From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Bicycle is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Former good article Bicycle was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2005.
WikiProject Cycling (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Environment / Green vehicle  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Replace See also section[edit]

The See also section is a very broad selection of Wikilinks, many redundant with the article text, straying way beyond what the Manual of Style#See also section recommends. It looks more like an Outline, but we already have that, at Outline of cycling. Outlines don't go at the bottom of articles. It also looks a lot like a navbox, but we already have that, {{Cycling}} and those do go at the bottom of articles. Any reason not to delete most or all of the See also section and rely on {{Cycling}} at the bottom of the article? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

When I have a bit of free time I will often surf Wikipedia to learn something new. To do this I will often go to the bottom of an article I enjoyed in the past and check out the "see also" section to find some interesting further reading. For this reason, I would be sad to see the "see also" section disappear from this article entirely. Also, it might be interesting to note that the Wikipedia app that I use to access Wikipedia on my smartphone does not include the navbox at the bottom (which might explain why I rely on the "see also" section so much). I realize that my feeling here is not an official Wikipedia style guideline, but I am sharing it anyway. That said, I would agree that the list as it currently stands is pretty cumbersome. My vote is to keep a "see also" list in some shorter form. If we can agree on that, then further discussion might be most productive to suggest which links to remove or which to keep. Lexandalf (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Bicycle is a really big topic, with a large body of related articles under it. Similarly broad topics with FA status are Atheism, Greek mythology, Association football and William Shakespeare. Greek Mythology has no See also section at all; William Shakespeare only lists two items. The others go a little further; Atheism has a kind of redundant and excessive see also section, I think. By and large, the Wikipedia standard is to rely on a stack of navboxes at the bottom of the article to navigate to related issues. Association Football has six navboxes, William Shakespeare has four.

The central idea is that if a link is truly related to an article, then why isn't it mentioned anywhere in the body text? And if it is, then why link to it again? Especially when it's linked yet again in the navbox?

Right now there are four links to Cycling, for example. Bicycle commuting linked twice in the text, a third time in the See also section, and a fourth time in the cycling infobox. Bicycle lighting is linked once in the text, again in the see also, and a third time in {{Bike equipment}}. So at the very least we can delete the redundant ones.

As far as mobile displays, to me that seems like a flaw in the app, not a reason to deviate from the MOS. A link to Outline of cycling is an effective workaround for mobile users, and most of the links are already there in the article body as well. Oh, and let's not forget the link to Portal:Cycling. Navboxes, an outline, and a portal. And on top of those three the See also section doesn't need to link to the whole suite of cycling articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So maybe an effective solution would be to reduce the "see also" section to contain only the Outline of cycling and then everything else goes in the Navbox... That might be what you were saying in your previous post... If that is the case then I say lets do it! I also respect Wikipedias standards and would not object if you (and/or others) think that it would be most appropriate to remove the "see also" section entirely. Lexandalf (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that just a link to the outline would probably do the trick, and might even drive traffic to the outline, which might help getting it filled out, but I would draw the line at removing the "see also" section entirely. I also find it useful and interesting to browse the links in a see also section, without having to wade through the entire article to find them, and chafe at attempts to minimize them, which seem to be completely counter to wp:notpaper. I get that this isn't exactly the forum for that discussion, but wp:seealso specifically leaves the inclusion of any link up to the discretion of the article contributors, and my attempts to get the guideline softened or broadened get hung up on that point. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTPAPER is about the unlimited quantity of content, but the issue here is the limitation of viewing a given page on a screen, and limited reader attention. Computer screens are not infinite, and trying to stuff too much onto one screen at a time is a classic web design blunder. There's a limit to how far a reader should be scrolling. Hence the consensus against Wikilink redundancy.

The other problem is the redundant navigation tools: do you browse the see also section, the navboxes, the portal, the outline, or Category:Cycling? Nobody really wants links to 100 pages thrown at them at once. They're looking for guidance and organization. What are the main topics? Lead me there first, then let me drill down.

Linking to Cycling four times, and then tossing in random obscure topics like Hash House Bikers at the top of the see also section is not helpful. Why, exactly, does Bicycle lighting need a third link in the see also section?

We should make exceptions for exceptional cases. After a good housecleaning, removing the redundant links, and removing altogether the thoroughly obscure topics, it's worth discussing exceptions on a case by case basis. But this really isn't the forum to discuss throwing the the see also guidelines out the window and making the section a recapitulation of the outline and the portal and the navboxes.

Finally, adding links for the purpose of driving traffic to any page treats readers as a means to an end. The see also section is not to be used as a means of article promotion. The first priority to serve the readers' needs, not the desire to advertise an unknown topic. The outline is a better list of links than the see also section, and readers should be sent there, but promoting anything else is not a good idea. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh never mind. What's the use? -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to add that the Types section's first paragraph is essentially a collection of links, yet another topic outline, which is found in at least two other places in this article. The Uses section is yet another topic outline, also repeated elsewhere. The use of {{Main}} also adds another layer of redundancy which I hadn't counted previously. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I created Talk:Bicycle/Workpage to have a point of discussion for these issues. Here is my first attempt at pruning back the redundant links -- though in some cases I added links, or moved them out of the See also section into the article (e.g. Bicycle law). The Types and Uses sections, with their outlines of Wikilinks, still need to be rethought, and probably merged into a more unified outline. At some point we have to have a little faith that readers know enough about Wikipedia to know that you go to the bottom of the article and navigate with {{Sister project links}}, {{Commons category}}, {{Human-powered vehicles}}, {{Cycling}}, and {{Bike equipment}}. If not, why not create a sidebar navbox for the top of the cycling articles? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I just went over all of the edits you did on the workpage and they seem to be pretty good. There are a few that I would like to make the case to add two back in:
Cycling: I would like to see this Wikilink added back because of my experience reading the bicycle article. I remember coming across the "Cycling" link and wondering what in the world an article about cycling would be about. When I followed the link I was pleased to find a rich article that delved deeply into the uses of bicycles, which was actually what I was really interested in and the reason that I came to the bicycle page in the first place. I would have never dreamed that I should have searched Wikipedia for cycling to find what I wanted. I realize that their is a giant box at the bottom that is labeled "cycling" and has all the links I would want, but I likely wouldn't have gotten down there as I looked over this article. I felt like having the link in the body allowed me to encounter a rich article that I would otherwise have missed. I don't think there is doctrine to support my case on this one, just my testamonial
Safety Bicycle: I saw that there was a link to this article, but it was under the wording of "upright bicycle." As a reader, I might have skimmed right over a link for "upright bicycle" thinking I know all about it only to later be a bit confused when the term "safety bicycle" starts cropping up with no Wikilink. I realize that it is explained pretty well in the text, but as a curtsy to the reader who wishes to know more about the term I suggest that we allow for a redundancy in this particular link. I suggest we keep "upright bicycle" linking to the safety bicycle, and then add a wikilink to the first use of the term "safety bicycle."
Those are my two thoughts. Good work and thanks Dennis Bratland for doing the grunt work on this. Lexandalf (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"La Gaulois"[edit]

"La Gaulois" does not mean anything in French : it is le Gaulois (male) or la Gauloise (female). It is le Gaulois because it is le journal "the newspaper". The oldest newspaper le Gaulois is French not Belgian. The Belgian newspaper fr:le Gaulois (Belgique) was only published from 1944 to 1955.Nortmannus (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The quotation in the citation of Peter Oliver (1995). Bicycling Touring and Mountain Bike Basics the footnote says it was coined by Le Gaulois in the 1890s, but the OED and other word origins references say it was in the Daily News in 1868, and much earlier in French, as far a back as 1847. The Oliver source probably isn't reliable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not trust the two sources and it is not logical. Bicyclette cannot be an adjective, it is a diminutive form of bicycle, a noun really mentioned in French in 1870[1] and in 1868 in English to mean a French machine. In fact, this word is probably a creation by Michaud after "tricycle"[2], an older creation of the early XIXth century. Bicyclette derives of Bicycle and is only attested by 1880[3] in French, that is to say later than bicycle.Nortmannus (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Feminism as "female emancipation"[edit]

In response to HiLo48's comment in the 09:19 16 June 2013 reversion, I argue that this is nonsense considering that "emancipation of women", as it is currently linked, redirects to "feminism". There is no reason to call this by anything other than what it is. Furthermore "emancipation", a word usually associated with (and only really necessary when referring to) the freeing of slaves is clearly loaded when compared to "feminism", which refers to a sociopolitical movement for which there is no other term. As to whether "emancipation" is "a more accurate description of what was happening in those times", the New Woman, mentioned in the section as an example of the bicycle's influence, is described in the first sentence of its article as "a feminist ideal". The whole section as it stands talks constantly about feminism while refusing to actually use the term. I will therefore return my edit if not refuted. Birdman-Toronto (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm older than you. Maybe I've just read and heard a lot more about the suffragette movement. But emancipation was definitely a word used by them in those times. (Here is a page that demonstrates the link.) Nothing to do with slaves. (Unless those women felt like slaves.) The word feminism only became popular from around 1970 onwards, so it wouldn't have been used by early female cyclists. So, there's the background to my comment. I know it makes sense. But I won't fight over it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was emancipation. Calling it an -ism implies that whether you think women were empowered by bicycles or not depends on your ideology.

On the most literal level, bicycles emancipated women from dependence on men for mobility. They were no longer home-bound, confined to a local area. On a more figurative and symbolic level, bicycles changed acceptable women's clothing styles to less constricting forms, and learning to ride represented a new level of empowerment. Of course almost everyone who took up bicycling in this period emphasized that it gave them freedom -- and gaining freedom is emancipation. The same is said by many sources to describe what happened when they learned to cycle as children -- the bicycle represented freedom, i.e. emancipation.

Calling it feminism implies that you have to be a feminist to believe in the bicycle's effect on women's lives. You don't have to be an adherent to feminist ideology to observe the undeniable facts that more women were able to leave their homes, go farther and faster from A to B, and generally expand their personal spheres. The fact that women wore bloomers was true whether you believed in feminism or not. Women were emancipated by bicycles, and if you were a feminist you thought that was a good thing, and if you were not a feminist, perhaps you were chagrined.

Emanicpation is used in many contexts, as much with women's rights as with slavery, and also to refer to teen children gaining independence from their parents. In fact, the OED says that the origin of the word is "Roman Law. The action or process of setting children free from the patria potestas." Besides freedom from slavery, the word is also defined as "Setting free, delivering from intellectual, moral, or spiritual fetters." That covers a lot of ground. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That the bicycle has a Unicode icon is noteworthy?[edit]

Ivanvector (talk · contribs) said "That the bicycle has a Unicode icon is noteworthy".

I can see how if you were a specialist in document creation, web design or Unicode technology you would want to know that the bike has a unicdode symbol, but that is not what "noteworthy" means in terms of Wikipedia content. Does this mean that Door or Rocket or Shower also need a ==Unicode== section added to tell us the hex code to produce these symbols? Isn't it sufficient to locate this information in List of Unicode characters, Template:Unicode chart Transport and Map Symbols, and other appropriate reference articles?

Can we see any examples of mainstream sources who tell us that it's notable I'm willing to believe it's notable that there's a Unicode bike symbol, provided I can see some evidence of this notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context of an article on bicycles, the fact that there is a unicode character to represent them is trivia at best. While it may be worth including a sentence somewhere to mention that that a unicode character exists (the last sentence of the In daily life section looks like a suitable place), giving it a separate section is undue weight. WaggersTALK 10:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You're right, it's probably not notable, certainly not enough to warrant its own section, and it certainly qualifies as trivia. I misused "noteworthy" when really what I meant was "neat", but that's a matter of my own opinion. Since I'm really just passing through here, I'll leave it to you folks to decide whether to include this somewhere more appropriate in the article or just delete it outright. And thanks for the discussion! Ivanvector (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014[edit]

Bicycles were introduced in the 19th century by a European named Baron von Drais. As of 2014, the number of bicycles have gradually grown 1.5% from its suggested one billion, in 2003. This is twice as many automobiles in the world. Bicycles are the principal means of transportation in many regions. Bicycles provide a popular form of recreation, and have been adapted for the use children, general fitness, military, police, courier services, and racing events. Bicycles carry humans threw Cities, States and Countries by their own power. Irmcc2380 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Group of bicycles of various types and sizes image[edit]

The second image in the lead is good in principle, in that it attempts to show a variety of different bicycles. But in spite of the caption, "Group of bicycles of various types and sizes", I see maybe two types of bicycles, at most, and only one basic size. There's no children's bikes, no 20" BMX race or stunt bikes, no mountain bikes, no road bikes, no race bikes or track bikes, no Dutch bikes or cargo bikes, no fixies, no 29ers, no recumbents, and no trikes. All of them are steel framed (no aluminum, no crabon), city cruisers. The only variation is some are men's and some are women's. So a much better image of this kind ought to be possible, one that really does have at least 5 if not 10 distinct types and sizes of bicycles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)