Talk:Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Non-free images

I removed the two non-free images because they have no fair-use rationale and being copyright images can likely never have a rationale written that would be acceptable under the non-free content criteria policy. If it is not possible to find some freely licenced images for these sections then having no images is better than creating problems by adding non-free images. The outline is a good start. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do these fit in to the listed criteria?

Although motorcycling can be a solitary form of transport, the are clubs for almost every aspect, including charities, lobby groups that guard against restrictive legislation and specialist clubs for specific makes or types of motorcycle. Examples include...

...and then, included among the examples, are Outlaw motorcycle club and probably the most widely known of these: Hells Angels. Which of the stated criteria apply to these clubs? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturers

I wouldn't want to see any manufacturers added to this outline - I think it has the potential to become a huge mess otherwise. What do others think? --Biker Biker (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I've been looking at some outlines for other subjects and that's what makes the difference between the good ones and the not so good. The lists and categories help people navigate to manufacturers if they want to Thruxton (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

File under Motorcycles (technology) or Motorcycling (culture)?

I noticed that this outline is filed under Outlines at Technology and applied sciences as Motorcycles, not at Culture and the arts as Motorcycling. Is perhaps the latter more correct since this is in fact Outline of motorcycling? — Brianhe (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not file under both? I was the one who filed it as above, because it made sense to put it next to automobiles. However, your point is also valid. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree -- both makes more sense. "Motorcycling" can cover motorcycles, motorcycling, motorcyclists, and their culture. --Dbratland (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing sections?

A superb start to this outline. So what's missing?

I think we need a section on "Motorcycling pioneers" or "Notable motorcyclists" to go with "Motorcycle pioneers". By that I mean people who have made significant contributions to motorycling e.g. Ted Simon whose long-distance exploits as documented in the book Jupiter's Travels have influenced a generation of motorcyclists (although I would exclude people like Boorman and McGregor who are famous people on bikes rather than people famous for riding bikes). Also people like Joey Dunlop (26 times winner of the Isle of Man TT) or other notable racers like Sheene, Hailwood, Agostini, Rossi etc. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea - I've made a start with "Notable motorcyclists" but there are loads so we do need to be a bit selective. I feel it's the 'notability' of the motorcyclist, rather than the quality of the article we should be thinking about, as we can always improve articles Thruxton (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gather topics please

Please add topics you feel should be presented on the outline under the most appropriate heading in alphabetical order - or add a new heading if it is needed. Looking through the articles we've linked to I've seen some with 'multiple issues' and others with no refs etc. I am going to concentrate on improving the worst first (if I can) but think it will help if you put a 'see also' link and put a new section 'Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling' on the Talk Page. I started doing this then realised that some are 'lost' in all the talk, so I'd like to suggest that you cut and paste the following Template to the top so it stands out: Thanks Thruxton (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 

{{On OOMandM}}

Should this be split into two separate outlines?

"Outline of motorcycles" and "Outline of motorcycling"? The Transhumanist 05:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
No - but it is coming along well and is helping people start to improve some aticles that haven't had much attention for a while. Thanks for suggesting it in the first place Thruxton (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How this outline compares

This outline has already reached the "well-developed" level, based on its topic coverage. It still has a ways to go to become fully developed. Here's a list so you can see how it compares to other outlines...

Well-developed:

Well-developed, with good picture support:

Well-developed, fully annotated:

Well-developed, with full annotation and pics

I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 04:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle clubs and organisations section needs criteria

The section Motorcycle clubs and organisations needs some criteria for inclusion. It can't be a list of every club on Wikipedia. What standard is being used to include them here? Deleting them and referring to the appropriate categories might be a better alternative if some standard can't be agreed upon. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is a notable motorcyclist?

Recent expansions to #Notable motorcyclists make this appear like "list of celebrities who ride motorcycles." Clint Eastwood, Cher? There need to be some inclusion criteria laid down for this. — Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Terrible. Makes me wonder where I was when this happened. First and foremost, it should be only people who are known primarily as motorcyclists, or at least who are known equally for motorcycling as they are for any other field. Anyone who would not be famous at all if all you had was their motorcycling exploits should be removed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The criteria you stated look like a good baseline. We can refine if it starts to include everybody in List of Motorcycle Hall of Fame inductees or something. — Brianhe (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The examples should not start to become a long list and especially should not contain people who just happen to ride motorcycles. Good purge done so far but even so it is certainly long enough as it stand now. ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The list as it was before the pruning was too long and had too many casual riders. I am thankful, however, that the list as it is now is better than it was last October, when nine of the ten people on the list were motorcycle racers. At least now, with six non-racers (five, if transcontinental speed record runs count as racing), it doesn't appear like "list of bike racers". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a little difficult to label McQueen or Ewan MacGregor [1] "casual riders" and, as much as you might personally dislike what he stands for, Dennis, it is not possible to argue that Barger is not a notable motorcyclist. Perhaps that is why you chopped the section.
I mean, wtf has heard of "Wal Handley" in comparison to the numbers who recognise Ann Margaret on her Triumph [2][3] who, by the way, started riding at 10 years old and was passionate about the sport all through her life?
I am sorry I missed the start of this discussion otherwise I would have justified the inclusions. Clearly there is a difference between motorcycle as a sport and motorcycles as a social phenomenon or lifestyle. I would argue that the latter is actually more notable and attempted to represent some of that element. The previous list was essentially a list of "Notable sport motorcyclists", not "Notable motorcyclists".
I think part of your objection is also based on a lack of knowledge of the subjects, e.g. Ralph Richardson whilst being just another working actor in London, was notable amongst his peers for riding to work on his BM with his parrot on his shoulders. Although I can accept some are weak and require fine tuning, likewise that there are others to add, I could go down the list and justify why I chose most if not all as "notable motorcyclists" not just celebrities who happen just jump on the motorcycling bandwagon. For example, which was a big "stunt" Evel jumping some trucks of Malcolm Forbes landing 80 ci Capitalist Tool in Red Square Moscow? (I, personally, don't think of Evel Knievel as a motorcyclist but as a showman).
One does not need to be a sociologist or social studies expert to argue that motorcycling is a culturally influential and multifaceted activity. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Your standard for inclusion is too broad, and the list is patently silly. Keanu Reeves? Pink? This is an encyclopedia, not TMZ. What has Sonny Barger ever done with to influence the world of motorcycling? The Hells Angles don't care about motorcycles. They care about finding ways to not get sent back to jail. The standard that the person must be known primarily as motorcyclists, or known equally for motorcycling as they are for any other field is much more meaningful. Nobody comes here to read that KD Lang has a bike out back somewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
One of my concerns with the former list was that at least some of the listed articles, e.g. Clint Eastwood and Pink (singer), didn't even mention the word motorcycle. If Wikipedia hasn't established why they're a notable motorcyclist (as opposed to a notable individual) then they shouldn't be in the list. — Brianhe (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
And Man Puts Fuel In Bike and Woman Buys Moto-Guzzi make a very good point, along with the rest of Kevin Ash's Celebrity News. It's a fact that many celebrities are rich. When people become rich, they start buying toys. They buy swimming pools, they buy jet skis, and quite often they buy motorcycles. I'd agree that Steve McQueen was significant in the world of motorcycling. Maybe even Jay Leno, although mostly he's a guy with a very fat wallet who can afford to collect a lot of cars and bikes. This kind of list is not different than a list of every single time anybody anywhere ever mentions Steve McQueen in a song, i.e. "In Popular Culture" sections. It's devoid of meaning. Keep the list short and well-defined and then it means something. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Referring to your first comment, don't stoop to causing offence Dennis. I've read you have a bit of a reputation for getting into these sorts of conflicts. Choose any "List of ___" and have a look on the Wikipedia. The proposed list is comparable to all the rest. Indeed, it is modest in comparison to some and that is what I intended. I appreciate that, for whatever reason, you are a simmering cauldron of prejudice against MC clubs but a statement like "Hells Angles don't care about motorcycles" just make you look "silly" and calls your credibility into question.
Why, Brian, because no one has volunteered to put them. That is the problem with unpaid workers, they only do what they want. That logic really does not prove anything. Funnily enough, Keanu was a keen motorcycle from before he became famous, you've obviously never saw his Nortons. If is not the role of Wikipedia to establish anything but just report on what is.
I beg to differ. I'll wager 1,000s more readers are interested to read KD Lang is a motor than who won what IoM TT in 1920, and if we are going to critique the list, take Joey Dunlop as an example. I mean, he was an colourful character and I agree with his inclusion but basically all he did was the Isle of Man and all he appealed to were a tiny fan base. A one track man.
I guess more people today are conscious of Donna Karan's connection with Ducati than those who remember Dunlop, and far more people are conscious of the cultural elements of motorcycling rather than the sport elements, so what are we using as the benchmark of notability? The Wikipedia has plenty of space. I guess if you are so offended, we can start a new page? I'd be happy to have removed anyone who was shown to have merely bought a motorcycle as a fashion accoutrement but I don't think the current list is so bad. For example, you might have criticised Queen Latifa as one but that, to me, would underline your lack of awareness of the black motorcycling scene ... and the resons I did choose to include her.
(FYI, for the most part I deliberately chose individuals who I knew to have been into motorcycles before they became famous but I would like to say, like it or not, a lot of those celebrity motorcyclists you do not like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT either represent motorcycling to the general public or, as per Brando in The Wild One, have defined it). --Bridge Boy (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Outlines are not articles; new information should not be introduced in an outline. Wikipedia outlines are navigation and organization tools for information that already exists in articles. That means that the person's significant influence in motorcycling should be stated and well cited on the article first, and then added to the outline page second. k.d. Lang averages over 1,000 page views a day, yet none of those fans cared to add this vital information about Lang's motorcycling? Over 205,000 people viewed Keanu Reeves in the last month, and the page has 209 watchers, and none of them were clamoring to mention Keanu's Nortons.

The motorcycling information must be first mentioned in the persons bio article, and it must be much, much more significant than merely owning or riding a motorcycle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically, when you (Bridge) say "Keanu was a keen motorcycle (sic) from before he became famous," you underline the point: He is not famous, or even notable, as a motorcyclist. A stronger case could be made for Steve McQueen, or even Ewan MacGregor, but then adding them would be a gateway for all the k.d. lang / Pink / Brad Pitt fancruft. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
One more thing. I forgot to reply to the false pretense of being insulted by me bringing up Kevin Ash's Celebrity News feature, where he regularly mocks the tabloid media's breathless reporting of celebrities who happen to have a motorcycle. When I say it's silly and laughable, I'm not just casting aspersions, nor just giving my opinion. Kevin Ash is an established motor journalist and author, and this is one example of the significant opinion that such collections of celebrity gossip is worthy of derision by serious people. The point being that Wikipedia becomes equally laughable in the eyes of experts like Ash if Wikipedia collects and gives credence to such celebrity trivia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm with every other contributor hear in thinking the list is not encyclopaedic. There certainly seems to be clear consensus (apart from one dissenter who doesn't like it) to remove the long list of celebrity motorcyclists. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

One question to all of you, do you merely ride a motorcycle or are you a motorcyclist/biker?
There are both, in the eye of the individuals, public and academics. Motorcycling is used for a means of transport, a sport and a self-identifying lifestyle as real for some as, say, a religious or some political affiliation for others. What is the harm of representing who we are?
Hugh Laurie, now there is another genuine motorcyclist. The Shah of Iran was a notable another.
Now, personally, I'd ditch the second category and just include notable, representative individuals in the first. I only split it as a response to Dennis's unreasonable, absolute and reactionary deletion. I, personally, know the British motorcycling community better but I can say that those British motorcyclists are known as prominent motorcyclists and have play various roles in the motorcycling community of the UK.
To list only motorcycle sportsmen is absurd and equally misrepresentative. For the majority of the public, they have no mean at all, the public has no awareness of them, and they are not even representative of what they would see as "motorcycling". If it is an outline, then it should represent the whole not just a part of it.
Dennis, I wrote that I accepted entirely the need to avoid 'fashion bikers" but you cannot exclude a notable motorcyclist just because they also happen to have been successful whether they starting riding before or after their celebrity. What I said makes you look silly and undermines the credibility of your argument is when you write something like, "Hells Angles don't care about motorcycles".
And frankly SamBlob, anyone that butts into a conversation and has to score points by highlighting a [sic] typo is being a dick, which I understand is against the fundamental rules of the Wikipedia. What point were you making? I look at something comparable, such as List of vegetarians and the principle seems the same. You derisorily call it "fancruft", I am just attempting to represent motorcycling as it is seen. What it seems we need to do is agree on is what defines motorcyclist. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. Please stop questioning the right of other editors to participate. Do you have sources to back up your claims, or don't you? If you do, add them to the bio article of the person you want to add to the list, then come back here and show us what you've got. If you don't have sources, you have nothing to say here. It isn't about who rides the most or what they ride or if they ride. Nobody owns any article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
For now I oppose the re-adding of the list of people who happen to have owned or ridden motorcycles or currently do. Several of the subject's biographies don't even mention their interest in motorcycles and even those that do, most don't have any citations for it. If we are to have any of these people listed, for encyclopaedic verification there must be some basic criteria laid down. The minimum should be that their motorcycling must to be noted in their own biography and it must be cited with a reliable source. If that does not exist they should be excluded. If any listing is important to editors like Bridge Boy, then the onus is on those editors to ensure people's motorcycling is supported by citations. If it is not proven in their article it has no place here either. Otherwise, strictly speaking it is WP:OR, unproven and should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Most of those with no citations are gone now. Bridge Boy, please do not add anything back without first providing a solid citation. See WP:BURDEN. That doesn't mean the list is acceptable now. There is still strong opposition to listing every celebrity who happens to ride motorcycles. The consensus seems to be, rather, that they be notable in the field of motorcycling. George Clooney and Bob Dylan and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lauren Hutton and Tom Cruise have had (a little bit of) media attention for having been in a motorcycle accidents (hey, where's Ben Roethlisberger? Where's Carlo Cudicini?) but that doesn't mean they are influential motorcyclists. I'd be more influenced by riders who could keep the shiny side up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not unhappy at the direction things are going. As I wrote more than once, I was never pro a list of "every celebrity who happens to ride a motorcycle" (although the Wikipedia clearly has room for such a list based on other comparables), so please don't misrepresent me to win your point. You'll see from my topic creation I have gone out of my small way to ensure minority motorcyclists figure on the Wikipedia.
What I was in favour of was a representative list of how motorcycling is seen, is presented, and presents itself. To reference inescapable culturally significant references.
Whilst emphasising your collective prejudice against successful individuals, you're all ignoring the central issues of agreeing on what constitutes a motorcyclist (and perhaps motorcycling) rather than "someone who rides". If we are going to play by the rules, you don't have the grounds to decide, if the references say so. I tend to favour individuals who have contributed to motorcycling either by their actions or by giving it some kind of identity, e.g. in the UK, HRH Prince Michael would fit into the former (for his charitable and road safety work and establishmentary support) and perhaps individuals like Brando (The Wild One) in the latter (from the references, that defining iconic image sits somewhere alongside McQueen and Schwarzenegger on the Fatboy as the best known motorcyclists in the public's eye).
For me, what justifies someone like Leno is his obvious knowledge and enthusiasm for the vehicles and the factors that justify someone like Queen Latifah is that she is a black and a woman with 6 motorcycles, and active promoting motorcycle safety within her community following her brother's death on a motorcycle. She has obvious gone beyond "celebrity biking". You may not have heard of her but then we have to make allowances to how racial divided American motorcycling and society tends to be, hence her notability.
Perhaps Daniel would exercise his right to favor Mr and Mrs Goshtapur from Kabul for their ability to balance an entire family, 3 chicken and a goat on their Honda Cub as also being "representative"? I would not oppose that. That an individual could afford to have someone drive them around in a limousine and yet still choses to commute by motorcycle at great risk to themselves, only make them more of a motorcyclist to me. Indeed, from the references, the whole celebrity endorsement is credited with turning around the fortunes of Harley-Davidson and impacting positively on motorcycling as a whole. Therefore I suggest we draw the line to include any celebrities who is known to regularly rides or have other motorcycling interest for the love of it, e.g. this would include the Hugh Lauries and Brad Pitts, but excludes those for whom it was just a fad or fashion statement if that could be referenced. It would be hard to prove.
Having said that, we have an immediately problem with "Other notable people who ride (what ... horses)" because, of course, many of them are dead (rode). I think you're tripping up over your shoelaces by not being able to acknowledge them as they are, "notable motorcyclists".
I suggest we just have two categories, 'Notable motorcyclists' and 'Notable sports motorcyclists' or sportspersons. --Bridge Boy (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A good way to convince other editors to support adding Queen Latifa or Prince Michael would be to provide citations to verify the assertions of how much influence they've had on motorcycling. Also, please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Outlines. Lists and outlines are two different things. This is an outline. If this is really to address the need for a list, any editor could create a new list in the illustrious tradition of List of vegetarians or List of bow tie wearers.

I'm not sure that mocking motorcyclists in Kabul is any way to assist those of us working to correct the bias problem in the motorcycling article. Maybe there's something constructive hidden in those comments that I don't perceive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Who was a motorcycle pioneer?

While everyone is trying to figure out whether a notable motorcyclist is someone notable who rides (as viewed by one editor) or someone who has done something notable within motorcycling (as viewed by the rest of us), I bring another matter to the fore, one that has been nagging me for months, if not years.

What determines whether someone was a "motorcycle pioneer"? I use the past tense because the "pioneering" days of motorcycling are long gone; the established form of the motorcycle has been around since at least the 1930s. What makes Bert Hopwood or Max Friz a "pioneer"? What of Ernst Jakob Henne; is there anything particularly "pioneering" about being a motorcycle racer in the 1920s? František Janeček is a particularly egregious example: How does buying tooling from Germany to build what had earlier been Wanderer motorcycles in Czechoslovakia make one a "pioneer"?

Could we please establish some guidelines for what a "motorcycle pioneer" is before someone starts littering it with random people (or are we too late)? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What about at least two separate lists of pioneers, one for inventors/engineers who created or perfected in a transformative way a new motorcycle technology, and a separate list of business and industry types who developed markets or built brands? And maybe try to keep each list (and perhaps every list in this outline) close to the neighborhood of 10 items? Some effort should be put into paring it down to the essentials. Because WP:LIST and WP:OUTLINE are two diffident things. A list article (or a category), can aim at completeness, while this outline should be discriminate. Another point; sportsmen belong in a different section than pioneers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Does "See also" belong here?

The See also section looks funky, as in unnecessary ... one topic, Outline of bicycles, is one click away through the navbox. The other two motorcycle-related topics should either be incorporated in the outline, or removed. Any objections? — Brianhe (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and List of Motorcycle Club terms should be redirected to Motorcycle club or deleted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Auto rickshaws

I propose that Auto rickshaw be removed, per the lead section of this article. They have more than two wheels, and more than one track. I believe some three-wheeled three-track vehicles can be considered motorcycles (in practice, invariably the ones where the entire vehicle leans, or which pivot longitudinally in the middle and tilt at the one-wheeled end), but not that this applies to auto rickshaws.

Some auto rickshaws use components that are also used by motorcycles, and some are even adapted from motorcycles, but those are not criteria for being a motorcycle. They may be grouped together with motorcycles for certain regulatory or other purposes in some locales/jurisdictions, but that does not ipso facto make them motorcycles.

If anyone believes that an auto rickshaw IS a motorcycle, please could you explain why here? Thanks! 110.77.221.89 (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Without reciting the very long list of contradictory definitions of 'motorcycle' -- though I think we might need to recite the list again -- you seem to be saying you want motorcycle to be well-defined. The thing is, it's not. Reality doesn't furnish well-defined subjects, and we have to make do with how they are. It's not that we "believe" auto rickshaws are motorcycles, any more than we must believe that trikes are motorcycles. The world just treats them that way, and so we talk about them. That doesn't mean we can't inform readers about any reputable, expert arguments saying they're not motorcycles. We can tell readers all about why experts disagree over definitions.

In other words, we can cover things under the subject of motorcycles without it having to be an incontrovertible fact that they are motorcycles. Otherwise, we'd have to say the Daimler Reitwagen has 4 wheels, can't lean, and sets the rider's ass on fire each time they ride it. Not a motorcycle, yet many of the best motorcycling minds say it is, so we talk about it and teach the controversy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No, nowhere have I ever said anything about changing any current definition of a motorcycle. I'm simply saying an auto rickshaw is not a motorcycle. If "The world ... treats them that way", shouldn't that be at least mentioned in the auto rickshaw article first? 110.77.221.89 (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You proposed removing a something from Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling for the reason that it's not a motorcycle. I explained why they fall under the topic of motorcycles and motorcycling, because by some definitions, they are motorcycles. Since we don't have one perfect definition of "motorcycle" we work with an inclusive set of overlapping definitions. That's why your proposal to remove it would not work; we'd have to remove trikes, the Reitwagen, who knows what else. And we could never defend your definition, just because some anonymous guy likes it. Wikipedia isn't built that way. We work from what our sources tell us, and in this case the sources don't all agree, so we survey a spectrum of different views. We don't pick one of those views and ignore all the others just because we want a gold star for consistency. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"by some definitions, they are motorcycles" - but which definitions, where? 110.77.221.89 (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this plus this acceptable? 110.77.221.89 (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition of motorcycle

Using the US state of California's legal definition of 'motorcycle' fails several Wikipedia standards, including WP:BIAS, WP:SPADE and WP:COMMONNAME. The article Motorcycle instead follows the lead of most major dictionaries and says the primary definition of a motorcycle is a two-wheeled vehicle, like a bicycle but powered (examples: OED, M-W and Dictionary.com). Secondary definitions of the word then add that three wheeled vehicles are often called motorcycles too. --Dbratland (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's where I started but I changed it to the CHIPs definition because I wanted to reference it. On reflection it probably doesn't matter on an outline? As it fails standards I'll change it back - if anyone can improve it please do so Thruxton (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple threads on definitions at Talk:Motorcycle, the one that seems to be most developed is Talk:Motorcycle#We should add a definition section. Bringing this up again since a new editor seems to want to change it here. — Brianhe (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to change the definition, just fix very obvious problems with how it's being presented - [[Single-track vehicle|single-track, engine-powered]] is obviously an inappropriate pipe, and stating it has to be engine-powered AND that it has to be a motorvehicle is clearly stating the exact same thing twice in a single sentence.
What was/is the problem with this edit: removing unnecessary 'engine-powered'/'motor'vehicle duplication/repetition - ? ~ 110.77.221.89 (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It may not be obvious, but the terms "engine" and "motor" are not interchangeable, at least to some who are very picky esp. about electric motor powered vehicles; and whether or not to include other alternative internal and external combustion sources such as steam power matter a lot when you're talking about the history of motorcycles. We haven't even come to full agreement on three-wheelers, which one of your edits today concerning rickshaws appears not to have considered. In this case I don't agree with you; tilting or non-tilting has never been one of the criteria we consider and, in my jurisdiction at least, non-tilting three wheelers like the Can-Am Spyder are regulated as motorcycles. You probably weren't aware of these considerations, which have all come up multiple times over the last decade or so, at multiple motorcycle-related articles, which is why I asked you to discuss it here. — Brianhe (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying "engine-powered" needs to be included because there's no such thing as an electric motorcycle?
Are you suggesting that an auto rickshaw (regardless of what it is regulated as/with in any given jurisdiction) is a motorcycle? 110.77.221.89 (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Motorcycle#Confusing history has a table that tries to take some of the variables into account just in defining what was the first motorcycle. My personal definition isn't important. There are many plausible points of view and it's premature to just start making absolute statements about it. Let's have a conversation first, probably at Talk:Motorcycle, and try to develop a consensus view. Otherwise it's just going to be one editor's word against another, and I'm here to tell you that it hasn't worked well in the last decade. There's no deadline. — Brianhe (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you opposed to changing "engine-powered motor vehicle" - which means (according to motor vehicle, which is linked in the words in question!) 'engine-powered vehicle powered by an engine or motor' to "motor vehicle"? 110.77.221.89 (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone opposed to "two-wheeled, single track motor vehicle"? If so, please could you explain why (ie reasons other than 'it needs to be discussed first') here. Thanks. 110.77.221.89 (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Please join the discussion at Talk:Motorcycle#We should add a definition section where one influential editor has outright stated "I don't want clarity. I want a bunch of incompatible definitions." — Brianhe (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me re-phrase:
For the purposes of the existing single sentence 'definition' in the lead section of this article, and until such time as consensus is reached elsewhere on broader definitions (which doubtless warrants a dedicated article), is anyone opposed to "two-wheeled, single track motor vehicle" as opposed to "two-wheeled, single track, engine-powered motor vehicle"? And if so, why?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, if it is necessary to include both engine-powered AND motorvehicle, why is that? 110.77.221.89 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes I think the definition over at Motorcycle is better. We should say 2 or 3 wheeled, and we don't need to say engine-powered since we already say motor vehicle. It's still never going to be perfect but that's pretty good and it shows what falls under the topic heading. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I just removed "engine-powered", which is all I was originally trying to do. I didn't change anything else. 110.77.221.89 (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
We should say 2 or 3 wheeled - as a separate (ie easily revertable) edit, I've now appended "Some definitions also include some forms of three-wheelers." (per the ==Description== section), which left the 'primary' definition (and its two references) intact. 110.77.221.89 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Choppers & Bobbers

Both are presently listed in the 'Cruiser' pseudo-section (and not in the 'Custom' pseudo-section). Neither is mentioned in the Cruiser (motorcycle) article. Both are listed in Custom motorcycle#Types of customization. Should this article, or the Cruiser (motorcycle)/Custom motorcycle articles, be amended? There are similar discrepancies with these two elsewhere. I'll leave it to someone familiar with these types to make any changes. 110.77.221.89 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outline_of_motorcycles_and_motorcycling/Archive_1&oldid=1191081895"