Talk:BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident

General Edits
28-AUG-2006: I made some small but significant edits to this page. The entire page really needs a good cleanup - there is too much that is either inaccurate or pure conjecture (not to mention numerous spelling mistakes). -Kim

It looks like some folk are not being particularly helpful with their edits. Let's see if we can get along and be a little more constructive. Kim Rowden 16:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

@Biker Biker : the guidelines for external links allow reference to a resource such as Triples Online. In fact, if they don't then the link to Ian Chadwick's page should also be removed - his page is far more of a personal project than Triples Online. The guidelines do not ban links to a site containing a Forum - they do suggest that a site that hosts Forums (Yahoo, Google etc) is "normally to be avoided". Triples Online meets none of the restrictions that Wikipedia lists for links that should be normally avoided. It is not a fansite, it does not contain unverifiable information, it does not contain malware, it is not a blog, it is not a personal page. It is a reference resource. Kim Rowden 16:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it is a forum/fansite. Besides that however, it doesn't belong for other reasons too. Look at the very first of the criteria at WP:ELNO which states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". It clearly fails that. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide so that makes all the how-to info on the site irrelevant. The information on individual bikes is no better than what is on Wikipedia already and in some cases is far inferior. Also, some of the information hosted on the site includes scanned brochures, which are covered by copyright and therefore excludes the site from being linked to on Wikipedia (see WP:ELNEVER). --Biker Biker (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking your forum/fansite viewpoint would mean taking out half the links on Wikipedia! The guidelines only talk about forum sites that host forums - if you don't understand this concept then there is no point discussing this further, I will happily raise it as a formal issue with Wikipedia. As to being unique... Wikipedia will never have access to the factory records - so that makes Triples Online instantly unique. Come on. As to copyright: again, you are completely mistaken. There is no copyright on the brochures - they are in the public domain. The new owners of the Triumph and the BSA names did not take on the copyright for printed material when they bought out the old assets from NVT etc. I have had ongoing discussion with both of the new owners - where do you get your information? Please, let's focus on fact and not on second-hand hearsay.

I posted the first comment to this discussion/talk page back in 2006. I simply created a formal section heading for it. Kim Rowden 17:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Other stuff exists" is not really a reason to keep your link. In fact I now realise that Triples Online is run by Kim Rowden. Unfortunately WP:COI means that you shouldn't be posting the link here. You can certainly argue for it to be kept, but you must not add it to the encyclopaedia. So, coming back to the other stuff - I certainly do believe that a lot more links should be removed from Wikipedia and whenever I come across glaringly bad ones I do remove them. Other editors also remove links and slowly but surely we are purging the collection of motorcycle articles on Wikipedia of unsuitable links. If you see links you think don't belong then please join the cleanup effort and help us get rid of them. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK - so you clearly have little to no objectivity here. I respond to each of your unverifiable claims with fact and you pick another topic to argue about. Why do you put "Other stuff exists" in quotes? - I never used that term and nor has anyone else on this discussion page. This isn't a productive use of time and leaves inaccurate statements on Wikipedia - which already suffers from a bad name in many circles. I'll certainly consider your comments and maybe I'll come back with an official DR submission. Kim Rowden (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please attempt a modicum of civility, Kim Rowden. External links to fansites are not acceptable on Wikipedia; they are more suitable for DMOZ. tedder (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey - I'm not a professional Wikipedia editor (I'm amazed how quickly I got sucked into this rat hole) but I can see from your history that you're proud to have been accused of being a sockpuppet. What should one think? It looks like I'm wasting my time here... clearly to have one link kept and the other removed is pure idiocy. My objective was/is to have clear and factual data on the Classic British Triples page on Wikipedia - I have no interest in the rest of the site. From both of your public personas neither of you two seem to be Triple enthusiasts and both seem to have to hide behind pseudonyms. That's a shame. Kim Rowden (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, focus on the content, not the contributor. Lashing out about editors is pointless and against Wikipedia policy. It's also generally an unproductive way to move forward. tedder (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would remove the Ian Chadwick link except for the fact that Mr. Chadwick is recognized as an expert on the subject. Whereas a club/forum site is a collection of opinions and anecdotes from individuals who are either anonymous or not noted as experts.Others reading this have in fact heard of "other stuff exists". There's a whole page on it: Other stuff exists. If one's goal is to make Wikipedia better, then by all means, go and delete any links you find which violate the guidelines on external links. If an editor's only goal is to advertise his concern, the usual experience is a poor one. Nothing gets advertised and the editor goes away mad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, this has become very silly... if you really are interested in helping other people learn about Triples then show me a website (other than perhaps the TR3OC website) that has more Triple content than Triples Online. You guys have no clue, you are unknowns in the Triple community and and you do the general public a dis-service. Oh...and Dennis, I think you have to provide a reference/citation when you make a claims from the hip: "Mr. Chadwick is recognized as an expert on the subject" - no offence to Ian, but not in Triple circles he isn't. And to boot (again, no offence to Ian) his website is CLEARLY a personal website, it has a forum, it even has a blog! And as for your personal page - isn't the brief paragraph an entire COI? Very sad guys.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Rowden (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One example of a citation of Chadwick from Google Scholar: . Another mention at the Nashua, NH Telegraph: . Ianchadwick.com does appear to be a unique resource by a recognized expert. Although it's important to remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of links and keeping that link to ianchadwick.com isn't vital; the article can certainly live without it. What the article really needs are inline citations to quality sources. Appropriate external links are sometimes nice, but not the main point.And if triplesonline.com really is such an important site for the Rocket 3/Trident, then anybody with a computer is very likely to find it on their own. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, what actually is the purpose of advertising it? The site ranks highly at Google. Wikipedia is not suppressing vital knowledge by not linking to triplesonline.com. But going by Wikipedia's standards -- WP:RS and WP:ELNO, Triples Online doesn't meet the criteria. There are many paths to knowledge: finding anecdotes and personal experiences at club and forum sites can be valuable and you have to respect readers enough to believe they know how to find and read sites like that. But Wikipedia is a different path to knowledge: it's an encyclopedia that gives you summaries of what recognized authorizes say. It's a relatively conservative approach but that's what an encyclopedia is. Wikipedia doesn't not attack web sites that offer other paths to knowledge; Wikipedia does not censor these things from the world. How could it? Wikipedia does what Wikipedia does and your site is fine, the same as it ever was. Not harmed at all. But Wikipedia does not owe you or your site anything. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank Dennis - that's a much better approach. Your Chadwick citations are a dead end - neither of them is current or useful. Searching Google News for 'Ian' 'Chadwick' and 'motorcycles' gives anything but what I think you were looking for. I can't comment on Ian Chadwick's personal accomplishments, other than I do know that he is not well known in Triple circles. I have never asked for anything from Wikipedia (except perhaps for openness) and there has been plenty of censorship - even my own discussion notes have been removed. You need to keep an open mind and perhaps see things from a broader perspective. I am quite happy with Triple Online's place in the world and I have no need to promote it through Wikipedia. However, I was (and always have been) struck by the inaccuracy of much of the data in this article (obviously I can't comment on the rest of Wikipedia). I was simply trying to a) clean up a lot of hearsay and b) give visitors another reference source if they wanted to learn more. The outcome is that the false and misleading information is still perpetuated and the external links are blocked. That really doesn't make sense to anyone. Kim Rowden (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably thinking that references must be online to be cited. Offline references are perfectly acceptable. See WP:RS. I assume the question of adding triplesonline.com is closed then? Unless you have an independent citation, you're just here to try to remove the link to Ian Chadwicks site? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(for those reading at home: Biker Biker removed a comment I had made. Check the History for this section) And I didn't make the claim about being uncivil or "lashing out" or calling someone a "troll" - you really can't go editing and removing stuff that has become part of the discussion. And why don't you respond to my questions about the Chadwick link? Kim Rowden (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, let's all settle down. Sorry for the hassle, Kim. My name's Borjan. I apologize for the pseudonym I edit under, but it's a bit of a self-styled flair to use on Wikipedia.
 * I think we're having a bit of misunderstanding here. Mainly, a lot of the discussion seems to be oriented about the actions of other editors, not the content of the page itself. Mind if I get a summary of events, Kim? Likewise from Biker Biker. I'd just like to see if we can get a discourse going and figure things out civilly. Everyone's cooperation and input is appreciated. m.o.p  20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks M.O.P. The summary of the two issues are very simple. A series of IP editors reinstated the triples website several times to the article calling its removal "vandalism". Then today Kim Rowden - the owner of the website - reinstated it once more. So issue number 1 is that there is a clear conflict of interest in a website owner repeatedly adding his website to Wikipedia. Issue number 2 is that the website clearly fails WP:ELNO as it adds little or no value to Wikipedia. Once you cut through all the personal attacks it is that simple - the COI promotion of an unwelcome link. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any clear evidence of the IP editors being related to the user's account? m.o.p  21:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing more than a good old WP:DUCK suspicion. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Borjan, I'm totally unimpressed with the process thus far so please forgive any trace of cynicism. I think all the comments can be distilled down to this: The others involved seem to think that Ian Chadwick's site should be allowed as an external link. I believe that Triples Online is a far more useful and complete supporting resource for the article in question. The Chadwick site is self-proclaimed to be personal, has a blog, has a forum, is not directly focused on classic British Triples (ie: the focus of this article in question), and the author is not an expert on the aforementioned Triples. If that site and its setting do not infringe on Wikipedia's external link policy then Triples Online should be welcomed by Wikipedia with open arms for this article as it is not a personal site, does not have a blog and is renowned for the accuracy and honesty of the information found there.  I'm tired of having to provide answers to anonymous people who continually shift the point of their complaint.  If the only sticking point that the 'others' cannot bear is that I am the one posting the link, then would I be right in assuming that any other member of the general public can post it?  Please confirm. Kim Rowden (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I cited two independent sources that say Ian Chadwick is an authority. Would you please provide an independent, published source that supports your claim about Triples Online? Bragging about your own expertise or the importance of your web site is immaterial. Where is your independent evidence? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my response above... and please let's drop the insults Kim Rowden (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Civility doesn't prevent editors from calling bragging bragging. Do you or don't you have independent sources to back up your claims? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dennis does raise a valid point, albeit a bit harshly. Given the open nature of Wikipedia, a certain measure of verifiability needs to be present in everything, even external links. While your point about your website being more focused is valid, it doesn't stand too well if the website's authenticity isn't verifiable through third-party sources.
 * As for conflict of interest, it isn't a deal-breaker, but I think the other editors saw your association coupled with the advertisements on the site as an attempt to market your 'product' as it were. Of course, I'm assuming good faith and trust that you only seek to improve the breadth of information we offer - unfortunately, my trust alone can't resolve the issues pointed out above regarding verifiability. m.o.p  00:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * MOP- in my mind, conflict of interest isn't the biggest issue, it's adhering to the External Links guideline. In other words, there's a strong consensus that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm and nonauthoritative websites are strongly discouraged. Arguing on terms of COI is simply a red herring; no matter who was adding the link, it's the link that isn't welcome, not the contributor who added the link.
 * The WP:EL guideline is certainly one that frustrates new contributors who have a website or blog of their own. It's a larger discussion, not something that should be argued here. Two places where it's probably come up several times are WT:EL and WP:VPP. Kim is welcome to do so. tedder (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For sure, and that's definitely a valid point. I was just attempting to tell Kim the exact reason behind our tenacity when handling external links - while our EL policy is certainly thorough, I feel it's a bit terse to just throw in a mention to it and be done with things as was done previously. In this context, the reason an external link may not be appropriate is due to the verifiability issue (on top of the conflict of interest and reliable sourcing). m.o.p  01:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of machines produced
As a member of the TR3OC and the Triumph Owners Club UK, I nor either of the secretaries/historians have ever heard of a possible number of greater than 30,000 models being produced. I am very sure on the records being poor, as my own Trident T150V was supposed to be (according to the official factory records) shipped to Sweden - where as, it ended up in South London! Interesting series of correspondence between myself and the Triumph Owners club historian, who took copies of all my machines original paper work. Who ever dabbed in 33,330 needs their head examined and to stop listening to their mates down the pub, and remember the numbers need back-up - particularly on Wiki as an encyclopaedia! Rgds, - Trident13 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not badge engineering
Having a different frame and different engine positioning is not badge engineering. Respectfully, SamBlob 10:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * same basis for the engine but both built by BSA, assembly at one site, sold under different names - sounds like badge engineering. compare with Wolesley Hornet/Riley Elf/BMC Mini. GraemeLeggett 11:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Badge engineering is the same car wearing different badges. The Hornet and Elf were badge-engineered versions of each other, but not of the Mini with which they shared the platform.  There was never a Morris Mini, BMC Mini, Austin Mini, or Rover Mini with a long boot like the Hornet or the Elf.  Similarly, if the Rocket 3 had a different frame from the Trident, then it's not simply badge engineering. Respectfully, SamBlob 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mini Countryman and Traveller estates, the pickup and vans were a bit different from the saloon Mini; I don't see the boot argument stacking up.GraemeLeggett 09:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Badge engineering is when the badge and a few minor exterior panels are changed between cars. Platform sharing is when a platform is used as a basis for a different car. Grafting a boot on is a structural change and is rather more involved than a different grille and badge.
 * The other versions you talk about are also different cars from the basic Mini. If any of them had been given exclusively to another division, e.g. if the Traveller had been given to Wolseley exclusively or the panel van had been given to Morris Commercial exclusively, then that would not have been badge engineering but platform sharing. Respectfully, SamBlob 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New Category for British Motorcycles
As part of the Motorcycling WikiProject I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes. To make things easier to sort out I have created a category for British motorcycles. Please will you add to any British motorcycle pages you find or create. It will also help to keep things organised if you use the Template:Infobox Motorcycle or add it where it is missing. I've linked the Category to the Commons British Motorcycles so you could help with matching pics to articles or adding the missing images to the Commons - take your camera next time you go to a rally! Thanks Tony (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, this and other articles should be categorized according to the guidelines in Categorization. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First "true" superbike?
First of all, "true" superbike is pure POV. The word "true" in any Wikipedia article merely conveys how strident a Wikipedia editor was in their opinion, and should be removed unless it can be specifically attributed to a reputable source. And it would help if the source can tell us where they're getting their definition of a "true" superbike.

A majority of sources credit the Honda CB750 as the vanguard of the 'superbike era'. It is a verifiable fact that the Rocket/Trident debuted 3 months before the CB750, but then the CB750 wasn't the very first bike to offer high performance. The reason a "new era" was recognized was because the Honda was the whole package: affordable, reliable, practical, well rounded. The Rocket/Trident had the performance, but was also flawed in many ways. And a majority of sources say so:

Margie Siegal's opinion was that the Rocket 3/Trident "…was, in fact, the first Superbike of the Sixties". We should definitely quote this minority opinion, but we should give more weight to the majority of opinion, and explain why they take that position. WP:UNDUE helps clarify the Wikipedia policy here.Hopefully readers new to the subject will understand both arguments and learn something about motorcycle history and culture in the story of why this bike was overshadowed by the CB750, rather than merely being given dogma as to what was the first "true" superbike. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to settle disputes once and for all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Calling the machines technically advanced, and describing them on a level with the CB750 is highly contestable, especially as the article then goes on (correctly) to describe them as being essentially a 3 cylinder version of the 5TA. First superbike is of course a very debatable concept, after all there were Vincents in the 50s and Brough Superiors in the 30s which were certainly the equivalnt in their era. As someone who worked in the bike trade in the late 70s I would never have dreamed of describing the OHV, vertically split crankcase, less than oil tight triples as being technically advanced. I suppose at least they didn't have separate gearboxes... 212.159.44.170 (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Mystery bike
The lead photo (T160 Triumph Trident 750cc motorcycle.jpg) of the yellow/white T160 has an OHC Triumph twin in the background. Presumably it is a prototype; can anyone identify it? Arrivisto (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Appears to be a modern Kawasaki W650 with false spark plug caps. A local dealer has one with a BSA tank. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   19:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602063131/http://mallorypark.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=88 to http://www.mallorypark.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=88

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Rocket 3 & T160
Does anyone know when the last Rocket 3 was made? Was it phased out like the T150V, just before the T160? And did the forward-slant engine of the T160 use any of the Rocket 3's crankcase components? Arrivisto (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's severely lacking that this co-named article doesn't show prominently, early-on, both in prose and imagery, that BSAs were fundamentally different - frame, crankcases and exhausts at least; I don't think we should have two images of the 'Ogle' appearance both taken from the same side with the ray guns and disc brake(s) (twin Lockheed conversion). I don't have much early 70s in the house, but I assume BSAs were discontinued and Craig's bike used the surplus 'cases? I wont be around WP for long (just some stuff to clear up) and dont want to research it or submit any prose, but I'll add it to me list....... Thanks for your continued efforts.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Not moved. See general agreement not to rename this article. While the forward slash or solidus can be somewhat vague in some cases, any vagueness is clarified in this article. In years past the slash was used in mainspace just as it is in other namespaces, in general for subpages. This is now not the case for mainspace, which no longer uses subpages, so there is no longer a technical issue in mainspace article titles with the solidus as there is in the titles of other-namespace pages. So with no clarity or technical issue to force a rename, the consensus seen in this debate appears to arrive at a viable conclusion. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  19:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident → BSA Rocket 3 – Triumph Trident – WP:SLASH slashes are to be avoided in mainspace. WP:SUBPAGE this should not appear like a subpage. -- 67.70.33.54 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not simply BSA Rocket 3 (which is now a redirect)? Richard 07:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would work. I went with the simplest option of replacing the slash itself. I would support the simpler "BSA Rocket 3" as another title that complies with WP:SLASH, and also conforming to WP:CONCISE (unlike the current title, which is too long) -- 67.70.33.54 (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing prevents the articles about things that acutally called names with slashes in them from having slashes in their titles. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is is stated that this is officially named with a slash? The article does not say that. So it contravenes WP:SLASH -- 67.70.33.54 (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this change solves the problem that we don't know the relationship between the two things. BSA Rocket 3 – Triumph Trident doesn't tell us if there's one bike, named the "BSA Rocket 3 – Triumph Trident", or if there was one bike and it was called either "BSA Rocket 3" or "Triumph Trident", or if there were two bikes, the "BSA Rocket 3" and the "Triumph Trident", and both are covered under one article. If we do want a new title that clarifies this, at least partially, it should be BSA Rocket 3 and Triumph Trident. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Although the bikes are closely linked would it be possible to split the article? I think by covering both some detail is being lost for both bikes and the focus wanders. I have Bert Hopwood's book which is full of detail. Not in favour of moving at the moment, to me the slash is logical and I don't agree with the MOS guideline, it's common to see slashes used for similar or closely related items eg Ford Galaxy/Seat Alhambra/VW Sharan. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  09:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the specific proposal, but I can see how the slash is not ideal. Dennis Bratland's idea is good, I think. I don't feel there is any need for two articles, as the two were essentially the same bike with minor differences. Omnedon (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We have Toyota 86 instead of Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ and Ford Pinto instead of Ford Pinto/Mercury Bobcat, and there are many other examples of vehicle articles with titles based upon one marque even though they were sold under several. In this case it looks like the bike was developed by Trident and rebadged for BSA, so I would suggest a move to Triumph Trident [striking, see below]. However, BSA Rocket 3 alone also seems acceptable per User:Richardw. Dekimasu よ! 00:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's incorrect. It's not merely rebadged. Mainly, the frame is different. The idea that the Triumph is the better known, best sold version is a USA-centric view. Globally, there's no objective winner, or primary topic, here. That's why we have had this article title the way it is to begin with. It's a pretty good case study in a dual-name product that should be covered in one article, and neither is the "true" version, nor the "badge engineered" version. They're both legit. We have two different bikes, two different marques, two different names, but one Wikipedia topic.And the article Triumph Trident is about a completely different bike, completely different marque (also called Triumph, because of course it is), made much later, since 1990 with no BSA connection. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't basing my comment on which was better-known or best-sold, but on an earlier version of the article that attributed development to the Trident side. I did neglect to check the target I'd advocated for, which as you noted is occupied, implying that User:Richardw's suggestion to move to BSA Rocket 3 may be better after all. If there's really one Wikipedia topic, I still think a single title is preferable. Dekimasu よ! 05:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation is not a problem if it comes to splitting, BSA Rocket 3 already exists as a redirect, Triumph T150 Trident and Triumph T160 Trident are free to use. I really do think there are enough differences between the bikes technically and historically that a split would work and benefit the subjects. Clever linking between the two types could highlight the differences. I have volunteered to do it but still apathy or unwillingness to progress seems to rule. In the aircraft project we have separate articles for type variants that are nothing more than a name change but do have distinctly different history. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We have no guidelines saying we write one article per product. Many products get no articles, even cars and motorcycles. Other products that *could* in theory have separate articles are handled under one article because that makes the most sense editorially. This topic is best handled in one article: you can't talk about the Rocket 3 without also talking about the Trident. The topic is the Triumph Trident and the BSA Rocket 3. The only reason any of this is a problem is that it's a headache for editors. Article structure and naming convention makes this topic a headache, and to fix it, we're trying to shoehorn reality to fix Wikipedia's structure.We should put Wikipedia's need to be neat and orderly second, and make reality the first priority, even if that means a slightly awkward article title. The subject is unusual. We could change the dash to an and, or some other typographical convention, but there should only be one article, and the title should not pretend only one of thees two models is the primary topic. They are both the primary topic. I'm happy to accept that there is no good solution here. It happens. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Mooney M20 article is about a whole series of airplanes. Yes, they're all made by Mooney, and they're all designated the M20, but the line spans from the early 1950s to the present, and depending on how you look at it, it's not even the same company any more. Al Mooney who founded the company left in the '50s, it went bankrupt several times, and it's now Chinese-owned. I realize it's not the same situation as with this article; but the point is, one article describes a whole series of products over decades, because they share a common basic designation. And that makes sense. The Rocket 3 and the Trident are not identical, but they use the same design with minor changes and they share the same origin. One article is the right choice here too. Two articles would result in a lot of duplication. Let's just get rid of the slash in the title. Omnedon (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.