Talk:Motorcycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Motorcycling (Rated B-class, Top-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Engineering, applied sciences, and technology.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.
Former good article nomineeMotorcycle was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

ADDITION OF EXTERNAL LINKS TO THE MAIN ARTICLE: If you want to add an External link to the main article, then place a link to it here on the discussion page under a separately created section so that we can discuss it. This page is prone to attracting External Links, and the rules of wikipedia state that only those links that ADD VALUE to the article should be included. However, we recognise that some people who can add a lot of value to the article also want to add their favourite link, which can on occasions have high commercial content. So, create a discussion here first, and lets go from there!

Motorcycles & noise pollution[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When I think 'motorcycle' I immediately think of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of times I've been aghast at how selfish their riders typically are, with their louds pipes and aggressive, borderline sociopathic revving. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. So why, when I hit F3 to search for the term 'noise', does nothing come up? A glaring and suspicious omission I feel. What say you, noisy hog riders and their apologists? Vranak (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Loud exhausts save lives. End of! --Biker Biker (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I drive a loud motorcycle and it is the love of my life. Loudness = Coolness in my opinion about streetbikes. 50.51.157.211 (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Save your life, drive me insane. Are you satisfied with that result? Vranak (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
And furthermore, it's exactly the kind of churlish attitude that prompts to label my query as 'inane' in your edit summary that also allows you to ride around with loud pipes and feel justified. It's a disgraceful and disgusting attitude, I'd like you to know. Vranak (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. Cite what you have. You might also note, by reading the article instead of skimming it with the F3 button, that customized Harley-Davidsons are a tiny fraction of the world's motorcycles, so we don't dwell on them much. Or, if the police in your town aren't enforcing noise ordinances, maybe that would be a worthy addition to the Wikipedia article about your town. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point about 'not all motorcycles' are Harleys, but I hear a lot of vile motorcycle noise from Kawasaki-types as well. I'm sure there's a great range of what's making the noises I hear in my hometown day after day after day, and as a result, it may warrant mention under the general heading of 'motorcycle'. Vranak (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't really the venue to report what sort of motorcycles you've seen. But if you have good sources that give objective facts and authoritative opinions about it, that would likely be a good addition to the article. There's also the article Roadway noise which you could expand. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not about to do the legwork myself. I'm just a little aghast that after what, five years of Wikipedia being entirely mainstream, we don't have even the slightest mention of this dire issue. Anyway, I guess I shouldn't complain any more unless I'm willing to do some research. Adieu. Vranak (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, at least you won't be lonely. You've just joined a very, very large fraternity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to User:Biker Biker's ranty little attempt to shut down the discussion, there is exactly zero evidence that "loud pipes save lives". 22:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.89.18 (talk)

He was lampooning the attitude of Harley fans. Not to be taken literally. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it!(At least, on the hiway, not in residentials) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintinteslacoil (talkcontribs) 14:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

First motorcycle[edit]

In the article, it states "The first internal combustion, petroleum fueled motorcycle was the Petroleum Reitwagen."

I disagree with this, since this vehicle had 2 training wheels, making it a car. The Edward butler motorcycle had 3 wheels and too was considered a car, so the Daimler vehicle should be considered as a car too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.238.132 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome to disagree. Provide some reliable sources that support your opinion and it can be added to the article. Otherwise it is just your personal opinion which is classed as original research and is not permitted. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Daimler Reitwagen mentions some objections on the grounds of the outriggers, and especially the inability of the Reitwagen to lean due to a 0 degree rake. Most experts say the Reitwagen was the first motorcycle, but a substantial number of experts disagree, and all we need to do is describe what they say. It would be good to expand coverage in Motorcycle history and Motorcycle. Right now it's somewhat scattered around in Daimler Reitwagen, Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede, and Roper steam velocipede. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal[edit]

Dear all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost single-track in definition[edit]

The lede's definition of a motorcycle used to include "single-track". Now it doesn't. In the current definition, side-by-side two wheeled vehicles like the Segway PT or Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility (PUMA) would be counted as a motorcycle. Is this just an edge case we can live with? — Brianhe (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I know I sound like a broken record saying the same spiel every time this comes up, but the article body should state that 'motorcycle' is a poorly defined term. Fred Rau had an editorial on the general topic of motorcycle definitions in Motorcycle Consumer News about 9 to 12 months ago on this. Most motorcycle history books begin with the debate over steam cycles versus the Reitwagen, hinging on the definition of motorcycle. There's other references. Besides the many, many legal codes that each define motorcycle, tricycle, sidecar rig, scooter, moped and motorized bicycle in their own arbitrary way. In the US there are up to 50 definitions; in Europe almost as many. Many more in Asia and Africa.

So until the first section of the article covers the many contradictory ways to define 'motorcycle', the lead is never going to be right. I haven't done it yet because I'm still trying to put all my sources in one place. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For completeness here is the edit that deleted "single track". Brianhe (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox machine[edit]

I know a lot of Wikipedians would like to see an infobox on every article, but I think there's a point when they become truly banal. Template:Infobox machine doesn't add value to the article. Rather, it takes a very small amount of information and spreads it out over a larger area at the top of the article, moving a couple paragraphs of the lead further down the page, to no obvious benefit. The infobox takes the one line "A motorcycle is a two or three wheeled gasoline or electric motor vehicle" and spreads it out so that you can learn exactly the same set of facts broken apart across 16 lines of vertical space, about 1/4 of a screen width. And for what benefit?

If we were talking about a group of statistics or factoids that you could peruse at a glance that would give you a quick overview of a technical subject, I could see the benefit.

This is all discussed in depth in Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes (Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited; needs consensus) Any reasons to keep this infobox? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. It add absolutely no value. As such I have removed it until consensus is established that it should be displayed. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bar and pie charts[edit]

Map Motorcycles vs cars by population millions 2002.png
Bar of cars motorcycles population.png

I reverted deletion of File:Bar of cars motorcycles population.png, along with File:Map Motorcycles vs cars by population millions 2002.png. It's true they illustrate related data, but they make quiet different points. The pies-on-a-map graph is a broad overview, showing that there are highly populated countries with majority motorcycles vs cars, contrasted with less populated countries that have more cars than motorcycles, and where they're distributed around the globe. Very rich countries and very poor countries usually have lots of cars and few motorcycles, while rapidly developing countries have more motorcycles than cars. The bar chart goes into finer detail, zooming in on only the top 20 motorcycle-owning countries, and it shows them ranked in order, something you can't discern by eye on the pie chart. The pie chart also doesn't make it clear that china and India didn't have nearly as many motor vehicles as countries like the US and Japan. The pies alone might make you think there were more motor vehicles in those countries than the rich countries. There are other things you can pick out from the bar chart, like that Italy is exceptional for the number of motorcycles compared to similar countries like France or Germany.

It would be neat to illustrate all this in one big chart, but I doubt that is possible, and if it were possible, it would be very difficult to read at a glance. The two charts together have the advantages of both being easy to interpret, and correct.

The real flaw is that the data is from 2002 and the picture has probably changed quite a bit, especially in China and India. If anyone knows more recent data that is comprehensive, let me know and I can update them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not fully appreciate the difference when I removed the second one. The second one is hard to understand at the size it is in the article, whereas the map one can be appreciated at the size it is. I wonder if both should be increased in size, but that worsens the problem of too may photos for the amount of text. Rwendland (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The only real solution is to set one's default thumb size to something that works well with your monitor at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. I can boost the size up to 120% or 130% of the user's thumbnail size, but that only really works if they are using the defuault 180px. If they have already set their thumb size to 250 or 300px to scale up to large display, then me setting the image size even larger messes up the page layout. It's probably best to let them click through to see them larger. Some day Wikipedia will probably have a way to enlarge images on mouseover, which will fix it nicely. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Use Section[edit]

The notion of bikes being ridden for increasingly practical reasons seems only to be justified by a dead link to a 1990s news article. While it is almost certainly true of developing markets, I'd say it probably needs better verification. And as for the west, well, let's just say that the idea's somewhat contradictory to my personal experience. While it may be true despite this I, uh, doubt it. 213.123.36.19 (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Principal question[edit]

I see the "Ural motorcycle" illustration at the top of the page. What the purpose of such illustration? It's generally known that the USSR's (and Russian) products quality is extremely LOW, especially military vehicles (tanks, planes, ships etc.). Concerning civilian sector (cars, lorries and motorcycles) - the situation is even worse. I have several different products. This is real "scrap metal"; only Chinese products are worse. Do you wish to illustrate a motorcycle with sidecar? Why do not use German BMW R12 or R75? It is the best example of motorcycles along with American Harley-Davidson. 91.193.164.246 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Brandner

Would you like to propose a better picture, perhaps from the Commons category Sidecars by brand? The best picture will be high resolution, well lit, unoccupied vehicle in a 3/4 view with an uncluttered foreground and background. Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's true that BMW has had an excellent marketing department, for decades. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has some amusing commentary on this. Ural motorcycles have generally received good reviews for value and reliability, in spite of prejudice against Russia. See Motorcycle Consumer News for example.

The answer to your question is that the photo is there because it is an acceptable illustration of one common kind of motorcycle. It's not an advertisement or an endorsement. It's just a fairly decent photo of a kind of bike that exists in great numbers and is easily recognizable, in part because it's a WWII German design that was produced in vast numbers during and since the war. There is no one perfect lead photo, but this one is OK for now. Many others could be substituted. Given that the motorcycle related articles already have an excessive number of BMW bike photos, I doubt there is much support for adding yet another BMW. But feel free to suggest an alternative photo. There's no harm in changing the lead photo to something else for a while. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing history[edit]

After the recent addition of the Butler Petrol Cycle, the section Motorcycle#Experimentation and invention appears self-contradictory. We have 1868, 1884 and 1885 contestants for earliest, with various caveats implied: steam powered two-wheeled, internal combustion three-wheeled, and internal combustion two-wheeled, respectively. Also the various entries are out of chronological order. Is there an elegant way to bring meaning to this for the lay reader? Maybe it's time to bring in a table, as below? — Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Year Vehicle Number of wheels Inventor Engine type Notes
1867–1868 Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede 2 Pierre Michaux
Louis-Guillaume Perreaux
Steam "Tie" with Roper
1867–1868 Roper steam velocipede 2 Sylvester Roper Steam "Tie" with Michaux-Perreaux
1884 Butler Petrol Cycle 3 Edward Butler Petroleum internal-combustion
1885 Reitwagen 2 (plus 2 outriggers) Gottlieb Daimler
Wilhelm Maybach
Petroleum internal-combustion
1894 Hildebrand & Wolfmüller 2 Heinrich Hidebrand
Wilhelm Hidebrand
Alois Wolfmüller
Petroleum internal-combustion Modern configuration
First mass-produced motorcycle
First machine to be called "motorcycle"
A table isn't a bad idea. Not all sources say the Roper and Michaux are a tie. Some give the Roper an earlier date, while others place the Michaux earlier and the Roper later. Others give the same years. So it's only a tie in the sense that sources are all over the map. Enrico Bernardi's Motrice Pia is another contender we don't have much information on. The takeway is that the history is muddled here. LJK Setright says "lost in the mists of time". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Really sloppy introduction[edit]

Anyone who brings an important fact relating to a world record needs to do a proper update. You cannot have a statement that China comes in second (unencyclopedic writing) with 34 million immediately after a sentence that gives the figures for China as 58 million. The 2002 figures for China ceased to be relevant when the new fact was added.

Amandajm (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

May I ask to whom you are addressing this comment? — Brianhe (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, the contradiction you're talking about was introdued by Amandajm himself here. I'm going to put the introduction back to where it was, compaing 2002 data to 2002 data, allowing for consistency. It's nice to introduce a [2006 source] but it doesn't include India at all! If it did, the numbers would remain roughly proportionate and the comparison would continue to make sense. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The article (at least) the lead suffers from poor prose writing. It is hard to believe something as notable as motorcycles would have an article so poorly developed. Here is an illustration. Per WP:LEAD we should sum up. yet the article dives into motorcycle stats! this should be touched and addressed in the body. --Inayity (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-sort contents with Motorcycling article[edit]

I think it might be a good idea to move everything about demographics, the social role of motorcycles, legal aspects, and possibly some of the history and safety sections over to Motorcycling, and move the maintenance section from motorcycling over here. So Motorcycle focuses totally on the physical machine, and its technical development, and Motorcycling is about people and what they do in relation to motorcycles, and the history of the changing role of motorcycles in societies. That should clear up some of the difficulties in maintaining both articles and give both better focus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a reasonable proposal. I had some misgivings about the way the lede lurched from a technical description to a sociological one, and this change would address that nicely. With good cross-referencing from one article to the other of course. — Brianhe (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. ww2censor (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the maintenance section fits where it is, in Motorcycling, as it's more about culture. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I began work on the safety part in Motorcycling. I have some opinions on the usage of the hurt report from 1981, discussion here: Talk:Motorcycling#Safety.2C_hurt_report_etc.. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I copied the stuff in Demographics over to Motorcycling. Can someone double-check that I got everything and possibly delete the section from here? Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The insertion at Motorcycling#Demographics looked good, so I deleted it here. — Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Use" section can be moved into Motorcycling, maybe into the Appeal section? Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And the Popularity section too should go to Motorcycling. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Splitting Safety[edit]

I think that safety can be in both articles.

  • Motorcycle should have safety stuff on the bike itself; brakes, lights etc.
  • Motorcycling should have statistics on crashes etc.

Agreed? Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Any Plans on fixing the Lead?[edit]

The lead needs work, just a call out to any editors who want to start making it summarize the topic better. too much unbalance on certain things and not on others central to what a motorcycle is.--Inayity (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a good plan in the section above. Just need someone to sit down and carry it out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Can I start by dumping the excessive content about Motorcycle popularity from the lead and trimming it down then.--Inayity (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Automobile is the template for the WP:LEAD I am using.--Inayity (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Since there were some disagreement about shortening the safety-part of the lead. I should have written in the edit summary that the identical text already exists in the Safety-section. It's better imo to have only a few numbers this early in the article and cover more further down. Agreed? Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, after the edit by Dennis Bratland, the information "27 times higher..." is gone, so there's only now one argument left why motorcycling is more risky than car driving. That kindof solves the initial problem with this paragraph being too long, as long as we can live with the fact that these numbers are out of the article entirely. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The paragraphs in the lead are not too long. What is the basis for that assertion? Don't use Automobile as a template for anything; it's not even a Featured Article, and even if it was, so what? The content of the motorcycle article is what dictates the content of the lead. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There are now (again) two arguments in the lead on why motorcycling was more dangerous than car driving. To have this much detail in the lead is not needed to give it a summary of its most important aspects (WP:LEAD). I think the "37 times.." should be left in the lead, as it is the easiest figure to read and understand. The other figure is already covered further down and can be removed. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
i agree there is too much detail on dangers, it should be proportional to the other summaries.--Inayity (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not needed, a. too much USA, b. Already covered "US data shows that in 2007 the number of fatalities per vehicle mile travelled was 37 times higher for motorcycles than for cars.[5]"--Inayity (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

() The lede does seem to leap from a good overall gloss of motorcycle usage into detailed USA statistics. The lede should have a general statement like "motorcycles are statistically more likely than automobiles to cause operator injury on a per-distance traveled basis", backed by facts explained in more details in the article. — Brianhe (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Inayity that safety data from outside the US is welcome; please feel free to add it to the article.

Measuring fatality rates by mile traveled and by vehicles registered is not two different arguments; it's simply two ways of measuring the same thing. It's very difficult to accurately measure how many miles large populations ride their motorcycles. There is no data collection or surveillance of mileage so you have to make educated guesses. Number of registrations is quite accurate because every motorcycle on the road goes into a state database. It's not the best safety data because many registers motorcycles are in storage 11 months of the year, so their crash rate vs a bike that is ridden every day of the year is misleading. The alternative is to do surveys on expose data with the methodology of the Hurt Report and MAIDS Report -- counting bikes at gas stations.

The point to convey to the reader is 1) Nobody has highly reliable data on motorcycle safety; it's much lower quality data than we have for cars 2) How you think about motorcycle safety depends on whether you're riding for recreation or transportation. If it's to commute, the per-mile rate is relevant, but if it's how you spend a given number of hours on your weekend, then a per-hour or per-registration rate might matter more.

Finally, we already agreed that most of the demographic and social content should be moved over to Motorcycling, and Motorcycle was going to be about the machines, and not so much about people. So I wouldn't put a lot of effort into fine-tuning the social stuff here. Instead, put the effort into integrating it into Motorcycling and removing it from here. With no loss of cited content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought about moving the safety stuff to Motorcycling. I think we can do that, with only one safety argument in the lead :-) Also, I never deleted cited stuff, the text was duplicated in the article (with refs).
Anyway, all death accidents on the road in Norway are investigated very thoroughly, millions are spent on each accident. I have official statistics with very detailed factors of 153 death accidents between 2005 and 2009. Some findings are:
  • 66% of the accidents where the motorcyclists fault
  • In 50% of the accidents, the the driver had less than two years exp.
  • In 33% of the accidents, extreme behavior was an important factor
  • Road furniture was significant for the damage in 22% of the accidents
  • Technical issues with the bike was prominent in only 4% of the accident, mostly worn tires/wrong pressure.
I can start work on safety in the motorcycling article, new stuff based on this first. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OVERLINK minutia editing[edit]

What the policy implies is we do not overlink like have 20 links to a topic, or we do not link to something like policeman, traffic light, in a car article. WP:OVERLINK. WW1 and WW2 are so significant to the history of most articles on Wikipedia you will not find any A-class article that deletes the links as an OVERLINK. In addition there are complex historical events (I did not realize they were commonly-understood --Sorry). which are always linked at least once. In addition if you are reverted with a rationale the best next step is the talk page. These tedious editing r not helping the reader of this article understand the topic. In addition to a link, it could be argued we should have a see also WW2, to assist readers in framing the topic. --Inayity (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

And I do not want to copy and paste WP:OVERLINK but I request you read it and explain how WW2 etc is covered in its criteria. examples car and Dubois All A-class articles, no evidence of this argument anywhere. Yet in the lead is a link to Motor vehicle (we know what that is), and Bicycle elsewhere (we know what that is). So let us get serious.--Inayity (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Inayity: Even with a generous interpretation of the guideline, shouldn't there be at most one link to each topic? I believe you restored more. — Brianhe (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If I did it was a mistake, there was one link to WW1 and another to WW2. There need be no more. But per every A class article, the criteria we follow there is usually one link to allow users who want to know more to click the link. I mean how else would i get to ww2 from this article? Should I copy and paste it and google search it? Or just click the link?--Inayity (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are some Featured Articles that don't link WWI/WWII: BAE Systems, Eisenhower dollar, Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine, Liberty Bell, The Avery Coonley School, United States Military Academy, Distributed element filter, Rolls-Royce R, W. E. B. Du Bois... I stopped after sampling about 30 articles. You do also find some FAs that link WWI and WWII, but they are not a majority. There's no help citing Wikipedia's best content; it goes both ways with no clear preference.

It's pretty clear from the linking guidelines that you don't link to them if you're 99% sure that most readers know what World War I and II are. They aren't going to say "Which World War I?" And if they do click on either link, they'd be hard pressed to find anything relevant to motorcycles. It's about as useful as providing a link to France or wheel. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

W. E. B. Du Boislink has a link. And yes you are right it can go either way. It is not about confusing them. it is about allowing users to interact with other related articles on Wikipedia. I am reading about a huge section in this article on WW2 and then I cannot get a basic link to WW2? Is it hurting the article.? The policy does not explicitly say so. --Inayity (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And if your argument holds water which one do you think readers know more about what is a Bicycle or What is WW2? --Inayity (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A bicycle is a machine directly related to motorcycles. WWII is a historical period of vast scope that affected the whole world. It's like linking to Asia because Honda is in Asia. The point of the overlinking policy is to focus on relevant links and not link to so many things that the reader becomes skeptical whether it's worth their time to click through. The reader ought to feel confident that if they click and read, they'll land somewhere that expands their understanding of the topic. Reading about bicycles directly expands your understanding of motorcycles. Reading about World War II does not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I understand that, but I am using your argument to make a point, about popular understood terms. The policy is very short and I am showing it cannot be used to CLEARLY say what you are saying. It is not explicit, as you maintain, about stuff like this, if it was no A-class article would link to WW2. The fact that an entire section of the article is titled WW2 must mean more info on WW2 would be a good thing. Even at the level of a useful interlink aid for further info. It does not harm the article, it does not make reading harder. --Inayity (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Emissions Needs A scholar Ref[edit]

The sections says most bikes do not have a Cat converter. I see one on the bottom of my bike, so I am not sure where are the stats (from a research paper) not an Opinion article in the LA times. True or false, we need a [better source needed] I believe on Wikipedia anything which is talking science or stats needs direct ref from those sources. Just like all medical information is better coming from a medical journal.--Inayity (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First, it says "many", not "most". Second, the source is from 2008 and in 2008 there wasn't as much emission controls in the US, Europe and elsewhere. It is now 6 years later and emissions controls have become more prevalent, particularly with the implementation of Euro 3 and California's more stringent rules. So it's nothing more than a source being somewhat out of date.

If you have some kind of scientific motorcycle journal you'd like to cite, please don't be shy about sharing the citation. From what I've seen, we have no choice but to rely on mainstream news and magazine sources for this sort of information. I don't think the comparison with medical information is appropriate; nobody is going to die because they were confused about whether "many" or "most" motorcycles have catalytic converters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Many or Most still mean ‘in the greatest degree", I would like to know is this true or false. I am sure in USA/UK it will be very different for India. I think it was you that said once that the information is out there. no problem with general stuff but i think that the author had to have got his info from somewhere and it is better we use that primary source.A detailed mag article is not a problem, but the article in question almost seems like a little to casual to quote as a RS on that specific point. just browsed this about Cats--Inayity (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Overlap between Motorcycle and Motorcycling[edit]

Remember we are creating this two worlds. For many readers they might just read this one article. There is a need for some degree of overlap. The information about motorcycle usage is needed. because the machine's usage is central to both the mechanical bike, and the people riding it. If we take cars or planes as an example is there a dichotomy like what we are doing here? I understand that the horse and horse riding might be two different articles BUT there is still an overlap. (correct me if I am wrong).--Inayity (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we solve this by tagging both articles at the top, like "This article is about technical aspects and history of the motorcycle vehicle. For the motorcycle's function in society, see Motorcycling"? Atlesn (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure but they will still be overlap, we (editors here) are still the ones creating a dichotomy, is there any evidence from RS that this split even exist? Or are the two topics discussed as one. Even if we say the motorcycle is a machines, then the usage of that machine also comes under this article, as well as the social side of things. I believe there is an overlap, and we will be depriving this article by forcing things into two hard camps. (or trying to force things into two hard camps).For example the technical bike is a luxury item, even before anyone gets on it --Inayity (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would say that either the border between the two articles must be very clear, or they should be merged. It's easy to merge them now, lots of stuff cleaned up, only the Safety section left :-) Atlesn (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If anyone knows how we should WP:RFC request for comments. I am not good at that sort of thing.--Inayity (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I see a constant personal need by Wikipedia editors to put things into neat cubbyholes with discrete boundaries and no overlap. The problem is that that's not the world we live in, and you can't change the world by changing an encyclopedia.

Can anyone find any policy or guideline anywhere in Wikipedia that says overlap is a bad thing? Are there any guidelines which say articles must have clear borders between them? Why not? The reason is that a good encyclopedia doesn't fear repetition and creating strong borders between articles is an artificial construct. Reality doesn't conform to such schemes and if you follow rules like that you deviate from reality.

It's very hard to find any articles that don't overlap with other articles, and if you do find one, it's likely a very poor article. Certainly a typical Featured Article has a significant amount of overlap with other topics.

It's perfectly fine for things like the Safety and Emissions topics to overlap. Motorcycle can deal primarily with the mechanical and engineering aspects of safety, while Motorcycling can cover the human and social dimension, with some repetition of the same facts in both articles. Same with pollution and fuel economy. If you shoehorned the two articles into one, it would be too long and would lack focus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How the articles are put together is up to us. And when it comes to repeating/duplication: Think about people reading both articles. It's not necessary to read the same thing twice. It is also hard to maintain; issue fixes and improvements might only be done in one of them.
If there are two articles:
I think there should be a plan for what goes where, and if one subject belongs to Motorcycling, it should only have at most a short section in Motorcycle with info on where to find the rest, and imo. this text should be written specifically for that article.
Much of the text in these two articles was merrily copied between them, and stuff was changed a bit in one of them here and there.
If there is one article:
As the two articles look right now, I don't see any problems with merging them. The sections could be something like :
  • Demographics
  • Technical aspects
  • Reasons for riding a motorcycle
  • History
  • Types
  • Motorcycle rider postures
  • Legal definitions and restrictions
  • Environmental impact
  • Subcultures / Motorcycle Culture
  • Safety
Having one article eliminates duplication and need for cross-linking. If some section grows too big, it can become it's own article, like if the History section did (Safety is already). Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling is a good "plan for what goes where" as you say. I'm with Dennis on the philosophy that a bit of introductory text in the non-major article is fine, with detailed discussion on the corresponding article. Especially for ambiguous topics like motorcycle maintenance: is it about the doer (the person, so motorcycling) or the do-ee (the machine, so motorcycle)? — Brianhe (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Once again, I have to ask, is there any policy or guideline in Wikipedia that says eliminating duplication is a worthwhile goal? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned at Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger: "two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." Of course "large" must be defined by the community. Which is why I think duplicating an introduction is OK, but duplicating a detailed technical subject would not be. — Brianhe (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis, I don't need a policy, guideline or source to verify my own thoughts and opinions. I think duplication is best kept at a minimum, for the reasons above. People might agree or disagree with that, and we'll hopefully reach consensus nirvana sometime soon about how these two articles should be (assuming my feeling about consensus on not merging is correct). Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
True, you're entitled to your opinion, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT gives examples of why such arguments don't carry much weight with other editors, so in general you should expect to fail to win consensus for your views if there is little or no policy to justify it. Of course you're welcome to try. I was pushing the point because I want to make sure that everyone is aware that it isn't a policy goal of Wikipedia to root out redundancy. Brian pointed out the one time when you might justify a merge, when there is large overlap. Most of the two articles don't overlap at all. There's only a few areas of redundancy, and even then what you see is two ways of looking at the same problem: safety as an engineering challenge, and safety as a social and human factors challenge. Pollution as an engineering problem and the human and environmental impact of pollution. Traffic congestion can be seen from two sides as well. The legal aspects are mostly a human (Motorcycling) issue, but there are areas where the law and engineering/technology are a fit subject for Motorcycle.

We can use the sources here as a guide. If needed, we can review the contents of the major sources cited here and compare how each approaches motorcycles from one of these two directions. I think we should focus our energies on making each of the two articles read well on their own, and not spend too much time trying to fine tune the balance between the two. Write a good Motorcycle article and a good Motorcycling article, and if they overlap some, let it be. Each should have a good introductory sentence, and perhaps a hatnote, clarifying where the reader should go to find the contents of the other article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Overlap happens so much on Wikipedia. And I agree with Dennis you cannot write an article worrying about dup material. Even books dup material to avoid the reader running around the place. And most people will not read 2 articles, they will go to one place and read for 4 minutes and click away back to YouTube or something like Facebook. I also work on Slavery related topics and there is serious need for overlap because (as stated above) these boundaries are artificial, you hang an entire department on a theme, when reality does not respect themes or tidy boxes.You have stubbed sections for this reason, so pollution might be stubbed one place and expanded upon in another place.--Inayity (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
If there are no policies or guidelines to lean on, we have to think for ourselves. Apart from that, I agree on the methods of working on the articles. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
But there are policies and guidelines. They generally favor redundancy, for example Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, Wikipedia:Content forking (note that the split here is not a POV fork), and Wikipedia:Summary style. So it's not a matter of thinking for ourselves in uncharted territory. Many, many, many editors have been over this ground before. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
People must be allowed to express their opinions about how things should be done regardless of what the policies and guidelines say. It's good to have some new input from time to time so that the world can go on, and just killing it off with old agreements as ammunition, is wrong. Think outside and against the guidelines, maybe they are wrong and should change. We don't know if we don't talk. Discuss it and find out. Atlesn (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We should add a definition section[edit]

"Motorcycle", like planet, tree and shrub, is a term with no single authoritative definition, and the meaning has evolved over time. Following the History section, we should add a Definition section that outlines the major definitions of motorcycle in use, and what the major points of disagreement are. There is already material out there for this, in Types of motorcycles, Motorcycle history, Daimler Reitwagen, Roper steam velocipede and Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede. It's mostly a matter of condensing it together into a summary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gonna be tough, I thought the legal defs were tricky (is a trike a bike?) but the specialized race vehicles are even harder. Is a LSR vehicle with retractable skids and a steering wheel a motorcycle? How about a 3 meter long 4-wheeler with a 20 cm track? How about a 2-wheeler with a rear wheel so wide it can stand up on its own? Rockets? 2-wheeled jets with retractable balancing outriggers (I meant LSR but just realized this also covers the B-47)? Rocket powered sleds?? Ice yachts??? Being a little silly but I think the definitions will be equally imprecise or unable to categorize things that we see in real life.— Brianhe (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Beating a dead horse. Here's what I mean.
Name Number wheels/axles Track width
Dodge Tomahawk motorcycle 4/2 8.75" (front)
10" (rear)
Don Vesco's Turbinator LSR automobile 4/2 12.5" (front)
17.5" (rear)[23]
Name Number wheels Number skids Power plant
X-15 space plane 2 2 Liquid fuel rocket
Gillette Mach 3 Challenger LSR motorcycle
brief description at Jet Reaction (motorcycle)
2 2 Liquid fuel rocket
Name Number axles Number outriggers Power plant
B-47 jet bomber 2 (front, rear) 2 (left, right), manually retracted at high speed Aerospace jet turbine
52 Express LSR motorcycle 2 (front, rear) 2 (left, right), manually retracted at high speed Aerospace jet turbine
Name Number wheels Articulation
Piaggio MP3 scooter 3 Tilt-steering, hub-center steering
Carver (automobile) 3 Tilt-steering, hub-center steering
I think I could construct equally silly tables equating many things, one of which we don't think of as a motorcycle. And a static definition that can cleanly divide all the three examples above properly would have to be ridiculously prescriptive and unable to handle new cases. — Brianhe (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, we do get to limit ourselves to vehicles which somebody somewhere has officially accepted to be a motorcycle. So if it's street legal somewhere, then we can say, Minnesota calls this a motorcycle. If it's not street legal, but it's a record or racing vehicle, then we can say FIM says it's a motorcycle. Whether FIM or Minnesota contradict themselves by rejecting a similar vehicle isn't actually our problem. The Tomahawk is really nothing -- it's a thing somebody made but it doesn't pass any bar anywhere, so you can call it anything. The main things is that these edge cases show the reader the span of what passes for a motorcycle in the world. The more people see that the definition is elusive, the happier I am. I hate it when anybody says "true" motorcycle -- no such thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Problem is this. Real world motorcycles here. Here are some of the contradictions that would have to be managed.
  • It has two wheels, except when it has three or four (remember Daimler Reitwagen is a 4-wheeler)
  • The rider sits on top of it, with legs below him, unless he sits inside, with legs forward, unless he sits inside, with legs behind
  • It is powered by an internal combustion piston motor, unless it is powered by electricity, compressed air, rotary Wankel IC, rotary piston IC (!), external combustion steam, rockets, or shaft- or jet-propulsion turbines
  • It turns by countersteering, except when by a fancy steering linkage
  • It falls over when you stop it, unless it has a really large fat tire, or outriggers, or (see # wheels above)
  • It carries the rider exposed to the wind, unless it is partially enclosed (BMW C1) or fully enclosed (any streamliner LSR)
  • It has rear wheel drive, unless it has front-wheel drive (Killinger and Freund) or two-wheel drive front and rear (Rokon and others), or two-wheel drive left and right (Ural)
  • It has telescopic forks, unless it has hub-center steering or BMW or ...
  • It carries passengers on a seat behind the rider, unless in a sidecar, unless in front of the rider or in a towed carriage (the latter two commercially availble with De Dion-Bouton tricycle)
Willing to give this a try, but as you can see I think we'll end up with a bunch of incompatible and conflicting definitions and wonder if they'll actually bring the clarity you're after. I think it will be just a head-scratcher, "so what is a motorcycle really?" — Brianhe (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't want clarity. I want a bunch of incompatible definitions. I think that's the point. Planet goes on for almost the whole article recounting the changing history of what a planet was thought to be, has a chart showing how at one time the sun and the moon were considered planets, on up to the limits of the definition of a planet by the IAU. I think it's a worthwhile goal to make clear from the outset that there is no agreement on exactly what a motorcycle is. Types of motorcycles works the same way: it says right at the beginning that these definitions are not universal and they're flawed. Once you've got that caveat down, the information is still valuable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A few resources that might help? I thought it would be interesting to see what distinguishes a scooter from a motorcycle:

This just came up at Talk:Terry Hershner concerning whether an electric moped crossing of North America counts as a "motorcycling" first, so it's good that we had started the discussion earlier. — Brianhe (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LEADALT says to move three or more terms to a Terminology section[edit]

I changed the lead to make it in compliance with MOS:LEADALT, moving alternate terms for motorcycle into a new section called "Terms," but the changes were reverted. The LEADALT section of the MOS states that if there are three or more alternate terms for the title, it is recommended that they be moved out of the lead and relocated into a section entitled "Terminology." I will await input from editors interested in this page before I make the changes a second time.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 23:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The recommendation over there is not very strong. They seem to think it's a good idea but their example, Gdańsk, isn't even a Good Article. Gdańsk has been the subject of some of the lamest edit wars in Wikipedia history by fanatics who couldn't agree on alternative names. This appears to be one of those situations where an ugly compromise was reached between editors who would rather fight than write. And now that's somehow spilled over into this MOS:LEADALT stuff. I don't think we should follow that example. What good does it do? What harm is there in having the alternate names right there at the top? I don't see what problem we're fixing by doing this.

I do see a problem with having a whole section called "Terms" with only one sentence in it: "A motorcycle is also called a motorbike, bike, moto or cycle." Readers are going to see that in the Table of Contents, click on it thinking there's some meat there, and then be disappointed to find it's just one measly sentence that leaves them wanting. It's bait and switch, and it pisses people of to click and find nothing. And to what end?

Meanwhile, over at WP:FA, if you want to look there for examples to follow, you can click around the list of articles randomly and find many, many Featured Articles that have three or more alternative names in the lead, such as Round Church, Preslav, Folding@home, Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine, The Livestock Conservancy, Kylfings, Superb fairywren, Tulip mania, etc, etc, etc.

I appreciate wanting to follow the MOS guideline but they aren't hard and fast rules, and this particular MOS guideline seems rather weakly supported, with weak consensus, particularly when there are so many FAs that ignore this guideline. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis, why follow a weak guideline that's already causing trouble for another topic area? Keeping definitions in the lede makes sense for me. Besides, we get perennial drive-by twiddling of the lede to suit various people's favorite terms and definitions (e.g. [24]), so if we moved the existing terms to a section buried way down on the page, it would just be inviting more of them and increasing the cleanup workload, IMHO. — Brianhe (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Motorcycle. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 05:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Motorcycles?[edit]

Putting Chinese ahead of Japanese as if to infer the Sinos out produce, or, even approach Japanese output needs to be proven. Links, please? (I Prefer American, or old British, but Jap bikes have many advantages (price), and, production figures don't lie.) BMW, Harley, Triumph. Victory, Indian, even Ural are getting very diversified and competitive now, close rivals to Jap production and sales. I suspect this is in error. I know of one Chinese bike, period, it does not approach even an Indian-made Royal Enfield in production numbers or quality. Daewoo failed soon, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintinteslacoil (talkcontribs) 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.worldstopexports.com/motorcycles-exports-country/ --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Are motorcycles fuel efficient?[edit]

Regarding efficiency. Kevin Cameron wrote about this with the headline 4 Reasons Sportbikes Get Poor Fuel Mileage. The sportbikes popular in developed countries really could be a lot more efficient. But they are optimized for volumetric efficiency in terms of power. Not absolute fuel economy. If you want that, Craig Vetter has a good formula: full fairing, 125–250 cc, low output, lean burning engine that gets you 200 mpg without really working hard, 400 mpg for a really good rig. However, that said, it is still true what Dennis implied here, for a given acceleration performance value, motorcycles are necessarily more fuel efficient due to their lighter weight, and the very best economy from production gas powered vehicles at city speeds is from motorcycles not automobiles. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

More from Cameron in 2008 hereBri (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to make clear what our context is, but not obsess over it. I was saying basically any motorcycle can be expected to have good fuel economy compared with any road vehicle with a similar performance level. So a 190 mph car gets 1/3 the mpg as a Hayabusa, and an 85 mph car gets 1/2 the mpg as an 85 mph motorcycle. A motorcycle that doesn't is probably an exceptionally poor design, or unusual in some way. Two wheel drive, for example, or has a sidecar. Something out of the ordinary. But you can also say the 2017 Ford F-150 V6 gets "good" fuel economy, and be correct. In this truck example, I specified the exact model year, the exact model of truck, which tells the reader I'm saying "good" compared to other 2017 trucks, presumably 2017 trucks with similar dimensions and hauling capacity. Yes, in a legal document my attorney would advise being very clear about what is what, but this is an encyclopedia, not the fine print on a contract. We want to do better than that.

If you say the "M1 Abrams tank was criticized for poor fuel economy", it shouldn't need to be belabored that you're talking about the typical fuel economy of a 70 ton tank, not comparing the M1 to a Ford Pinto.

My thinking is that here at motorcycle, the main introductory article on the topic, where we're taking a high-level view. It should be assumed that when we are talking about motorcycles' fuel economy, we mean relative to alternatives to a motorcycle, such as a car. Whereas, when the article is sport bike, we're now deeper in the weeds, so we begin saying "A sportbike, or sports bike, is a motorcycle optimized for speed, acceleration, braking, and cornering on paved roads, typically at the expense of comfort and fuel economy by comparison with other motorcycles." This is where Kevin Cameron is at, here in Bri's example. The question is "Why does my sportbike get such poor fuel mileage [compared to non-sportbike motorcycles]?" So here at motorcycle, we are saying "Due to low engine displacements (100 cc–200 cc), and high power-to-mass ratios, motorcycles offer good fuel economy. [full stop] Under conditions of fuel scarcity like 1950s Britain and modern developing nations, motorcycles claim large shares of the vehicle market." The context is, what is your alternative to a motorcycle? A car. We say that: "the vehicle market".

I don't totally object to fine-tuning our phrasing to make it more explicit which context we mean in our discussion of "good" fuel economy, but I feel like we've already given enough context, and adding a lot of disclaimers and qualifiers just makes the prose more obtuse and opaque. We should try to sound natural and let the pace flow, rather than make the reader want to give up and read something else. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I agree with that reasoning. A risk with of crowdsourced works, just like design by committee, is they can get layered up with caveats and inline rewordings. Let's keep it simple when possible and give credit to the reader's discernment. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Motorcycle. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 12:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Cycle"?[edit]

Your edit summary of "FFS https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/motorcycle"[25] is unhelpful, and doesn't in fact support the use of "cycle" to refer to a motorbike. That link returns the error "The word you've entered isn't in the thesaurus. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above." Scrolling down to "cycle" then returns cycle - which you will note does not contain the term "motorbike", "motorcycle", nor any term that suggests "cycle" is synonymous of a motorbike. Even the tenuous link of "two wheeler" doesn't refer to any form of motorbike when followed.

The only available link in the "definitions" ref is again Miriam webster[26] - and that does not support the use of "cycle" to describe a motorbike either.

FFS indeed. In short - you have provided a link that proves the exact opposite of what you intended. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. Cycle World
  2. Cycle (magazine)
  3. Walneck's Classic Cycle Trader
  4. [27]
  5. [28]
  6. [29]
I could cite a thousand more examples. This is like debating whether or not the sky is blue. What is the point? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The point is you used a reference in an edit summary that didn't justify your post, and prefixed it with "FFS". If you could cite a thousand (more) examples it seems bizarre that the one you actually did use failed to prove your point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
What? I can’t change my edit summary. I’m sorry it didn’t make sense to you. Are we done here? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, the edits above show that cycle is a valid use - although you might want to add at least one of them to the article, rather than the current refs that don't help.
Indeed you can't change an edit summary - which is why it's important to make sure they're accurate and/or helpful. Otherwise you should expect to be questioned about them when they don't make sense. As happened here when your source failed to back up your reversion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
You did no due diligence whatsoever before you deleted correct and undisputed information. Have I mentioned ‘’Cycle Canada’’? Or ‘’Motor Cycle News’’? Articles don’t require footnotes for facts that are not likely to be disputed, and it’s clear this term is ubiquitous. It’s bizarre to even suggest that “cycle” is never used. I’m sure if you advertised an RfC about this you could find a handful of editors of the kind who will call this “controversial” and demand an unnecessary footnote. But what for? There are articles out there with real problems, and we have better things to do than busywork.—Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Funny you should say due diligence - if you check, you'll see that it wasn't me who removed the information. I simply fixed the bold/italic imbalance[30] from the previous edit.[31]

And I'm sorry to harp on about it, but you also failed to carry out due diligence in your original reversion - which is what this is all about. Had your original reversion actually supported your claim (using one of your thousands of sources), none of this would have been necessary.

Stop making me out to be the bad guy when this is all a result of your own error: You used a source in an uneditable edit summary that didn't back up your claim, then you act like you're the victim when somebody questioned you over it. Once you had explained your reasoning you asked if we were done. I said "Sure, the edits above show that cycle is a valid use" and suggested that one of them is used in the article instead of the poorer ones currently used. And yet here we are. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't even make the deletion. Which makes me wonder all the more what this is all about. I added "cycle". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005.  (Subscription or UK public library membership required.), so the (imaginary) problem is now solved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
FFS (to coin a phrase). A source you were using to justify a reversion did not do so, and I asked you to clarify. You did so. I accepted your reasoning. That should have been the end of it, but instead you accused me of not checking before making the deletion in the first place. I pointed out that it wasn't me who made the deletion. You agreed but wondered "what this is all about". I repeated myself by saying it was all about you using a source to justify a reversion when it did not do so - and that once you had done so I accepted your reasoning.
You cannot make inaccurate statements and then act hurt and hard done by when somebody either corrects you or asks you to clarify them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I already apologized for the edit summary you found lacking. I added the unnecessary citation for "cycle". Beyond that, whatever else you're seeking, I don't think you'll get it here. Please drop the stick. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
There you go again - with the implication that I'm at fault. I find myself now wondering why you feel it necessary to phrase your apologies with the implication it's actually me at fault for not being able to understand your meaning: "didn’t make sense to you" and "you found lacking".
Why don't you drop the stick, and accept you were in error without the need to apportion at least part of the blame onto somebody else? You could have stopped right after I posted "Sure, the edits above show that cycle is a valid use" - that would have been the perfect time to stop, but one member of this discussion decided that wasn't to be. Reap/Sow and all that. You want this to stop - don't post anything else. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)