Jump to content

Talk:BSA Gold Star: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Editing: Reply
→Editing: say what?
Line 94: Line 94:
:Hi {{u|Flowbench}}, messages on the article's subject are usually on the article's talk page and should pertain to improving the article. More general messages can be placed on user talk pages.
:Hi {{u|Flowbench}}, messages on the article's subject are usually on the article's talk page and should pertain to improving the article. More general messages can be placed on user talk pages.
: The page has suffered some driveby tagging today. I'll have a look at resolving the issues. Regards --[[User:John B123|John B123]] ([[User talk:John B123|talk]]) 00:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
: The page has suffered some driveby tagging today. I'll have a look at resolving the issues. Regards --[[User:John B123|John B123]] ([[User talk:John B123|talk]]) 00:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

::Excuse me? I first edited this article eight years ago, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSA_Gold_Star&diff=587145893&oldid=587144375 2013]. And even if I hadn't, please discuss edits on their merits, not on what you perceive to be the status of the editor. This "driveby" crap is classic [[WP:OWN]] behavior and it's unacceptable.<P>If you want to talk about content, the sources I tagged as personal web pages, blogs, fansites, scraper sites, and other utterly unreliable sources are not going to fly. They don't meet [[WP:RS]]. There's a good list of quality sources right there at the bottom of the article, so there's no excuse to lean on essentially worthless websites.<P>The editorializing is easily remedied if you can cite evidence to go with it. Like either name a reputable expert who says shares these value judgements, or stick to facts. People don't really come to an encyclopedia for subjective color commentary. Readers want to know what are the solid-ground truths everybody more or less agrees on.<p>I'm honestly baffled by all the scare quotes. What grammatical or typographic purpose do the serve? Like the distinctive feature of the GS swingarm was a kink. That is, "a sharp twist or curve in something that is otherwise straight." We call that a kink. Why would you call it a "kink", as if the word isn't really the right word? I'm just confused by all the quotes.<P>My edit summaries refer to specific points in the MOS. If they're unclear, please say so. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 01:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:09, 21 January 2021

WikiProject iconMotorcycling Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling 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.MotorcyclingWikipedia:WikiProject MotorcyclingTemplate:WikiProject MotorcyclingMotorcycling articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconBrands Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Category for British Motorcycles

As part of the Motorcycling WikiProject I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes. To make things easier to sort out I have created a new category for British motorcycles. Please will you add to any British motorcycle pages you find or create. I've also linked it to the Commons British Motorcycles so you could help with matching pics to articles or adding the missing images to the Commons - take your camera next time you go to a rally! Thanks Tony (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, instead, all pages should be categorized as described in Wikipedia:Categorization. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Gold Star sporting singles

In the section "1963 End of Production", it stated "A sporting single was not produced again till the BSA B50 models that were produced from 1971 through 1973." There is no source provided for this claim, nor could there be for it is incorrect. In fact, BSA's single-cylinder B44 "Victor" scrambler was hugely successful, winning the 500cc World Championship in 1964 and 1965, and the production derivatives were successfully campaigned by many privateers throughout the production span of the model, from 1967 until its demise in 1970. Therefore, I've removed the erroneous claim. Bricology (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main Photo

Of the two bikes in the main photograph of this article, the closer one is not a Gold Star (it is a twin), and so if another photograph of only Gold Stars is available then the photo should be replaced. 98.207.61.227 (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)David[reply]

You appear to be correct - do you think it's a BSA Rocket Gold Star (which was a twin)? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe it is a Rocket Gold Star, so the photo could be moved to the Rocket Gold Star article (which does not have a photo of a Gold Star). There is a good photo of my Gold Star here, but it is not my photo so permission would be needed from the photographer. -- David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.35.196 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither bike is a gold star or rocket gold star. KFO755 was registered in 1958 and has a 650cc engine. DAS570, which was registered and has a 646cc engine. On that basis I have removed the picture from the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

650 cc could be 646 rounded to the nearest 10, and 646 cc is correct for a BSA Rocket Gold Star, but 1958 is too early. Apparently DAS570 was manufactured in 1961, but not registered until 2001. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BSA Gold Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BSA Gold Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BSA Gold Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hello all,

Firstly, if you think I am making a hash of all this & (and!) I am in the wrong place, please delete this new section or modify as you see fit!

I have mostly & infrequently made "minor" edits of a few articles, completely in ignorance of all the correct procedures but with good intentions and hopefully at least with accuracy and good grammar. So please consider me a child in these matters. I have no knowledge of coding or any computer tech other than as a casual home user. I find even the simplest action on here quite impenetrable! What may seem dead simple to you is not at all so to the outsider. I really have absolutely no grasp of the architecture and will have to spend some time reading up on "How to do it, although I have limited spare time. There must be a simplified handbook to be written...

Anyway, regarding the Gold Star page, I have made considerable changes and additions to it, initiated by the erroneous claim about YB32s & YB34s being Gold Stars. I am pleased that someone was at least keen enough to build the page in the first place, however there were a number of incorrect, misleading or ambiguous elements I felt the need to rectify and some areas that I felt needed expanding. I have not checked everything on the page. As a result some citing is now in need of updating. A number of the citations are from perhaps less reliable sources, or rather have been misinterpreted without knowledge of peculiarities relating to the Gold Star. There are many myths or misunderstandings that are often repeated in magazine articles. I can only claim decades of involvement with the machines, a lot of notes and BSA Parts lists, Club Membership (over 30 years of club magazines) and a number of well-regarded books to refer to, as listed. All of these contain a lot of factually correct detail. Regarding the YB32 aluminium engines, I have it on good authority, or should I say, the all too human memory of the GSOC Magazine editor who bought one in later years; that someone at BSA told him some had been built. It was news to me. I have no way of further verifying this but left it in the article with my justification to see if there were any responses. I am tempted to remove it. There are a number of machines that seem to have come from BSA at this time, that do not strictly fit the year, range, build spec. etc. lists available, or that were produced in very small numbers for specific, usually sporting / competition purposes. They could be allotted a separate section on the GS page or even a completely separate page of their own "BSA Works Factory Specials"

There are still some clarifications to be made on the page, that I have not attended to. --Flowbench (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry I probably haven't worked out how to sign correctly...[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Hi Flowbench, thanks for your improvements to the article. I had intended to work on it further myself but never actually got around to it.
I know what you mean about the myths, but also the factory records and parts lists sometimes don't always tell the full story. I worked at Pride & Clarkes in Brixton in the 1970s (better known as Pride of Sharks!). Although BSA was defunct by this time, older members of staff told me that BSA machines quite often came in from the factory with non-standard parts fitted. I was told that to maintain production BSA would fit anything that was available if the correct part was not available. Also, when the new years models were introduced (in August?), the first new models sometimes were a mixture of old and new models dependent on parts availability. Possibly P&S brought these off-spec machines at a reduced price from BSA so it wasn't as common with bikes brought from more reputable dealers.
There are also things we can remember from the period that we can't verify today. I can remember seeing a graph from BSA showing the power outputs for the various 441 models. The Victor GP put out the most, the Victor Special and Victor Roadster less (but the same as each other) and the Shooting Star the least. Looking at the specifications available now, all bar the GP put out the same. I can also remember having a conversation with my local BSA dealer about not being able to fit a 10.5:1 piston from a Barracuda to my Starfire (10:1) as the gudgeon pin was different. Looking at the specifications today, they both used 10:1.
Looking at pictures of Gold Stars at the time, and also current verified as genuine GSs, there seem to be frame variations that don't seem to be talked about. Some scramblers have the loop for the passenger footrests, others don't. I've also seen a few with a horizontal member between the downpipes, possibly this was a factory racing mod? Keep up the good work. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B123, thanks for responding. I didn't get involved with bikes until the mid 80's. I bought a B32 & became completely a BSA competition model singles specialist, which at the time not much seemed to be known about. "It's either a B31 or a Gold Star mate". Info seemed hard to find but back then I knew no other bikers so didn't have much to go on! There are an awful lot of anomalies or short lived changes & variations. I know of at least one alloy B31 type cylinder head, almost certainly a "works" item, there may even have been barrels but never seen or heard of one. In period photos the works bikes often have details not seen on production models. Your P&C (P&S):-) info doesn't surprise me. After BSA made all those bits they had to make money from them somehow! The compromises & economic reality of production. Why invest in new tooling if you can use the old. That's why later GS cranks weren't that good; 30's design with late 50's power outputs = short life! And we know what lack of investment did for the industry. As you say, there are quite a few frame differences over the years, cast or brazed on brackets, headstock bracing fitted etc. The oil pump frame rail inserted section I only came across a few years back, being discussed on the Britbike forum. Someone had come across one & was asking about it & someone else knew a little bit about them. From memory I think only used on comp. bikes but I could be wrong. BSA probably using up the casting from rigid M20 frames!

I will get back to the page at some point. I realised it's easy to get a bit too bogged down in detail with something that is really "only" an encyclopaedia page. Keeping it short & to the point is quite tricky; what to put in or leave out. On the other hand, the GS is quite famous among m'cyclists & the baby boomer generation at least; "my uncle had one" I've heard a few times (mine didn't, I'm the only ever biker in the family!). It had a long successful career with quite a few changes so some good detail fills out the story a bit for the enquiring mind. Is this how everyone communicates on here, via the article edit talk page? I thought there might be some other way; a messages page or something. Thanks again Flowbench (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowbench, messages on the article's subject are usually on the article's talk page and should pertain to improving the article. More general messages can be placed on user talk pages.
The page has suffered some driveby tagging today. I'll have a look at resolving the issues. Regards --John B123 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I first edited this article eight years ago, in 2013. And even if I hadn't, please discuss edits on their merits, not on what you perceive to be the status of the editor. This "driveby" crap is classic WP:OWN behavior and it's unacceptable.

If you want to talk about content, the sources I tagged as personal web pages, blogs, fansites, scraper sites, and other utterly unreliable sources are not going to fly. They don't meet WP:RS. There's a good list of quality sources right there at the bottom of the article, so there's no excuse to lean on essentially worthless websites.

The editorializing is easily remedied if you can cite evidence to go with it. Like either name a reputable expert who says shares these value judgements, or stick to facts. People don't really come to an encyclopedia for subjective color commentary. Readers want to know what are the solid-ground truths everybody more or less agrees on.

I'm honestly baffled by all the scare quotes. What grammatical or typographic purpose do the serve? Like the distinctive feature of the GS swingarm was a kink. That is, "a sharp twist or curve in something that is otherwise straight." We call that a kink. Why would you call it a "kink", as if the word isn't really the right word? I'm just confused by all the quotes.

My edit summaries refer to specific points in the MOS. If they're unclear, please say so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Roy Bacon, BSA Goldstar & Other Singles
  2. ^ Roy Bacon, BSA Singles Restoration
  3. ^ A Golland, The Development History of the Gold Star BSA
  4. ^ BMS, The Gold Star Book
  5. ^ N Vanhouse, BSA Competition History
  6. ^ Pidcock and Snelling, History of the Clubman's TT Races
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BSA_Gold_Star&oldid=1001724272"