Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Sister and related projects

I'm not do sure about all the sister projects listed on the project page. Actually the related projects should really be sister projects and maybe Automobiles, Formula One, Highways and NASCAR might, at a stretch, be related projects. ww2censor 04:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They are all Transport categories. I note Formula One has some well developed pattern layouts. Knock the list on the head if you think irrelevant, not all Projects have a list of associate projects. As you think fit. Seasalt 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Organizing categories

My other blooper of the day concerns categories, but I puzzle at a system where sub category items don't appear higher up the tree. That means you have to know the associated country to find it. I noticed you had "use one category" on the project page. I think a bit more explanation or template pages (manufacturer, motorcycle, etc) might be helpful. Do you just categorise them in their lowest sub-branch? Seasalt 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this page will help you decide what is appropriate. Basically it says that In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, but there are exceptions to that guideline. I have rewritten the instructions to convey the guideline better. ww2censor 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Persons

Where do designers, engineers, entrepreneurs, riders, and persons of interest go? I had the thought of a motorcycling identities, or motorcycling personalities, or something, but how do you correctly categorise articles on Bert Hopwood, or Val Page, or Edward Turner, or Fabio Taglioni? Seasalt 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Motorcyclists? Though, I'm not sure about people who are related but don't ride themselves. --Pi3832 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Motorcyclists does not seem right. Maybe we need a new category like, Category:Motorcycle designers and engineers or Category:Motorcycle innovators as a subcategory of Category:Motorcycles rather then Category:Motorcyclists. What's your opinion? Riders would of course fit directly in here Category:Motorcyclists properly. Give some examples of entrepreneurs and persons of interest so we can see if we need another subcategory. ww2censor 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How about Category:Motorcycling people or Category:Motorcycle racing people as in Category:Formula One people, which is a subcat of Category:Auto racing people? It might be a bit underpopulated though. Prolog 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Entrepreneurs: Jack Sangster, The Colliers, The Castiglionis, Count Domenico Agusta, Denis Poore, come to mind.Seasalt 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As does Craig Vetter. --Pi3832 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We should add a link to Pierlucio "Spadino" Tinazzi, the motorcycle rider who saved 10 people from the Mont Blanc tunnel fire in 1999. There is already a Wiki page on this true motorcycling hero (Pierlucio Tinazzi), so all we need to do is link to it. JZH

(Done, but does not advance this topic.) Category:Motorcycle designers and engineers and Category:Motorcycle industry people as a subcategory of Category:Motorcycles or similar? Seasalt 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Category Mergers

Would this be an appropriate venue to discuss the merger of Category:Motorcyclists organizations and Category:Motorcycle clubs? --Pi3832 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

These really seem like they need to be separate as they are rather different types of groups. ww2censor 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See extensive talk on motorcycle club, i would really object, but that not to say a clubs couldn't be sub cat of motorcycle organizations Pickle 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. How about a structure such as:

• Motorcyclists organizations
  • Brand-specific motorcyclists organizations (E.g., BMW RA)
    • Model-specific motorcyclists organizations (E.g. GWRRA)
  • Motorcycle clubs
    • Motorcycle gangs (or "Outlaw clubs" or somesuch?)
    • Motorcycle racing clubs

And we use the criteria set forth in the Motorcycle club article and Discussion page to distinguish "clubs" from "organizations"? --Pi3832 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and put them under Category:Motorcycling instead of Category:Motorcycles. --Pi3832 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

All I'm getting at is that it took me a hell of a long time to get the compromise (pending suitable terms) that is on the Motorcycle club talk page. While you and i might call them "gangs" the person who was writing extensively about them got very upset at any attempt not to call them clubs - any change would have to very diplomatically handled!!! I'd also add some sort of sub cat for Governing Bodies (e.g. FIM, ACU, AMA, etc.), and some sort of scope for lobby groups like the BMF, MAG, etc. I'd also object to to the phrase "motorcycle racing club" (again see the Motorcycle club talk page), at the worst case motorcycle club (sporting) might be acceptable, but IMHO a lot of ideas need floating first.Pickle 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are less than 50 articles in the two categories that exist now. Why on earth would you want to make several subcategories some of which will likely have only a few entries? Seems like a lot of work for not a lot of result and it makes the articles more difficult to find for the casual user. Now, if there were 100+ articles I could see some point of making subcategories. Four additional subcategories at this stage is really not necessary. Maybe discuss at a later stage when there are too many articles. It's not like we have an overabundance of articles coming online daily. ww2censor 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I'm getting overly ambitious. How about just moving Category:Motorcycle clubs under Category:Motorcyclists organizations, and removing both from Category:Motorcycles in favor of Category:Motorcycling? --Pi3832 16:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ambitious; nothing wrong with that! This proposal sounds better. In fact organisations is already listed there. ww2censor 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, also nothing wrong with being ambitious! Pickle 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the simplified changes. BTW, thank you ww2censor and Pickle for explaining that "Motorcycle clubs" are a specific subset. I obviously didn't understand that when I proposed the merger. Indeed, I think I'll go audit Category:Motorcycle clubs to make sure the groups listed there meet the criteria in Motorcycle club. I'm pretty sure, for example, that BMW MOA doesn't belong there. --Pi3832 10:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "Motorcycle club" as explained on the talk page (not actually in the article yet), is that the term "Motorcycle club" is not defined. I would argue its practically any collection of motorcyclists in any organisation, while a person from the states was trying to pin down a very hard and fast definition that only allowed for the "outlaw" style bikers. i think some sort of consensus was reached on the talk page, pending the creation of phrase to encompass the various sub types. potentially BMW MOA is an owners club which is a perfectly legitimate type of clubs (along with others like Triumph Owners Club, etc) Pickle 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As per the new Wikipedia categorisation policy, an effort should be made to reduce categories. At the moment, we have categories for 50, 125, 250, 350, 500 & MotoGP racers, many of them overlapping. I propose we replace them with one Motorcycle Grand Prix racers category (or road racers to avoid confusion with motocross Grand Prix racers).Orsoni 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there not a way to set up a tree relationship, ie "125cc" is sub cat of "motorcycle grand prix racers"...

As for confusion with motocross, IMHO it would be better if "road race" was somehow incorporated in the name

Pickle 15:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pickle, it is possible to organize the categories in any kind of tree structure we prefer (technically it's a directed graph, and a tree is a kind of graph). But this doesn't reduce the number of overall categories, which is the (supposed) problem. Brianhe 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me as such if they become one big category of GP road racers, its just having the classes they ride seams important. Pickle 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems I may have misread the Categorisation policy. Apparently it's for USER categories. Nevermind then :) Orsoni 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from project page

• Henderson Motorcycle A rewrite and expansion of an existing article. Feel free to edit to ensure correct American Spelling, as I am Australian. Seasalt 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia standards, both forms of spelling are acceptable.Orsoni 12:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Henderson is an American motorcycle. I think it better that the spelling should be too.

I have redone Cotton (motorcycle). Seasalt 10:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to add comments to the new article listing on the main page. If you need help or think comments are needed maybe the talk page for the article itself is a better place, or this page would do to. Hope you agree with me as this project is a developing scenario. ww2censor 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Motorcycling

I made some changes to the project template. All articles that are tagged to the project can now be found on Category:WikiProject Motorcycling articles. Prolog 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First you have made name change without any discussion of any sort. For me that is not a good idea as I was proparing to make another template with that name for a user box, but you have precluded that thought. Being a project, I think some discussion would be better than immediate action on such things that have a wdir ranging effect wold be appreciated even if the result is the same. I wonder why you would alter the template to make self-referencing because all one has to do is click on What links here button to list all the transclusion pages. It seems like a redundant change to me. Pray tell why do that? Is there a guideline or policy for that? Cheers. ww2censor 04:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree I should've brought it up here first, so I apologize about that. However, I deemed the changes non-controversial and in consistency with other WikiProjects. I'm gonna explain my actions now, but you are of course free to revert if you disagree. Making a userbox template is a good idea, but all user templates should begin with User as in {{User Motorcycling}} or {{User WikiProject Motorcycling}} (see Category:WikiProject user templates), so I don't think {{Motorcycling}} can be used for any other purpose. As for creating Category:WikiProject Motorcycling articles, this is a standard procedure as basic Wikipedia users can not be assumed to be able to navigate to the template itself (transclusion doesn't link to it) and know how to use What links here. See Category:WikiProject Formula One articles etc. This category can in the future be devided into assessed subcategories (Stub-, Start-, A-class etc.) (see Category:WikiProject Football articles and more at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Project categories), if someone is up to the task. Hopefully this clears some things up and sorry again. Prolog 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Prolog for the explanation. It sounds like we need someone like you around this project who knows a bit more about policy and guidelines. Welcome & thanks again. ww2censor 05:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Motorcycle article naming

If an article goes under "motorcycle manufacturers of the United Kingdom" I had settled on using the company name for the title. There are a couple of other name formats "Brand (motorcycle)" or "Brand (motorcycles), while with OK-Supreme, there is no (motorcycle), because there is no likelihood of mistaking OK-Supreme for the manufacturer for anything else. I assume Ariel is "Ariel (vehicle)" because they made more than just motorcycles.

I have noticed some red tag potential articles that are not well thought out. Do the red tags have any naming precedence?

In Ducati the stub names nearly all include "Ducati ....

Is there policy on the above, or a guide to assessing it? Is there an article checklist for all the elements thought desirable? Seasalt 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the time to set up some guidelines for naming motorcycle article that could be added to the main project page. If there will unlikely to be a naming conflict with something else, then use the common name as it. I prefer the common name rather than the full company name, but maybe there is a Wiki guideline for that. If there might be a conflict, then, for manufacturers, add (motorcycles) in brackets after the name and (motorcyclist) for riders and racers. Anyone got ideas for the other scenarios we might encounter? The red-links are not cast in stone but you do need to make sure that if you use a different name to one already linked, even if red, that you check to see what links to it and either make a new redirect page or change all the old links to the new name in the articles. Redirection should be avoided if possible, except for different spelling.

Regarding the Ducati articles, it seems that someone wrote lots of individual bike articles (I did not check if it was the same person) and called them by the common model names, as I would have too. Thanks ww2censor 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm far from an experienced Wiki-er, so I hope I don't tread on too many toes, but I'm currently enthusiastic (which may mitigate!) about sorting out the pages with which I am most familiar, the modern-era Honda model pages.

Anyway, speaking of page naming conventions, whilst I see the value in using popular names for various model pages, in my view this often leads to confusion and muddle. For example, as they are currently named, the Honda model pages tend to leave off the F and R suffixes from the model names, which is fine when the reference is to the more common F model, but just doesn't work when there are distinct R models that deserve their own pages. In most cases, there is an official model name that can be discovered, as well as one or more popular, nickname or marketing names. I think the official model name should be the name of the page, and the other names redirects, as necessary. (I have attempted to do this on the ambiguously named VFR750 page already, including the corresponding changes to the linking pages, but there are many, many others.) Apologies in advance! JZH

As a newbie, by way of advise JZH, you are probably correct about these type of model names but don't forget that you SHOULD ALSO make as many redirects as necessary from the popular names to the official name, so that everyone can find the articles. In some cases a disambiguation page may be necessary too. (sorry forgot to sign this edit ww2censor)

Should a redirect page be included in the appropriate category? E.g., I just created Honda Pan European to redirect to Honda ST1100; now, should Honda Pan European also be included in Category:Honda motorcycles? -- Pi3832 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Amalgamations and take-overs

Several of the British motorcycle manufacturers were taken over, or amalgamated, once or more, and have articles that are divided up in a ways that seems inappropriate. For example: both the AJS and Matchless articles have information that pertains to the later company of AMC. Much the same has happened with Norton-Villiers and NVT articles and other constituent companies. I think there needs be some consensus on how to handle the various time frames of this type of article, so that later model and company information does not appear in articles that really are not the place for it.

While many early companies did change their names a number of times, basically they can be dealt with in the same article with redirects from all the other known versions of the company names and, if necessary, from a disambiguation page, as in the case of New Imperial Motors Ltd or Cotton (motorcycle).

Many projects have a "Manual of Style (conventions)" that might be good for this project too if we can agree, to participate and come to agreements. Thoughts please. ww2censor 15:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, maybe we need some boxes like they have for rail franchises? Pickle 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that where a company becomes part of another, under that "new owner" heading on the original brand's page (AMC, NV, Cagiva, NVT, etc) a short description(like intro description) and a link to the "new owner" page, where each brand under that company is a sub-heading, with descriptions of individual bikes made during that ownership? We follow the owners rather than the brand name.

OR

Follow brand only, note changes of ownership, but stick to the title brand, On owners page, say what brands they own, in what years. If bikes are made under that new owner brand, list that brand bike only.

OR other?

It would be good to have a guideline for that. Seasalt 12:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Style Guidelines

For editing style hints and information see:Wikipedia Style guidelines [1].Orsoni 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Call me thick (please do!) but i can't find this project on that list, is this guy asking us to add our project to his list or what ??? Pickle 21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just a directory of all the WikiProjects that exist. Motorcycling is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Sports. Prolog 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I added it as soon as I saw this notice. ww2censor 03:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pocket, Super Pocket, and Pit Bikes

At the moment I can only find a Minibike title on Wikipedia, that doesn't cover it well.Seasalt 12:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, minibike would be the first place people would search for information on smaller bikes as it's the word that's been used since their inception.Orsoni 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First place for every age bracket? Maybe, but not much on them at minibike page anyway. Just wondering if anyone here was into them.Seasalt 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New articles

This motocross related article has been created about a circuit, not sure which of the 3 columns it should go in ??? Pickle

Until there are enough Miscellaneous articles I would just add it at the bottom for the time being. ww2censor 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers ;) Pickle 14:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

CCM

Only just noticed the line "Information needed on Armstrong chassis builders(CCM-Armstong & Rotax-Armstrong)", as part of raiding my dad's library for the MX history problem, i came across a book on the history of CCM by Bill Lawless (former editor of Trials and Motocross News) "Rolling Thunder", which stops in the 80's (with the takeover). [2] - might be of use... Pickle 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In 1980 CCM became part of the Armstrong Group.

"You fire up the air-cooled 349cc Rotax motor using the extremely convenient electric foot. The older 500cc Armstrong bikes have only kickstart; my smaller capacity Harley-Davidson version comes with all mods cons which is just as well -- the kicker is on the left on these machines and I've never successfully managed to use a left-footer."

"When the MT was being made by CCM-Armstrong in Bolton in the 1980s it earned the company the Queen's Award for Export, thanks to orders from Canada and Jordan among others. Armstrong beat 11 other motorcycle manufacturers to win the contract, including the Big Four Japanese boys. Production of the military bikes reached 65 motorcycles per week and the value of the orders came to over five million quid with more than 2500 bikes joining the world's military might.

When NATO also chose the MT design as its ideal two-wheeler, Harley-Davidson bought the right to produce the bikes and production moved to the US of A. Harley needed to meet American emission standards and the Federal Codes of Practice; they wanted to reduce the bike's weight and the overall manufacturing cost; they needed to add extra features like the tool box and helicopter lift capability. So for production in Pennsylvania the MT was given a thorough overhaul and general development -- and an electric start. The capacity was reduced to 350 cc." http://www.realclassic.co.uk/snarley030407.html Seasalt 12:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I just bought a copy fo The Illustrated Directory of Motorcycles and see there are two pages about Armstrong. 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. Cheers ww2censor 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle Racing deaths

Found a useful resource,and put it here. User:Seasalt/Motorcycle Racing Deaths also http://www.ozebook.com/gpwin/gpmem.htm (They disagree on Charlie Salt at the least)

For rider nationality List of Grand Prix motorcycle racers can help. Seasalt 04:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a list that exist on Wikipedia called List of deaths by motorcycle accidents, therefore I have copies all that list on top to there. Willirennen 11.43, 14 December 2006

Merge?

Mondial Moto and Mondial - Seasalt 14:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Better to make a redirect and just move the Italian manufacturer infobox. Done. ww2censor 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by POV and misinformation

The Soviet motorcycle pages have recently been vandalised by Seasalt using POV language and misinformation. Examples being-

The Soviet Union occupied the Eisenach area including the BMW factory, and the military took the blueprints for the then current BMW 75 models, and looted the factory for machinery and parts.

The Soviet authorities did indeed take R75 plans and parts as reparations, but did NOT "loot" the factory but rather rebuilt it to continue to make BMW R35 motorcycles for several years until they were renamed EMW motorcycles.

Between 1973 and 1979 Dnepr was one of the makes marketed by Satra in the United Kingdom and Australia as Cossack motorcycles.

SATRA marketed the Dnepr in the UK as the Cossack, however Capitol Motors marketed the bikes in Australia as the Cossack and dealt directly with Avtoexport NOT via SATRA.

Just because you read it on the internet does not make it true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.103.188 (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Highly emotive response. (One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, etc.) That was the information found and referenced, and i have no objection to yr changes. If you have any further info on Cossack motorcycles, Dnepr, Ural, Minsk, etc, please include it in the articles. Vandalism, POV and misinformation were not my intention, and I apologise if it appeared that way. In retrospect the wording was poor. The point for me was that it showed Russia did have the R75 technology in a way more likely than the "buying bikes secretly and copying them" story.

Do you have a book about this, or know of a website with the info about Capitol Motors? Also, if I read you correctly, Eisenach became Soviet territory, and that particular BMW factory became the EMW factory? Seasalt 12:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were prepared to describe BSA and H-D (among others) as "looting" the DKW design for the RT125, I could forgive the lapse, but since only the Soviets are ever described as "looting" the Germans, I can't. Over 20 million dead Soviet citizens gave the USSR the right to reparations. (Not that the other allies were slow to seize reparations.) And since BMW used Soviet POWs as slave labour.....

As to the truth of the "buying bikes secretly and copying them" story, it is indeed false. The fact that the Soviets licensed the production from BMW shortly before the commencement of the Great Patriotic War was a bit unpalatable at the time. BMW seems to have suffered an awful lot of corporate memory loss about their actions in WWII and after. They refuse to recognise that BMW cars and bikes were made in the Soviet zone right up to the early 1950's when EMW took over.

As to sources of information - try reading the MSN bCozz site for a "little bit of information". Most stuff relating to Soviet bikes is in Russian and there are few fluent Russian speakers in the west interested in the subject. Luckily we have a few at bCozz and we have "Entsiklopediya Mototsiklov - Firmi - Modeli - Konstruktsii" ISBN 5-85907-340-2. Basically a Tragatsch on steroids and without the absurb western bias.

When we have firm and undisputed data about the Soviet brands we add it to the Wikipedia. Unfortunately data is often confused in Russian language sources (mostly due to official propaganda) AND there are a number of commercial interests who fraudalently sell Soviet bikes with altered details and DON'T want facts out there.

As to your CJ750 source - an interesting fairytale. Based on facts but distorted to read better.

We're getting there with the Soviet bikes, but it takes time, and the last thing we need is to correct misinformation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.103.188 (talk • contribs) (23:16, December 6, 2006)

As far as I know, forums are not considered verifiable, and are not citable as a source. The pdf available from CossackOwnersClub.co.uk says satra sold Cossacks to Australia. If you cannot accept my apology there isnt really anything left to suggest, except that you look up WP:AGF, "assuming good faith" in the Wikipedia context. It is very disappointing that you have chosen to try to damage my editing credibility over one poor edit, (once repasted) which was easily edited out, but I understand the posts on Talk pages are not permitted to have defaming posts, like this one, edited out, that they must remain as a permanent record (?).Seasalt 12:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not just "one poor edit". You placed the same misinformation on the Cossack motorcyle page where it is totally irrelevant. What the Soviet occupation of Eisenach has to do with the renaming of Soviet bikes to Cossack 25 years later is beyond me. Especially when neither the 2 strokes or OHV bikes are copies of anything made at Eisenach. The only Soviet bike that could be considered a copy of the R75 was the TMZ-53 and it was made prior to the occupation of Eisenach. I'm sure the Soviets were influenced by what they found at Eisenach, but they didn't copy anything. It's no different to BMW being influenced by ABC, FN and Indian in creating the R32.

You chose to place this misinformation to "show(ed) Russia did have the R75 technology in a way more likely than the "buying bikes secretly and copying them" story." I wish people would stop confusing Russia and the Soviet Union and I wish people would stop pushing an anti-Soviet technology agenda. Does Sputnik still haunt you? The Soviet OHV engines were developed the same way as most people do things, by observing prior art and experimentation. The KMZ OHV Dnepr engine owes very little if anything to the R75. Which plain bearing crankshaft engine was BMW manufacturing for bikes in 1967? Which BMW engine was using steel cast in alloy barrel liners in 1967? Which BMW engine was using a centrifugal oil filter in 1967? Which BMW used a semi automatic gearchange transmission? M-72 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing of these arcane matters, but I do know that combatative tone does not help produce a good encyclopedia. Seasalt has accepted your correction, time to move on. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24 9 December 2006 (GMT).

I'ld like to second that. Can we move on rahter than slag each other off, we're all volunters, here of our free will FFS. Pickle 01:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Accusing a committed editor & contributor to this project of "vandalism" is absurd. -- Brianhe 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another merge?

Are the terms Streetfighter and Naked bike essentially synonyms? If so we should merge these two articles. -- Brianhe 07:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. I think of a streetfighter as a bike that has been modified with a different (naked) front-end (upper fairing, lights and wind sheild). A naked bike is a factory made fairing-less bike. BMan1113VR 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion quite a while ago on this topic and merge suggestion on the Streetfighter talk page. Cheers ww2censor 04:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Peer Review thing

Noticing that Motorcycle was listed as request 1.20 for Wikipedia peer review, prompted thoughts on the Project peer review process, where there are not enough of us confident enough to review each other's work.(?)We are not listed as active reviewers at Category:WikiProject peer reviews, not having an active peer review page. Is it correct to say a review only involves reading an article, and commenting on the things you notice that might be improved? What do others think. Are there enough project members willing to give Project level peer review a try? Seasalt 09:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in reviewing Companies and Specific models. Heck, one of my articles Suzuki TL1000R is listed as a peer review candidate. BMan1113VR 22:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I put the Motorcycle article up for peer review 3 days ago and as yet there has not been even one comment, while later candidates have been given comments. I would have thought that as the foundation for the whole topic this would attract commentary. I wonder if there are really so few people interested in motorcycling, or peer review in general that we don't spike their interest. I would have thought that at least someone experienced would have gone over it for structure and grammar to say the least. Mind you it is the holiday season, so perhaps we should be patient for a few more days. ww2censor 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seegon has posted a brief note at Wikipedia:Peer review#Motorcycle, but with this on his user's page "The other thing I like to waste valuable time doing is the occasional spot of heartbreaking at peer review." one might not take him seriously.Seasalt 05:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a Wiki novice, I am afraid I have no concept of "peer review." Who is privileged to "put an article up for peer review?" What is its purpose? Who is a peer reviewer? What are reviewers supposed to do, exactly? Jeff dean 04:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In my post above, i think the links explain. Editors such as yourself look at an article and post comments on how you think the article might be improved. There is a list of candidates on the Project page, but so far few brave enough to give it a try. Other Projects have a separate page for the comments, but we would need some activity to justify it(?). If you wished, you could add an article you have an involvement in, or you could read nominated articles and make suggestions. BMan1113VR is willing, so am I. We need more members willing to give it a try. There is an example peer review page for military history at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review. We seem to be all beginners at this process here, but there's only one way to get experience. Ww2censor, do you think we should create a peer review page for these in-project reviews, or begin by posting to article talk pages? Where to post the comments? (Comments on Motorcycle will come sooner or later.) Seasalt 13:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ducati Apollo and Talk:Suzuki TL1000R each have one review. Anyone else willing to check them over and add their thoughts? Seasalt 11:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unit Formatter to Peer Reviewer

The unit formatter javascript of Bobblewick has been incorporated into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js , but this does units slightly differently. It fills the space between the numbers and units e.g. (View following sentence in edit mode)It had a 61.2 inch wheelbase, and weighed 596 lb (270 kg). There seems to be a no-whitespace rule for units. You can view the "peer review" suggestions it gives, and can push a button to format "correctly". It can make errors in some changes...it changed sqfour.html into sqf tour.html, so there is a need to check its highlighted changes. Also it does not seem to activate until a second set of clicks are applied, in Mozilla at least. I have applied it to Ariel Square Four and Ducati Apollo. Sort of a Peer Review Wiki Powertoy. If anyone else gives it a try, let me know what you think of it. Seasalt 11:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Motorcycles

Portal:Motorcycles — There isn't one. Shouldn't there be? There are portals for cars and bicycles, but nothing in between. Shouldn't we be doing this?? Jeff dean 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering how little action has taken place on the Motorcycle racing portal as well as other specialist Portals I look at occasionally, I would only support such a move if an individual with motorcycle knowledge is prepared to give some longer term commitment to support it because it needs regular updating for it to succeed and not become fallow. I maintain the Philately Portal; that had some work done for about 6 weeks nearly a year ago and was then absolutely nothing was ever done to make it active until I worked on it in September. Since then I make some (approx.) bimonthly updates but since than there has not been one other contribution from those one might expect to give something. So please be aware that (from my experience) one cannot rely on others to contribute portal work. I will be happy to support you but don't have the time or inclination to work on another portal. Personally I think the Motorcycling Project is enough for now until we have many more interested editors. Cheers ww2censor 04:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the Motorcycle racing portal may be too narrow a subject for a portal. Motorcycling in general is broader and could be construed as a more lively portal subject. But, being a novice to these matters, my presumption could be wrong. Jeff dean 16:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO we have to few editors, and the Motorcycle racing portal to me seams like a Moto GP (or at a stretch just road race) portal, not really covering all of motorcycle racing, motorcycle sport or motorcycling (not meant as a critique, just an observation) Pickle 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A scooter called Katana

I have added a bit about the media unpopularity as I have read in once in a magazine once and from my experience of enthusiasts as their fondness of slating the scooter version of the Katana for reasons of name, would it be fair to justify that in that section. Willirennen 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are similar references to the unpopular bath-tub Triumph styling. Those entries survive. Seasalt 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So few photographs!

Motorcycles are visual feasts. They are beautiful!

Why is it that so many motorcycle articles on Wikipedia are devoid of photographs or have photographs of less than high quality? One cannot appreciate a fine motorcycle without, at least, good photos.

I am going to Vegas next week to the Mid-America Motorcycle Auction. I will get as many photos of vintage bikes as I can to add to articles relating to all kinds of motorcycles. But I am only one person. I urge all of you to take quality photos of the bikes about which you write and add them to your articles.

I try to do my part with respect to BMWs: User:Jeff_dean/Images/BMW_Photos. Let's all do it!

Jeff dean 01:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan on going to a dealer I know that has some pretty nice old bikes. He has everything. . .works on two strokes and my old 77 (when I am over my head), and sells modern race replica super sports. Will be sure to bring a camera next time. My car photo collection is [or will soon be] pretty strong, but my bike pictures minimal beyond my own bikes. -BMan1113VR 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a photo of a BSA Gold Star? - Seasalt 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have found some appropriately licensed photos on flickr all the BSA Gold Star photos are copyrighted with All rights reserved. However, I have occasionally asked someone to re-licence a photo with the CC 2.5 licence and they have done that, so you might like to try that. Start here though this one is a good candidate. Cheers ww2censor 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to thank you Jeff, for all the photos added to bike articles. A great wiki-service. Seasalt 10:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice compliment. In honor of my contributions, I post herewith my self-portrait:

Jeff dean 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is the manufacturer? What a strange looking 2-wheeled vehicle that I can find no references to in my motorcycle encyclopaedia ww2censor 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Major and notable USA motorcycle manufacturers

An IP added Confederate Motor Company? Seasalt 11:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

Does anyone agree this Project talk page should be archived? - Seasalt 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ten to twelve screens full seems fine (I have seen much longer ones) but if someone wants to do so, please remember to leave any current unfinished discussions on this page. ww2censor 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree (keeps it tidy) Pickle 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Major and Notable motorcycle marque infoboxes

I've redone them all (UK, Italy, USA, Germany and Russia) after some dabbling and created a Japan one

which is a variation upon the others, i'm going to work on the updating the British one next. The plan being to have sub box or line for current and then a second for defunct - sort of like this box;

(see Template:NZR Lines)

but the coding behind it is a bit more complex and will require another long session to grasp ;)

Hopefully by adding v-d-e, etc the code should be easier for users to edit

i've also conjured up a template of current motorcycle trials manufacturers

and might carry out the same concept for Motocross.... Pickle 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK either this

or this

the data is from List of motorcycle manufacturers, I'm not sure myself with a straight list of all manufactures is relevant but there is no criteria for notability about... Pickle 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ohh and i changed the title to something slighty more pertiant, and bringing the user back to the list Pickle 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

no objections, so im going to move to template name from "Major and Notable British motorcycle marques" to "British motorcycle manufacturers" and for the moment use the mk3 version wihtout nesting (as the lists aren't too long yet). Pickle 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Look like some nice work to me. Keep it up. Cheers ww2censor 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ;), took me a while to get my head around it, now I have, I've pleanty of work to do with it! Pickle 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why it was changed, or even if there was a need for it. Major and notable meant precisely that. It was not intended to be every British manufacturer, or every Italian manufacturer, just the major and notable manufacturers. It may as well be a category page now. Not everyone edits every day, so two days is not (imho) enough notice.Seasalt 13:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i don't mean to upset anyone or rock the boat. The bit that got me going was, there didn't seam to be a criteria for what was "Major and Notable", which left me slightly perplexed. Is the template there to navigate around the "pre65" era of British motorcycles or the current era's motorcycles? On reflection its not great by a long way that there are some rather obscure manufactures, often short lived in duration and produced few machines. If we could come up with some sort of criteria to exclude the rather obscure manufactures but still encompass all the necessary manufactures for whatever we think users are going to use the template for (hence my nested attempt was differentiate between current production and a the historic era).

Pickle 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what others think, but "notable", to me means racing success, first use of a major innovation, things like that, nothing to do with historical era.(Perhaps, made a significant contribution to motorcycling?) "Major" is a measure of production and sales. Major & Notable excludes short-lived marques of no distinction. The problem comes if ppls do not agree on which are major and notable for their time, tho' that problem had not ocurred yet. The marques that were in the old infobox were the ones who had made a big impression on British motorcycling, or more, and became big-names in the eyes of the motorcycling public. (probably not a very encyclopedic way to put it) I had wondered before this if a "Notable (Country of origin) Motorcycles" infobox would be allowable, or just be clutter. Does anyone have a different view of what makes a manufacturer notable? - Seasalt 11:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A very tricky topic when you approach it like that. If i put my trials hat on, pre65 trials (99.9% British bikes, in the UK anyway) there are many bikes that aren't on the original list notably Greeves and Francis-Barnet. Some of the others, especially the red links don't strike me as too notable, others like Rickman and more recently CCM are a different sort of manufacturer, using supplied engines. What i mean is that approaching it form a road bike POV will give a different list to a Road Racing POV, a MX POV, trials POV, etc, etc.

Also the extent of clutter is in the eye of the beholder, to some the current version, especially with dates is very large and cluttering, but at the other extreme, infoboxes such as the cold war one are gigantic!

What really struck em first of all with the original list was is was a list of "defunct" or to me "pre65" era motorcycles manufactures, which is very useful if your browsing bikes of that era, but if you approached it differently .... ???

Pickle 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable means different things to different people, so how do we decide a manufacturer deserves a place in these lists. I remember being able to list about 50 different British motorcycle manufacturers in the late 60s, and to me those were the notable manufacturers, partly because I knew their names and partly because they were notable due to, either their racing success or being a marque that sold well at that time. Is that a suitable criteria? Likely not but where else does one start? Does racing success mean they are successful? Definitely not. Being defunct does not help either. Possibly we just keep adding names until someone complains. ww2censor 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit my dad's extensive motorcycles library (must raid it some time) is full of books that list page after of page of British manufacture. however at the moment the list of British motorcycle manufactures with articles on Wikipedia isn't that long. it is why i created that nested table example which the new Zealand rail people have used successfully (ie if your on the North island you don't have to see south island info, etc). with more wl's and/or longer list the nesting of different lists can be used.

Pickle 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Wikipedia:Notability That is the relevant criteria for notable. It is not about opinion. Anyone was able to add a M&N motorcycle manufacturer, just as any one was free to dispute it. Did anyone disagree with the list that was there? As far as the different types of bikes, there is no reason all the genres cannot be represented. No such dispute had ocurred. If it was not wiki enough, then it could reasonably be dispensed with; if there were better filter words sure, use them; but I cannot see any merit in duplicating the category list when it is available at a click. How did you decide on the manufacturers with articles not listed? Seasalt 12:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

All i did was copy the list off List of motorcycle manufacturers rather than [3] or anything else.

Pickle 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

that list is incomplete, and not updated. At least the category list is as up-to-date as possible. What about the notability criteria? "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Wikipedia:Notability Is that not the def of notable? How does "Notable" lack criteria? Seasalt 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Its just we have yet to impliment the notability test here, in this context on either/both lists of british motorcycle manufactures ... Pickle 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)