Talk:Yamaha XSR900

UJM

Fair enough, Cycle World do indeed state: 'The “universal Japanese motorcycle,” or UJM, was a term used for the slew of bikes released in the 1970s from motorcycle manufacturers that had modern engines, brakes, and suspension and had upright ergonomics'. However, in the early 70s, Cycle World (who, if I recall correctly, themselves invented the term "UJM") gave it a more restricted meaning, namely an air-cooled four-cylinder bike with a disc front brake, twin rear shocks, dual seat and a standard handlebars. It now seems the magazine applies the term more loosely to any Japanese roadster! Arrivisto (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken it was not Cycle world who coined that phrase. But Cycle World did do a whole article on why this bike the XSR900 should be referred to as a UJM. Also there is a article on the XSR700 the smaller displacement version of this bike also calling it a UJM. And also in that review even Yamaha Motor Europe product manager, Shun Miyazawa, calls it a UJM—a universal Japanese motorcycle. These bikes the XSR700 and XSR900 were intended to be retro-styled streetbike that pays tribute to the classic-looking XS650 a UJM. I would like to point out that a UJM is not because of any single part or motor used but because more of the styling and ergonomics, versatility. I would also remind you that you can not remove sourced information for unsourced opinion simply because you disagree with it because of WP:POV and WP:OR rules. I am not completely sure why you insist on naming this bike a roadster that is just another way of saying standard which is already stated used from sourced information saying standard. Even the link you provide is just a link to the page on Types of motorcycles right to the section heading standard and that some times standards are also called naked bikes or roadsters. I am not aware of any source specifically calling this bike is a roadster. I can only assume you are trying to include this word because Motorcycle News the only source you seem to ever use called the MT-09 a roadster in one article. I would also point out that source has made numerous mistakes on numerous occasion to statements and specifications on many different motorcycle reviews on its online site. 72bikers (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not mistaken. But, having thought better of it, I deleted my unanswered comment because I couldn't be bothered responding to the sort of (Personal attack removed) that one has come to expect. Vendetta-like, my edits on the article itself have been instantly reverted, regardless of the fact that the article was significantly improved. I think I now know what it's like to have a stalker. Arrivisto (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

So your response to a civil conversation were I put forth verifiable facts is to offer up more WP:POV and WP:OR and make personal attacks . And again I will point out you are mistaken on who coined the phrase UJM, and here is the proof it was Cook Neilson from Cycle Magazine. I point this out because this sums up your significantly improved called editing style, refusal to accept verifiable fact over your own unsourced opinion. This is the very reason I was in no hurry to address your comments myself, hoping some other editor might address this!72bikers (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Could the following be said about the Yamaha XSR900?

"The Honda CB750, which defines UJMs, was a four cylinder bike with smooth power delivery, but lacking the character which motorcycle enthusiasts held dear."
― Revision as of 01:31, 29 December 2016

This citation is WP:RS-based on http://newatlas.com/honda-vultus-nm4-motorcycle/31522/, as "highly reliable" a source as http://www.cycleworld.com/yamaha-xsr900-is-more-than-meets-eye/, which wants to know:

"The new 2016 Yamaha XSR900 isn’t a standard, retro, café, tracker, or classic. It’s a universal Japanese motorcycle, and it’s awesome."

Should all article references to "standard", "retro", or "neo-retro" be deleted because of this business speech? "Business speech is particularly vulnerable to buzzwords." Docteur Pie (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Should all article references to (buzzwords) be deleted because of this business speech? " Indeed not, but since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it behoves us editors to seek to write as clearly and succinctly and neutrally as possible. Arrivisto (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you are failing to understand what a UJM is. just like that first Honda CB750 that started the UJM trend with its combination of power, performance, and price. I would like to point out that a UJM is not because of any single part or motor used but because that they had modern engines, brakes, and suspension and had upright ergonomics and all for a low price point. The Yamaha SR400 is also referred to a as a UJM and this bike shares none of the same parts as a CB750. There are further sources on recently released motorcycles calling them UJM, but feel I have more than enough proved my point that is based on highly reliable source. As apposed to this buzzword argument that is not based on any Wiki rules, and your groundless point of view opinions contrary to Wiki rules WP:NPOV and WP:OR. 72bikers (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If the "sourced information from a highly reliable source" is right, according to which "[t]he new 2016 Yamaha XSR900 isn’t a standard, retro, café, tracker, or classic. It’s a universal Japanese motorcycle, and it’s awesome", why don't you replace all article references to "standard", "retro", or "neo-retro" by the buzzword "Universal Japanese Motorcycle"? ― Note: For your alteration of others' comments with tags like and confer Yamaha XSR900 § References #3 and WP:TPNO § Behavior that is unacceptable: "do not alter others' comments." Also recommended is WP:ABF § Examples: "[t]hat editor is a […] sockpuppet." Docteur Pie (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Docteur Pie there was no alteration of your comment, those tags are used under Wiki rules and they only ask for clarification. Of which you still have failed to provide what your argument even is. Your link that state this was inappropriate was neither appropriate or even mention anything remotely close to what was done. Your action here as well as your edits in other places appear to just pile onto others disagreement with me. You seem like you are more interested in arguing with me than actually editing, and as such could be construed as disruptive editing as to WP:DE. I would advise you that disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely. From your very few edits and relatively new account one would assume you are new to Wiki. But your edit tells that you know your way around Wikipedia somewhat, and from your adversarial editing one would think you are a editor that has crossed my path before, and now have some sort of grudge towards me. If this is true I would advise you also that WP:SOCK accounts will also get you blocked or banned indefinitely. 72bikers (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@72bikers: I made a request on WP:3 § Active disagreements. Docteur Pie (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Engine Data in "Background" Section

In the background section of this article we currently have written states... "The engine has a claimed power output of 115.00 HP". I have done a brief search but came up blank. Has anyone else come across Dyno run data for this bike (needs to be a stock run) from a reputable source? It would be nice to restructure the sentence so that the the word 'claimed' can be removed or it can be supported by outside source. --O1dm0n (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I found a couple images for dyno runs on this bike that bare out (or nearly do) the HP output numbers but I can't find any data on whether those are done stock or with Aftermarket equipment on them. I'll just leave this be for now. It is accurate as stated. --O1dm0n (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The claimed HP number is supported from a reliable source Cycle World it is the same as the manufactures claimed number. As the manufacture is really the only one in a position to accurately get a crank HP number this is generally the accepted fact. A claimed number is always from the crank versus a rear wheel number obviously gotten from on a dyno and taken from the rear tire. Because of mechanical HP loss from the drivetrain, between the crank and rear tire this number is always a slightly different number, the amount depending on the design used. The motor is the same exact one from the MT-09/FZ-09 and on that article page I have included dyno numbers that were given in a 2016 review from Cycle World and they got (104.5 hp)@ 9,940 rpm at the rear wheel, so that would be a accurate number for this bike as well, I will look around and see if I can find rear wheel number for this specific model, if not out there now should be in the near future.72bikers (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.72bikers (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Model Updates Discussion

72bikers - I noticed that in this section there is a sentence that reads: ...announced the XSR900 Abarth,[13] a limited-edition... In that sentence you have bolded the words "XSR900 Abarth" Just wondering why Q:Is this a style guide thing? It looks fine but It stood out and I figured you probably had some sensible reasoning behind creating it that way. *(I think it was your add...?) Ignore if so. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.225.87 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not the editor that made that contribution, but if you look at the lead statement it was also done there to signify the model name. On Wikipedia, the names of an article's subject are written in bold when they are first mentioned in the article. It is only used once in this fashion and is just meant to emphasize and bring to the attention of the reader. 72bikers (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Neo-retro"

Although Cycle World refers to the bike as the "neo-retro-inspired XSR900", perhaps the term "neo-retro" should be avoided as an absurd new coinage. The prefix "neo-" simply means "new" (as in neo-Nazi); "retro" means "imitative of a style or fashion from the recent past". So, why not just "retro"? Arrivisto (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is more than just Cycle World who use this term, Sport Rider also. And there is more sources even the manufacturer, but I felt that two was sufficient as these are very reliable sources. This seems to be a simple matter of you personally disagreeing with this term, just your opinion WP:OR Wiki has rules for this. And shame on you for trying to liken this term to (as in neo-Nazi)!! 72bikers (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Article layout

On 15:12, 10 December 2016 I revised the page layout to have three paragraphs, namely "Lead", "Model development" and "Reception". It seemed that this was more logical, less journalistic, and more in keeping with WP norms and standards. My edit was immediately reverted to the previous structure, namely "Lead", "Background" & "Model Updates". That reversion seems a retrograde step, and perhaps a return to the revised structure might improve the page. Is there a consensus either way? Arrivisto (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To keep track of comprehensive edits, a step-by-step approach will be helpful.

Please, raise your objections. Docteur Pie (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Misleading counterfeit template

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72bikers (talk • contribs) Docteur Pie (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your adversarial disruptive editing WP:DE. You clearly do not understand wiki rules and policies, your counterfeit template is illogical. Please remove your misleading counterfeit template. cheers 72bikers (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)