And if the content isn't even going to change, what's the point? Shuffling sources around while keeping the same facts is not terribly productive. Why not instead expand the articles with more good information from quality sources rather than worry about which web sites benefit from links from Wikipedia? Because I don't care about treating web sites fairly, I care about making better articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at my talk page pistonmy. Why do you keep harping on my COI debacle. Haven't I come clean, with a new COI compliant username? What I want to do now is to challenge what I see is inconsistent application of editorial standards. What kind of encyclopaedia includes comments from a reviewer in verbatim! Then do we include a negative review by a lesser known freelance writer with no newspaper publication (but is probably more impartial because he has a day job and doesn't need advertising money to pay the bills?). Or will that be rejected because contributors here don't like criticism to one of their favourite bikes that evokes a lot of emotion and desirability?

On Oct-19, user Biker Biker was unable to justify his actions, and then started calling two of his mates in to back him up. Obviously one of them was Dennis Bratland, who has since responded, with a very expected answer. Is this what it has degenerated into? A gang fight?

On many pages, Biker Biker removed entries made by other users on grounds of overlinking, sometimes redundancy. But a 3 paragraph entry with 8 links for the same specs data, promoting the same few hobby sites is fine?

With regards to WP:PRIMARY, I think that has been taken out of context. The guidelines are referring to first hand accounts, on events, etc etc. What I have contributed are not accounts, but are the official sources, sent out to various media outlets, who then rehash them into a story suitable for their target readers. Isn't that how the publishing world works? What has been done on certain pet pages of some contributors is almost akin to promoting their favourite websites. In the case of the BMW K1600, all 8 of the links are saying the same thing, rehashing of the same press release. It would look less of a promotion if these links are replaced with one official source, which already contains all the information required. What else is there to add by a third party? Motorcycle News is going to dispute a BMW official release for inaccuracy? Or is motorcycleusa.com going to give some fresh insights from the press release? Seriously how can this argument be sustained?

On what grounds do we say x or y magazine or newspaper is reputable? Is LA Times respectable? I have seen how they sensationalized the Toyota recall scandal with biased reporting, seriously damaging Toyota's brand image. Should we include their sensationalized reporting in a wikipedia entry for Toyota's recall? The case has since been closed with the conclusion that improper usage of floor mats and driver error were the only causes. Nothing more, as expected by most level headed people in the industry. Do you guys need a history lesson of Audi 100's sudden acceleration in USA and what CBS and many other "respectable" motor magazines reported? This is why hobbyist magazines are not acceptable for any academic thesis. In my opinion, linking to advertiser funded content should be kept to a minimum, unless necessary. Again, may I remind others to please leave the COI issue to die already and move on to the topic at hand. I expect my account to be blocked. Apparently some raw nerves were hit when I criticized some contributors favourite websites and reviewers. This is the problem when entries are made by hobbyists with a lot of time and Internet access wants to play Mr. Expert on their little cyber corner for a cheap ego-boost. But before that happens, I want to sit back and see what justifications will be made to defend such obvious bias and promoting of certain POVs. Pistonmy (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, there are so many things jumbled up here. I'll speak to a few of them. 1) Gang fight. No, this is a consensus-based community. So far I see several reasonable editors who I've worked with for a few years, and one new, unreasonable person. 2) Acceptable sources. The other folks have given their input, which I've agreed with in the past and continue to do so. Just for your information, we have thought about this before, if you read the latest archive of this talk page you'll see it. We don't always have "academic sources" to fall back on (quite few in the motorcycling world), so we frequently rely on popular press. Which is a secondary source that beats primary sources like press releases every time. The archive mentioned gives my reasoning on Ash and others as self-published sources only when they are established, respected sources. 3) Is LA Times reputable? Usually yes, and we quote them along with other reliable sources and let the reader decide what weight to give each cited statement. Brianhe (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought User:Autoindustrie changed to User:Motormy. But your other account is also User:Pistonmy? You're only allowed one -- if you're running multiple accounts then, yes, expect to be blocked. The answer to your question is found at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There you will find the criteria. If you think motorcycle-usa.com fails WP:RS, then state why. If you think nobody here will listen to you, try getting third opinions by posting at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It seems so odd to be this concerned when you don't even dispute the facts in BMW K1600 -- you just want the same facts with different citations? Is it that important? Why not instead add more and better facts, with better citations? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained my account's talk page, answering to Biker Biker. The previous account will be left dormant (since I can't delete it). Obviously I did not dispute the K1600's facts! I have already proved my point by adding a link for the official press release. That alone makes all other links redundant and looks a tad too much like an active promotion. What unique facts did these 8 different links, to 4 same times contribute? My dispute is what I see as active promotions of certain POVs by paid content and hobbyist websites. That's the problem. These active promotions maybe voluntarily, but paid efforts cannot be ruled out.

You have a no MSRP policy, because wikipedia is not a directory. Is Wikipedia a place to get consumer reviews now? Since some editors are adding positive reviews into Wikipedia entries, and choosing POVs of one particular journalist to further his views on certain models. Like I said, what sort of encyclopaedia adds product review comments?! Has anyone picked up a good 'ol traditional encyclopaedia?

I have contributed my bit by cleaning up some pages already. But seeing comments by Jeremy Clarkson and the likes annoys me. Their comments are irrelevant to real buyers. Reviewers often fall into the trap of trying to be popular with readers by singing the same swan song (i.e. car enthusiast readers will cheer when a writer rubbishes a Toyota or a Lexus). The height of Toyota's recall scandal is a good example why magazines, or newspapers however reliable, are merely POVs and should not be included in encyclopaedias. AutoCar UK is known to be Porschephiles, anything else is just not good enough. They have superhuman driving skills that can magically detect improvements from the tiniest tweaks in rollbar thickness and wax lyrical about it. But a large number of readers have no problem with it. Just because many don't have a problem (out of ignorance), is it right to include such POVs? I am a freelance writer myself, for 1 print only mag and 2 newspaper pullouts, but unlike many, I don't rely on manufacturer perks or ads to pay my bills (in fact my site don't even carry any manufacturer placed ads).

Believe me I know how far corporate hands extend in product reviews.

At least one manufacturer pays bloggers to make Wikipedia entries (that page still exists, unedited), while carefully avoiding any COI, they are so good at it I doubt you even Biker Biker notices it. I can help clean that up and hopefully atone my earlier COI ignorance. At the moment I can't remove POVs of journalists because that would be inconsistent, and I don't want to be accused of the same fault I am accusing for one apparently full time Wikipedia patrol officer. How do you identify entries that looks like it someone who spends a lot of time here have been paid to subtly post certain positive views on certain models, or paid to link up certain sites? Many may not be aware how subtle PR agencies can do their work, including enlisting Wikipedia contributors. Also, POVs furthered in many posts here are very Anglo-centric, very hobbyist, not representative of the greater masses. I have tried adding some more balanced content in other pages but looks like I have touched some raw nerves, and that contributor can't justify his actions of promoting certain sites and POVs, and quite a few of his mates are backing him up. I have made my point, so go ahead and lock up my account if you guys wish. I will now leave and let you guys continue your play Mr. Expert party while I get back to real editorial work of meeting up people and getting stories and not playing Google search. Pistonmy (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity Jeremy Clarkson doesn't do motorcycle reviews because they would be great resources to cite here. He is one of the UK's top automotive journalists, appearing on TV, in The Times, and in several books and videos. His opinion counts for a lot in the auto industry and his comments are very relevant to "real buyers" (whatever one of those is). My point is that whatever resources we use, they aren't second rate blogs from wannabes, they are from leading figures in the motorcycle industry. As for paid editors, I would welcome your help if by giving some examples so that we can weed them out - there is nothing worse on Wikipedia than people who push their own companies or websites, or those of the people that pay them. They are the lowest of the low and have no place here. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm....OK. You really got me there. Jeremy Clarkson is a journalist, as opposed to entertainer. Right right so blowing up cars and going sideways screaming power!!, burning stuff, tiping cars over, shooting cars is called serious journalism. OK I am low, but not low enough to correct Biker biker on this. I thought he was fairly intelligent, just a bit cocky without the credentials. ... but ....erm...have you read...or...erm....watched....erm..OK. ...erm....OK....I don't know how to respond to this. Maybe later.Pistonmy (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Biker biker, I have some sad news for you. You think very highly of Jeremy Clarkson but unfortunately he has made it very clear of his disdain for folks like you. Regular Top Gear viewers will know this. "Because they're driven by power rangers, they cause men to dress up in leather and go out with each other, the drivers drink orange juice in bars, people behind you can see your butt, they have annoying engines and they fall over". - Jeremy Clarkson.

And also, "Have you ever fallen out of a car?" - Jeremy Clarkson

Oh and you are wrong, he did some bike reviews before. To show his dislike for bikes, he blew up a Harley here. youtu.be/ag4Xe37wW_E

And according to Biker biker, it is perfectly fine for me to quote Jeremy Clarkson "test drive" on a Prius he made here youtu.be/o4_mL--l420 Yup, this is called responsible journalism by Biker biker's standards. He also thinks such reviews matter to a real Prius buyer.

Am I the only the one who has alarms ringing in my head when a long time Wikipedia "patrol officer" thinks it is perfectly relevant and fine to include such comments in verbatim in an encyclopedia?

Look Biker biker, I may be the lowest of the lowest in Wikipedia, but in the real world, I still have far more credibility than you. What are you going to tell people Biker biker? That you write for a million Wikipedia entries? In of your edits, I have to undo a revision you made on one user's submission because you cannot differentiate the difference between Dr. and Dr-Ing. These are the things that irk me. Amateurs playing experts and messing around with perfectly fine entries. You could use a bit of education rather than spending so much time monitoring 3000 plus pages. Don't you know one is recognition of a professional governing body and the other as an academic qualification? You read a lot of bike magazines but that doesn't make you an expert that you try to portray yourself as. You are not going to learn much from hobbyist magazines. I have already explained how magazines get their stories and how product reviews are done, whether you are humble enough to listen to someone who has been there and done that is up to you. If you are keen on improving your knowledge then you need to read something of a higher level. IJMS is a good start. Then maybe you can at least be a bit closer to a real expert that real experts in the real world can take you seriously. UKIPMe has a long list of journals (I would say the best) given out for free but is limited only to industry practitioners only. I currently subscribe to 3 of them, and if you were a little bit more humble, I maybe able to lend you my credentials and get you a subscription. You don't have to be such a prick just because you can (on second thoughts, actually you can't, because you have absolutely no professional or editorial or industry recognition) going around guns blazing. If you are humble enough, then maybe others may decide to teach you a thing or two. Pistonmy (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of other more rational contributors to this project, that little rant got Pistonmy aka Autoindustrie aka Motormy a 48 hour block for personal attacks. Hopefully he will get the message that such offensive behaviour and wikilawyering simply isn't acceptable to ordinary decent contributors to Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow check out BMW K1600, last had a major edit in June, now the page is seeing a sudden spike in edits to make it more credible. Why? To cover tracks of my suspicion on blatant active promotion for paid content? Somebody needs to start asking more questions here. I have been too politically incorrect (neither was the said suspect anymore polite in his dealings with me anyway) so I can't bring this any further. Doesn't change the validity of my suspicion one bit. Pistonmy (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

K1600 is on my watch list along with 3,321 other pages. When I see a change to an article it sometimes sparks my interest and I do one of two things. Firstly I review the change and if necessary revert it because the editor contravened some Wikipedia rule (such as pushing his own blog), or I let it pass, or I improve on it. Secondly I may add information to the article because things have moved on since the last time I worked on it. This is the case with K1600, which since it started shipping has won numerous awards. So please explain what your suspicion or allegation is around payments? --Biker Biker (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned about manufacturers enlisting bloggers / wikipedia contributors to submit positive entries about their products. I know because I have been approached by one manufacturer before. The end result looks exactly like the sort of "product reviews" comments, copied in verbatim, subtly inserted into a supposedly "neutral" reference source, in the said page above.

You have since expanded the article greatly, ever since the page has attracted a lot of attention following this debate with me. Why you choose to do so at such a time, and whether manufacturers paid you to insert those comments, only you know the truth. Your rebuttals have so far been very weak, you kept hiding behind Wikipedia's policies and have never proved beyond reasonable doubt on why those comments are necessary or justified. Your defense have been because you are allowed to, not because it makes a better encyclopedia entry. May I repeat again that no encyclopedia adds product review comments from magazines in them.

We can never prove any wrong doing on the part of Biker biker, but this highlights why product reviews have no place in an encyclopedia and why linkings to paid / advertiser supported content should be kept to a minimum. A press release is different from a first account mentioned under WP:PRIMARY. A press release is an official documentation that cannot be disputed by any party in any way. WP:PRIMARY defines primary sources as "are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision." How is this relevant to a press release? In my professional experience, a press release is always the main source of reference for any company. We don't write stuff based on someone else's interpretation of the press release (but you guys are saying not only is this fine, but is PREFERRED). I am rather shocked at Biker biker's gross ignorance on basic editorial standards. Pistonmy (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lowing, Rob (1989-11-12). "The Starship Going Nowhere". The Sun Herald. p. 110.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ebert-review was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Kempley, Rita (1989-06-09). "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (PG)". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-12-30.

Discussion of the quality of motoring journalism sources

I really hope that we can put an end to the bickering and accusations of ulterior motives. WP:Assume good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and it should be followed. Failure to assume good faith can lead to a ban. The one salient fact in the above discussion is that there is no evidence, and no clear way to get any evidence, of a conspiracy by paid agents to seed Wikipedia with unjustified citations. Until actual evidence is at hand, please drop it and assume good faith.

The question of bias in motoring sources is quite appropriate to discuss, and the American Journalism Review article raises some excellent points. I and other editors have reservations about some of the web sites that we have cited in the past. Specific and on point criticisms of these sources is welcome. Criticisms that cite facts and avoid innuendo are particularly welcome.

Perhaps a wider discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard is in order, to see how we can balance the need to cite something rather than nothing with the problem of press releases as primary sources and biased journalistic coverage. Keeping in mind the guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, is there a way to take advantage of good information in these sources while still taking it with a grain of salt? Can we selectively cite press releases for uncontroversial data like wheelbase or engine displacement, while avoiding them for subjective impressions and questionable statistics like brake horsepower or vehicle performance? Should we simply delete articles that have no sources except those we consider somewhat unreliable or less than independent? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

An editor has repeatedly reinstated a link to http://triplesonline.com at BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident stating that previous removal of the link is vandalism. Now he/she has engaged at the article's talk page, arguing that the link should remain. Some insight/discussion from other members of this would be welcome. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Triumph images

Came across a few nice Triumph image on Flickr that someone want think useful to upload to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The photographer has an account on WIkipedia of the same name and has already uploaded a few to Commons. What I find frustrating is that he is one of the those annoying Flickr users who only uploads images at 800x600 so you can't get any decent detail on the pictures. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not think to look for him here but one could always ask him if he has higher resolution image and release those under a free licence even if you only need a few of them. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi everyone! Is this company notable? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No. The sources are all press releases and other non-independent sources. There is no real journalism or scholarship involved. They just get their name plugged when they pay their sponsorship fees. Asked a different way, what is Motorcycle Superstore notable for? They sell stuff on the web. They buy advertising. They sponsor sports. Just like thousands of other companies. Which explains the lack of coverage by serious sources. The standards at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) require significant, in-depth coverage at secondary sources. Things that don't count include "inclusion in lists of similar organizations", "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued", openings and closings, etc. Note also: "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I figured. It was moved into the mainspace, but I'm going to AFD it anyways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have opened up the discussion here, so please feel free to comment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Adventure (motorcycle) at AfD

I just nominated Adventure (motorcycle) for deletion. It is original research and an unnecessary fork of what is already adequately covered by Dual-sport motorcycle. Of course your mileage may vary and objects in the rear view mirror may be closer than they appear, so have at it with the AfD discussion. Until it is resolved I have reverted its addition to types of motorcycle. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to the dual-sport article. What might be useful now is to look at that article and see if any more information could/should be added related to what some sources describe as adventure motorcycles. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Propose autosizing all images

I'd like to change the WP:MC-MOS guidelines to favor using autosized images in all cases, over forcing images, lead or otherwise, to a single pixel width.

As explained in Wikipedia:Autosizing images, I've been using the parameters File:Example.jpg|frameless|upright=1.3 for lead images, in place of forcing the lead image to 250px or whatever. The upright parameter normally is used to make vertical image thumbnails about the same hieght as the width of horizontal thumbnails. But it has the extra feature of allowing you to set the width as a ratio of whatever the user's thumbnail width is. So the lead image is still larger than the thumbnails, but for users who have very large or very small displays, they aren't stuck with a forced width that might not make sense for them. For example, if a user has selected 300px for thumbnail width, forcing it to 250px makes the lead look smaller than the other images, which is not what we intend at all. If you set it to 1.3, then it comes out to about 390px for that user. A user who has chosen 120px for a default size will probably find a 250px image much too large. If you want an image with a caption, you use File:Example.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3

If you log out you can see the default thumb size. I'd suggest changing your thumbnail size at My preferences > Appearance to various sizes get an idea of how this works. See Triumph Tiger 800 autosized vs Triumph Tiger 800 at 250px. For very tall images, vaules of upright=1.0 or 0.9 are more appropriate. See Wheelie at 200px vs Wheelie at 1.0. Ducati Multistrada at 250px vs Ducati Multistrada at 0.9.

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, Lead images should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35").--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is a good idea. Uniformity is, for the most part, a desirable attribute. Knowing what to expect, what is to be expected and fitting into what already exists are good ways to enhance the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Scooterboy nominated for deletion

I just nominated Scooterboy for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooterboy. I encourage you to comment, regardless of whether you think it should be kept or deleted - and if you want to "rescue" the article then I'd be delighted to see a motorcycle-related article brought back from the dead. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Honda Super Cub nearing DYK size

Honda Super Cub is at about 16,000 characters long. It needs to be 21,420, five times the length of this diff, to qualify for WP:DYK. There's one day left in the 5 day window. There is easily enough material that can to be added to the Design, and Development, sections to make up the difference. If you want to pitch in, the Model history section should have at least one footnote per paragraph, and should be checked for accuracy, if not completeness. If you merely compared the prose with the contents of the Specifications table, you can verify most of the assertions, and can therefore cite Bacon, Roy (1996), Honda: The Early Classic Motorcycles in most cases. I also need to nail down exactly when the Cub went from OHV to OHC, and on which models. Good sources on the topic of illegal clones of the Super Cub would be awesome; I haven't found any.

Naturally, any copy editing, revision, expansion, or pruning of the rest of the article is appreciated as well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo deleted at Sport bike

Anyone know why the lead photo was deleted from Sport bike? The deletion log at Commons only says "copyright violation": 

11:49, 6 February 2012 Yann (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Yellow BMW S1000RR on race track.jpg"
(Copyright violation) (global usage; delinker log)

There was no delinker bot to remove the image, so the article had a dead link for about a week. I didn't get any notifications. I know it passed Flickr reveiw ages ago when the file was uploaded, and since it's not visible I don't know what the basis for the copyright violation was. Tedder, can you see more than me? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Yann; I'm not an admin on Wikimedia. tedder (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
A rouge admin! Some guy made a blog post with a collection of pirated images, and slapped a bogus copyright notice on it. Yann saw it, and then claimed the source was "unknown", "might be flickr". WTF? All he had to do was click on the link in the "source" field to see the source was over a year older than the blog post.

I'm trying to talk some sense to him. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, *now* there's another site that has the original version of the photos, and that's copyrighted. So it looks like the ones on flickr were flickerwashed and they should be deleted. If only he'd notified me when he deleted them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Spot the bike" competition

There are a large number of bikes in the Commons Category "Unidentified motorcycles". If you have a few minutes to spare why not go over and do some identification. Some are really obvious because the bike name is on the tank, but others can be really obscure or will never be identified (thus meaning IMO that they should be taken out of the category). EIther way it is a pleasant waste of time. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice idea! I have been using Commons for a while now as to a guide as to what article to write next. Too many dull articles at present without any pictures, but conversely too many pictures crying out for articles. In example, this weeks was Honda SS50 - dragged some text across from the wikipedia Germany article (so if you have a pic and text = an article), although some of the stuff they had there was definately in the "teenage memories" category of referencing! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I think we need a Honda Sports Cub umbrella article to cover the C65, C110, C111, Honda SS50, Honda 70, Honda CL70, Honda Sport 90, etc. So that the development of the different sport frame versions of the Super Cub can be described from a high level. Right now the scattered articles don't always make clear the relationships between them. Kind of like Honda Z series. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, so do we have a project: spot the bike, and then fill in the obvious gaps where we have pics but no article? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Good idea. Count me in. It will make a nice change to step back from vandal/spam fighting and focus on content creation. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Need to tease out copyvio text

Most of Soichiro Honda is copyrighted text. It was added 4 April 2006, copy-pasted from Honda-Dax.com, which dates at least as far back as April 13, 2002, "all content is under copyright of Honda-dax.com © 2002." Since 2006, the page has had a lot added, but it still uses too much copyvio text. I don't have time to fix it right now, but the whole page is a good candidate for {{Db-g12}} if not fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

TVS Wego - sink or swim?

Do we dive in to save this poor little scooter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVS Wego, or do we let it sink?

Actually, the wider question is what we as a project do whenever any motorcycle-related article is nominated for deletion. Do we have a policy to save & rescue every article, or do we decide as individuals on a case-by-case basis? --Biker Biker (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Case by case. In this case, I'd say the odds that someone will write a decent article about this in the near future are too low, and almost the whole article violates copyright. If you present the same data, in the same order with virtually no formatting change, it's WP:COPYVIO. The only bit there that isn't copyvio is the statement that it's a TVS scooter, which is not much to save. It is trivially easy to recreate a deleted article once we have sources to write from. And there are so many much more important motorcycling articles.

Unless an editor has a particular love for the TVS Wego (and if so, let them speak now), we should do our best to encourage WikiProject Motorcycling to focus its limited time on articles that matter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sink, we can start over if/when someone is motivated to do so. BTW what is a "unisex scooter" - I've seen truck balls but never on a scooter. Is there some other clue to scooter gender identity? — Brianhe (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In Asia, to some extent, unisex, or marketing to females, is a material factor. It certainly was a big deal going back to the Honda Super Cub, according to several sources. In the US, motorcycles marketed to women or gender-neutral are presented with code words, but in many Asian countries they're more up front about it. I haven't checked if it's verifiable for the TVS Wego, but "unisex" scooters exist just as much as shoes or shampoo could be mens or womens or unisex. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, I was being half-facetious with my question but half-serious as well. I guess the opportunity for fine market segmentation is greater with the high volumes and greater ridership among females in Asia vs the USA. — Brianhe (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sink it is then! So do we stand back and watch it go down, or give it a good shove then hold it under until it stops struggling? I'm thinking the former so I won't comment at the AfD. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Motorcycle Consumer News for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Motorcycle Consumer News is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorcycle Consumer News until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I did not make the nomination (in fact I created the article), but thought it should be listed here for further comments. — Brianhe (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
That editor seems to be on a marathon deletion exercise! He nominated an article of mine for nomination last week, and seems to have a very blinkered approach on this issue: its definately a bold approach, verging on the "create discussion, just in case you are in doubt" level. That article of yours seems well founded, well ref'd = should survive. I voted keep. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Honda Collection Hall workpage

I've created a workpage to eventually be published at Honda Collection Hall. Right now it's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Honda Collection Hall. — Brianhe (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Article's looking pretty good, will move it to article space now. — Brianhe (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Pitbike want to add information

I am looking to add information to the Pitbike page. I have tried a couple of times but guess I was going about it the wrong way. Looking to add a paragraph on SSR Motorsports. The description of other pitbikes starts with SDG in 2003 whereas it was SSR Motorsports who started the pitbike craze in SoCal a couple of years earlier. Unlike SDG, they are still around to this day and are known as one of the best pitbike companies out there. --Mleija23 (talk) 14:57 27 Feb 2012 (UTC)

Do you have good quality references to back that up? If you do then go ahead and add it to the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
And a good quality reference means something independent, such as a book, magazine, newspaper, professionally edited websites, etc. You can't really cite http://www.ssr-pitbike.com/ for this because they are not independent. And of course you definitely can't copy-paste directly from them, or anywhere. So the first step is, tell us who is a good source that tells us that SSR started the pitbike craze in Southern California. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and wishing to create a Honda SLR 650 Page

Hi everyone, I'm very new to Wikipedia (so please go easy on me!) and noticed that there's currently no page for the SLR650, and there are also links waiting for it to be created on some pages. I've read through this group's guidelines and understand the format that a new page must take, however, I still have a question; which sources are commonly used by people in this group? I was hoping to reference this MCN article for this particular page and was wondering what the general consensus is on that, and if anyone can suggest other useful sources?

Also, any other advice would be greatly appreciated :).

Rpullen (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. It's an average bike and worthy of an article, but a quick google doesn't reveal any good quality references other than MCN. One thing you could do is translate the German de:Honda SLR 650, but be sure to attribute it by putting the {{Translated page}} template on the talk page of the new English article. Unfortunately the German article isn't referenced so it may not be of much use. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome Rpullen and good luck. A couple of points. The MCN page has many posted comments that would not be regarded as reliable, so be careful what you use. While articles on topics you may want to write here exist on other language wikis, as Biker Biker states, some may not have any references but in that case if you are going to translate it you will need to find some reliable sources for it. You may need to find books to supplement your work if online sources are not available. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the helps, guys :). Much appreciated. Rpullen (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No much mention in Motorcyclist or Motorcycle Consumer News, and nothing I can find in any newspaper archives. I only found "Multi-purpose single", Cycle World, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 24, February 1997. WIQjRlfiBm-xdC SsdZXBS8Z5szTDxKDvbRXc96GvE?feat=directlink Here is a scan, which I'll delete shortly but keep for now under Fair Use.

I have lots and lots of article topic suggestions if you want a subject with more copious source material to work from. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, thanks for the information. I can't seem to find much reliable info on the SLR650, so the page me be a stub after I'm finished, meaning that I'll have time to help with other articles. If you would like a hand working on a page where you have sources already available, I'd be more than happy to help. Rpullen (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The obvious places to start are Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/to do and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Motorcycles. These are not prioritized, so you have to decide for yourself what looks worth doing. {{Early motorcycles}} has several redlinks, any one of which is a fairly high priority. The page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Importance rankings has motorcycles ranked by their presence in museums and books. The top 10 or 15 are mostly well-developed articles, yet all of them could be expanded a lot. Some important redlinks from there are Harley-Davidson KR , Werner New Werner, Crocker (motorcycle), and Pope (motorcycles). Captain America (motorcycle) and Curtiss V-8 are just redirects and should be full articles. Also, Curtiss Motorcycles aka G. H. Curtiss Mfg. Co., Ducati Monster M900, Ducati Monster 695, and Ducati Monster 796. That's a start. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

New Jack Lewis article

I've started a workpage for Northwest motorcycling author/Motorcyclist contributor and Iraq War veteran Jack Lewis. Contributions to the article are solicited -- it's probably mature enough to post to article space anytime. — Brianhe (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Surreal! I've been chatting with his prettier half all week. I dropped them a line so we can get a pic of Jack and hopefully some press linking Litsam. tedder (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Great! I'd like to add a section on awards, here's one. Brianhe (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder and Dennis for your contributions. Workpage has been promoted to article Jack Lewis (author). Brianhe (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable motorcycling Wikipedians

An editor who appears to be Glynn Kerr made some edits to the article yesterday. I would like the project to have a chance to warmly welcome someone like this with a vast amount to contribute, rather than immediately slamming him with the rather scary looking CoI template. — Brianhe (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. COI is such treacherous ground. The Jimmy Wales story is always a good icebreaker. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mick Walker

I had some exchanges with a family member of Mick Walker (motorcycling) who had changed the article to say that he had, sadly, passed away. They were understanding that we wanted to avoid the harm of WP:Death by Wikipedia, and I have been keeping an eye on the media for an official obituary. The only thing so far has been in Visor Down, but that's not a terribly reliable source. There's no information given as to how they know Mr. Walker has died. I suspect they received an email from someone claiming to be a family member. The publisher of his autobiography might know something. I'll keep an eye out; please update the article if you come across any good information. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Official obituary in local press :( --Biker Biker (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Research tool available: HighBeam

HighBeam is making its online magazine/newspaper archive available at no cost to a number of Wikipedians. Details and sign-up instructions can be found at Wikipedia:HighBeam (follow the applications page link to sign up). Sign-up closes on April 9. — Brianhe (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot and notifcation! I applied - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dnepr M-72

Source discussion at Talk:Dnepr_M-72#Dubious_fansite and Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

New David Preston article

Workpage WP:WikiProject Motorcycling/David Preston is posted for development by project members. There must be some more critical commentary on Motorcycle 101, but I've had trouble finding it. — Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's one ref:
It's the kind of perennial story about women all of a sudden entering motorcycling that Melissa Pierson made fun of in her book The Perfect Vehicle. But it gives a little detail about Preston's doings. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
My spouse is credited as the editor of that book, fwiw. tedder (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Holy cow! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Another ref:
Bypass the ProQuest paywall by logging in at www.kcls.org with your King County library card. Or I can email the text to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I got to ProQuest fine. The references have been added to the workpage. — Brianhe (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of links into David Preston that refer to other people, including at least one screenwriter: [4]. Perhaps the article should be named David Preston (motorcycle writer)? — Brianhe (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dave Preston (motorcycling) was the convention we semi-agreed upon in a discussion at the MC racing project, instead of (racer) or (motorcycling businessman) or whatever. Because some racers are go on to become writers, or businessmen. Mick Walker, for example. It's like if you create an article for someone with (basketball player) and later they become an even more famous coach. If you just say (basketball) it doesn't need to be updated. With Preston it doesn't matter, but it's nice for the sake of consistency. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Super, it's now an article at Dave Preston (motorcycling). — Brianhe (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


New Topic Suggestions

Both added. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Greenhorn Enduro

Hi,

I'd say the Greenhorn Enduro has material enough to warrant an article on it, not least Steve McQueen's involvement in 1963.

Any enduro enthusiasts out there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhorn_Enduro&action=edit&redlink=1

--Bridge Boy (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a list of requested articles you can add to. It has a lot of watchers and it's a good place to start. In typical redundant Wikipedia fashion, this Motorcycling Project also has a to do list, which duplicates some of the items from Requested Articles. Adding it there is also good. It helps a lot if you provide a short list of sources showing it will meet WP:Notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Leathers

Is there a place for new article suggestions? Lewis Leathers/Aviakit is also missing a page too. A highly notable UK company. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Recommend that you start at WP:REQUEST. It's important to be able to establish notability. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:CORP before making the request. — Brianhe (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess WP:REQUEST is the same as the one I linked to. So ditto. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
What about also listing it at our "To do" list at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/to do? I bought motorcycle clothing at their shop in Great Portland Street, a few minutes from Oxford Circus and the BBC when I was in college at the Regent Street Polytechnic. ww2censor (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Thunder

Does anyone else watch Rolling Thunder (organization)? There's some blatant POV happening. I'd guess the editor is affiliated and COI. tedder (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Discuss List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration

Please take a look at List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration and comment at Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration. Like List of fastest production cars by acceleration, it's a poor article and I'm not sure the problems can ever be fixed, mostly due to a lack of sources. Should it be deleted? Merged into the fastest production article? Improved? Should it be added to {{Records}}? See also discussion at Talk:List_of_fastest_production_motorcycles#Questioning_.22fastest.22. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say run with standing quarter times and merge with the fastest production motorcycles. If I have the time I'd like to add a paragraph about the problems with or combination of factors that going into defining what is the "fastest motorcycle". As I have written, I think highest top speed, which the other article really is about, is a little misleading without some explanation; and, as others have written, despite there being "reliable sources" stating "facts" environmental factors such as weather, altitude, air pressure, road conditions etc are just two wide and varied for such "facts" really to be ultimately reliable until someone builds an climate controlled, indoor test track ;-). We need a ten mile long tunnel.
Shame someone did not suggest this to CERN when they were building theirs.
Standing quarter times going back decades should be relatively easy to find. Is there a metric equivalent these days?
Is there a similar BHP/torque chart for the rolling road chaps? --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Motorcycle testing and measurement is supposed to be the one-stop-shop for all the caveats about speed, and horsepower and weight and so on. It needs expansion and citations too. Wikipedia has a guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, but it is still encyclopedic to enlighten readers as to how much of a grain of salt to take these statistics. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Motorcycle engine

I am not sure how to do it but the lay out of Motorcycle engine could do with some kind of attention to reduce the amount of whitespace. --Bridge Boy (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not enough words. It needs to have the text expanded. The illustrations create all the whitespace. Keep in mind also the whitepace will vary depending on your settings for file thumbnail sizes in My preferences -> Appearance -> Files, and the size of your browser window and display. It's never going to look perfect in everything from 800x600 to 2560x1600. But more words would help a lot.

I also removed the {{clear}} tags. That helps too, though in very wide displays the images might not line up properly with the text. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

General issues with road vehicle categories

I have requested background on vehicle categorization at WP:TRANSPORT, but it seems that project is moribund, so I extend an invitation to participate to editors active here.- choster (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal

This new WikiProject would have the primary aim of creating and developing a page for each model (both old and new) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. This would enable a highly valuable resource to be for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself to be created, where extensive information about specifcations, development, modifications and the history behind could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject is not only being promoted to present editors who are currently active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course of a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Please visit the project proposal page, in order to see more details of the project and to join. Any questions or queries can be posted either on the proposal page, or I can be contacted directly on my talk page.

Many thanks and any help from fellow enthusiasts on this project, would be greatly appreciated.

DAFMM (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Straight-two engine and Parallel twin engine

Can someone take a look at the histories of Straight-two engine and Parallel twin engine and see if you can help sort out the page move and redirects? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm seeing my comments and SamBlob's comments moved around to two different talk pages. I don't know where to begin to untangle it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:WPAC and Motorcycling conventions.

Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#WikiProject Motorcycling conventions.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Some copyright violations I've tagged in need of cleanup:

These pages can be deleted within a week if the copy-pasted text isn't removed. I'll work on some if I have time. I think the above pages are the worst of it, but there could be more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Marked "done" above as appropriate — Brianhe (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Moto Martin?

Looks like Moto Martin is about to go away as non-notable. Prior to putting in my !vote I looked for sources, which are few and far between. ProQuest news/magazine database turned up nothing. Online, this piece [5] is the only one with any substance that I found, so I'm putting it here to compile with anything else project members are aware of. Weaker sources include [6] and [7] (warning NSFW brolly girl in last). Brianhe (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Dr. Blofeld managed to save this one with some more refs. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorcycling/Archive_7&oldid=1069859323"