Talk:Cycling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) --Wiley 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions Midnight Ridazz. Would be nice to see a link to their site. http://www.midnightridazz.com thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.177.102 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Cycling article already has an internal link to the Midnight Ridazz article in the Activism section. --Wiley (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a link to Bikes Are Rad, a site where users can post their own articles about cycling. http://bikesarerad.com Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.29.194 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we add some forums to this list? One I think is quite popular amongst cyclists is http://www.bikeforums.net. Another is http://www.cyclingforums.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.65.80 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge to bicycle

Shouldn't this article and all its sub articles be merged with the Bicycle page, and this turned into a redirect. Does anyone agree/disagree G-Man 18:17 1/4/03

I think it's reasonable to have separate pages for the bicycle and for the various forms of cycling, though they should certainly link to each other. On the other hand, it seems that there are currently separate pages for mountain biking and offroad cycling which could probably be happily merged. Magnus 11:34 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Disagree, there are articles for automobile and driving, so I'm thinking there should be discrete articles for the vehicle and the act with the vehicle in this case as well.PsYoP78 15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

hour record

I've put together a page on the hour record. Comments welcome. adamrice 20:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merge from cyclist

Shouldn't cyclist be merged with this? The see also at cyclist is growing into a duplicate of this one. The whole article is a duplicate, only verb becomes subject. Furthermore, splitting sports and utility biking is something that should happen just once, like everyone who has a bike is a cyclist but there are also professional cyclists ad nauseam is ridiculous, imo. Phlebas 18:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree, using the same measuring stick as automobiles, there is a disabiguation page redirecting from drivers to driving.PsYoP78 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This article could use a picture

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.157.80 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2005

Currency

There are many comments regarding the cost of bicycles but no reference to what currency is being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSimkin (talk • contribs) 04:11, 21 December 2005

Pudendal nerve entrapment by 66.25.163.164

Sounds pretty scary... Anyway, thanks to 66.25.163.164 for the contributions. Please try to stay away from original research by citing sources that are reliable and verifiable. --Christopherlin 08:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this should stay on bicyles because it is related to angle of seat which is a part of a bicycle.----Sincerely,PNE sufferer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.172.211 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2006

Cycling and Health Section

Somebody with a knowledge of cycling should elaborate on the health benefits of cycling on a regular basis. The current section devotes more time to negative things than positive ones, when in my judgment there's much more to be gained from regular exercise on a bicycle than there is to be lost by it. --Lantoka 09:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Biking for transportation is the most common form

This article needs alot of improvements. It does not represent the most commong type of cycling at all, which is for utilitarian reasons and is heavilly biased towards recreational riding. I'll be adding some stuff in the "getting started" section to try to better represent, but a more attractive restructuring is in order. If anybody can help, please do so. Thanks.--Chicbicyclist 11:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Did some preliminary restructuring. going to sleep now.--Chicbicyclist 11:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Transport is still only available at the city section, yet it does not even state that cycling is one actually the sustainable mode for shorter distance. Will add a small note on that. (Mobiel21vzw (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Yes, there is a note at activism on that, but is is somewhat lacking at the city level, of which many examples exist, it seems to be a theoretical discussion to some extent. I think a line fits best at city use due to the relation to urbanism.-- (Mobiel21vzw (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Why Bicycle uses?

Why this article? When I use a bicycle, I'm cycling, and vice versa, right? As far as I see, there are too many bike articles and not enough thoughts to go around among them. Jim.henderson 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the Bicycle article was "Very Long". I guess all the text about bicycle uses that I removed from the Bicycle article could go into the Cycling article, but I didn't see that excellent suggestion anywhere in the long-standing discussion on Talk:Bicycle. Since May 2006, the only suggestions made were about moving text into new articles, and every previous move has been applauded.-AndrewDressel 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Applause I'll grant for getting this material out of bicycle which indeed still ought to be trimmed of most social, economical, political, historical, physiological and other non mechanical material. Now the best course is to move the every interesting non machine material that's here, into where it actually belongs, which for the most part is in cycling. I have done this a number of times elsewhere, moving larger articles into smaller ones that had the correct name (still plenty small enough to avoid any automated or human warnings about "Too big"). It does take some editorial effort to flatten out the seams when merging, but that's why we took on the job of editorial seamstresses, right? I mean, bikes are mainly two things, a machine and an action. So, cycling ought to be the headquarters and link root for the action, as bicycle is the link root for gearshifts, frames, tires, speedometers and other machinery. Once this article has had its material stripped out and sent to cycling or elsewhere, it ought to be reduced to a redirect. Jim.henderson 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan. -AndrewDressel 14:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably section 3, Social and historical aspects, including Economic implications, Female emancipation, Other social implications, and Cycling and public health, of the bicycle article could all be moved into the existing cycling article as well. -AndrewDressel 06:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_uses"

Inserted into Talk:Cycling Jim.henderson 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Perhaps the balance between this and utility bicycling ought to be adjusted, probably some duplication should be removed inside this one, and certainly the top picture, which is about a lovely piece of hardware, should be replaced with one that's about doing the thing. Jim.henderson 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Banana Cases?

Are banana cases really a frequently used bicycling accessory that should be included in an encyclopedia article on cycling? This item was added on 14 July 2006 without specific comment. I admit to owning a banana case, but I've never used it for cycling, and everyone who sees my banana case finds it extremely novel. Scott Roy Atwood 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit I've never seen one and that I've removed the material. If an editor thinks it should be in the article, please talk about it here before adding it. --Wiley 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Section titles

The article has been greatly improved in the past few days and I don't want to butt in directly with my own edits but rather make a suggestion. Aren't the section titles rather long and redundant? Wouldn't "Work," "Play," "War," "Racing, "Cities," "Health" etc be simpler and better? Jim.henderson 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the suggestion! --Wiley 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't expect "for" to be repeated so many times, or for the hierarchy to go so deep. Anyway I have every confidence the usual editors will work out the best structure in the next day or three. Jim.henderson 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on it some more. --Wiley 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodness; I didn't expect so fast or so precise a response. I also must confess fault for making the editing necessary; I'm the one who merged the former Bicycle uses into this one without then cleaning up the inconsistencies and repetitions that resulted. Anyway the work has come along nicely. I figure the x.x.1 third levels or subsubsections are unnecessary; they should simply be abolished and merged with their larger or smaller higher section, or perhaps reworked in a more complex way. Also, the section on sore knees and other repetitive motion injuries is a bit scary without context that ought to suggest that such things are rare unless you do thousands of miles/Km or hundreds of hours per month. But indeed it is coming along nicely and perhaps I'll look up a few See Alsos or something. Jim.henderson 07:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Towards FA status

I think the content in this article is really good. I thought I would just add a few suggestions that could take it towards FA status. I think the key areas to work on are the article structure (largely worked upon recently) and the final few bits - References, External links and See also sections. I haven't contributed much to this article so I'll give it a fresh pair of eyes on how it reads ("compelling" is the FA criteria). We all really need to work on references, however - an article this size needs loads. In terms of content, however, I think this article is very well stacked already. Mk3severo 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments I reveretd from bicycle racing

I reverted these comments for two reasons. Firstly, this page should only give a brief overview of the subject, and bicycle racing was starting to bloat. Secondly, the comments were specific towards one part of bicycle racing (namely professional road bicycle racing) so was failing to give an overview of bicycle racing anyhow. Severo 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What about mountain biking, etc?

Just wondering about why there is no mention of mountain biking or freeriding in this article. I think some small amount of space should be devoted, at least... Esn 08:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful site for External Links?

Just come across a site that provides a useful resource for comparing over 2,000 current bicycles, plus a nice concise section on how to distinguish between all modern types of bicycle e.g. difference between a 'XC Race Mountain Bike' and a 'Trail Mountain Bike'. Was very helfpful and informative for me - worthy of inclusion in the External Links section?

http://www.thecyclepeople.com/Compare_Bikes.asp

Chilltip365 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That site appears to be designed primarily to sell certain bikes and so (IMHO) does not qualify for inclusion as per Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. If material about distinguishing between types is missing from Wikipedia, then perhaps you could write about that in one of the bicycle related articles (but not in an article about cycling). --Wiley 03:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it fails Links normally to be avoided 4: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. Severo^TC 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in my $.02 this site seems to me to be providing a pretty mainstream comparison: Trek, Gary Fisher, Specialized, Kona, Fuji.... pretty much what you would get in a mainstream LBS which is what most people would be interested in. I'm hard pressed to see the harm here. jbolden1517^Talk 11:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While some redeeming value can be found in this (and almost any other) material, the direct harm would come from the inclusion of a link to a site that exists primarily to sell products. The indirect harm would be setting a precedent for the addition of links which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for External Links and Spam. --Wiley 04:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That link does not primarily exist to sell products. The link exists primarily because it presents a comparison of the type our readers are likely to be interested in, 99%+ of our readers couldn't even buy those products from that site. Now it may be the case, that the site primarily exists to sell products; though the purpose of the site may be general marketing related (and we don't exclude those sorts of links) and if so that's a much weaker statement. Moreover even if the link did exist primarily to sell products and only secondarily helped the article extensively WP:EL is a guideline not policy, which means that it exists to establish a basis for starting conversation not as a diktat. jbolden1517^Talk 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the linked to page: Use the 'Find a Stockist' section on every product page to find your nearest dealer

Quoting from WP:EL: The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines.

If content about comparing bicycles is both appropriate and missing from Wikipedia, then I encourage interested editors to add such content to one of the articles about bicycles (this article is about cycling). --Wiley 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I do hope a place can be found for a link comparing merchandise from different manufacturers, but this article, which is more about doing than buying, is not obviously the right place. This one only incidentally addresses hardware, which is the province of bicycle, while bicycle industry would appear to be precisely the place for such a link unless this becomes a reason for creating a shopping for bicycles article. Jim.henderson 04:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Bike Nazi" reference

The activism section claims that some refer to Critical Mass as "Bike Nazis," but it lists no citation for this. In the interest of accuracy and keeping hyperbole down, I'd like to suggest removing this if it can't be cited. It is reasonable to say that some people criticize Critical Mass, but an unsourced Nazi reference seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of NPOV. Written 7-18-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2007 76.226.9.100 (talk) 02:27, July 19

Done. Wiley 11:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

image Cycling

Do people feel that this image is encyclopedic and does a good job about illustrating the cycling article? I notice one error, the drivetrain of bicycles is basically allways placed on the right side of the bicycle, but in this picture is on the left. More importantly I don't think it's style is that appropriate for an encyclopedia. While it's far better than anything I could do, and is good, in it's present form I think this is not the place for it.--Keithonearth (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, maybe a picture of Chris Hoy or another legendary cyclist would be more applicable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.129.30 (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. What is that on his head? A bunch of bananas with no strap? Anyway, I browsed through wiki commons looking for something more representative of cycling. I would have prefered a street in Asia crowded with commuters, but all I could find was this shot from somewhere in France. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick review

On a quick review, I think the "See also" section is too large. That's the only quick thing I found, but I had to put something here on the talk page...--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pace

Can anyone add text that tells how fast the typical rider goes and how fast the world's best riders can go? I am not sure what "typical" distances are for shorter and longer rides. But I was trying to find the cycling equivalent of "The average runner completes a 10k run in X hours while the record time for a 10k is Y" and ""The average runner completes a 26.2 mile run in X hours while the record time for a 10k is Y". I don't know what the cycling equivalent of a "10k" and "marathon" are, but I'd appreciate someone giving their experience on what these average (and best) times and distances are. PendletonTX (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Air Pollution

I think the conclusion on the air pollution section is misleading. This may lead to the conclusion that cycling in busy traffic is safe for health. The statement compares the health effect of cycling in busy traffic than that of traveling in cars. Yes the pollutant in car is more, but cycling will require a bigger air intake. Also why not compare cycling to some indoor exercise, or to cycling in cleaner environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.243.169.72 (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Add "World Bicycle Relief"? [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26284517

Add "World Bicycle Relief"? [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26284517 99.27.174.243 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)