Talk:Bike shop

Article Worthy?
Is this really worthy of being an article? I am a big supporter of the local bike shop, but Wikipedia dosn't have articles on local pizza place, local bank, local pet store, etc. DCwom 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the National Bicycle Dealers Association, in 2007 there were approximately 4,400 "specialty bicycle retailers" in the US alone. Although they sold only 17% of the bikes, they collected 49% of the dollars. In 2004, the average specialty bicycle retailer had gross sales of $550,000 per year. What other articles exist or not is irrelevant. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The wording "local" bike shop seems to be mostly used amongst some cyclists circles. Does anybody know the origin of this? I don't know anybody who says "local bike shop" rather than "bike shop" unless maybe they refer to a shop in a particular town. Any shop that is not "virtual" is "local" somewhere. As such, image captions like "a local bike shop" is very weird. The shop in this picture is not in my town. This article describes a "bike shop", the attribute "local" is superfluous, if not silly. The wording in this article should be changed to "bike shop" and the redirection from "local bike shop" should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8300:67A0:844:7683:17D6:2AFB (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Competitors
"Second to the mass merchant online stores, road shops face local online retailers like We Keep You Cycling, LickBike, Bike Tires Direct and others. Finally, adding more to the mix are the overseas retailers. All of this makes the industry, highly competitive in nature."


 * 1. The first paragraph lists mass merchants and on-line vendors, so this would be the third type of competitor.
 * 2. What is a "road shop"?
 * 3. What is a "local online retailer"? Local to what? The three given are in three different states?
 * 4. "www.biketiredirect.com" is the URL of a search page.
 * 5. Is there an example of an "overseas retailer"?

I could have just fixed 1 and 4, but I don't know how to handle 2, 3, and 5, so I brought it all here for discussion. -AndrewDressel 17:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I think your changes are a definite improvement. Not only is it more concise (avoiding a laundry list of bike-related vendors) but you clearly categorize the kinds of businesses that sell bike stuff better.  I wouldn't worry about the other categories, which don't make any sense to me.  I don't know of too many people who buy bike parts from overseas, at least in the U.S., and I have no idea what a "road shop" is.  The one thing I would add is a mention of the fact that many prominent brands (e.g. Trek) only allow their bicycles to be sold by brick-and-mortar dealers. M OXFYRE  ( contrib ) 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The exclusive dealer-manufacturer relationship is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead section. It uses Serotta as the example and references their web site which states "Serotta bicycles are sold only at professional dealerships." Trek would be murkier because of their new Trek retails stores, mentioned in the last paragraph of the Competitors section. -AndrewDressel 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I'd missed that. I'd be tempted to mention Trek in that sentence too, since they're a much more well-known brand for most people, but I guess those new retail stores complicate things.  Hmmm.  M OXFYRE  ( contrib ) 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Photo
I removed the photo, it was not a bike shop, it was a local antique/junk/collectibles/thrift store that just happened to have a few old bikes for sale out front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.147.149 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced, original research
Any more? The article has nearly one reference per sentence. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "How many references per sentence" an article has is not the relevant metric for measuring whether it has enough. When an articles makes statements, they are either conjecture, original research or verifiable.  Wikipedia requires the latter.  How then, for example, is a reader supposed to verify a statement like this:


 * Shops may also specialize on one or more aspects of cycling: bicycle racing, triathloning, bicycle touring, BMX, mountain biking, etc. Similarly, shops may carry a diverse range of bicycles, from single-seat upright bikes, to more specialized types such as tandem bicycles, recumbent bicycles, folding bicycles. Many shops also carry related items such as unicycles and skateboards. 842U (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AndrewDressel, the "references" you are adding are not verifiable sources to support the contentions of the article, rather they are anecdotal connections to websites of establishments that apparently sell an item in question. This is not the same as finding a verifiable resource from a noteworthy, reputable source that will verify the original contention. 842U (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, WP:Cite does not require every statement to be sourced. Rather, it says that "citation is only required as specified in the following list of circumstances" and then the only relevant circumstance is "when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Are you challenging the statement?


 * Second, the "statement" in question currently reads that "shops may also specialize on one or more aspects of cycling" and then merely gives examples of what shops may specialize in. "May" is not a weasle word in this case, but instead reflects that a shop is free to specialize or not. Some do and some do not. This is common knowledge to anyone that visits bike shops. What "contentions" do you mean?


 * Third, links to web pages that demonstrate that bike shops do in fact specialize in the areas given as examples should be perfectly valid references. This is not an exceptional claim that requires high-quality sources. I would prefer to cite an article that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal that describes what bike shops specialize in, but I cannot find one and I doubt one exists. Per WP:RS, self-published sources may be used. Sheldon Brown, probably the most cited source in all the cycling technology related articles, is self published. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also don't really understand what the problem is, while not all the references are from the ideal sources, it's far from a contraversal article, and I think there are far more important things to do than search for references for this article. --Keithonearth (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"I think there are far more important things to do than search for references for this article"... Then what are you stopping to write here then? On the contrary, what Wikipedia is about is verifiability... not original research. Each of us could write our own viewpoint... that's not what the encyclopedia is about. Furthermore, if the paragraph isn't worth editing and providing references for... that's a sure sign it's not worthy of inclusion to begin with. 842U (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you do not answer my questions, but instead continue to make the insinuation that the article contains "original reseach" and now "point of view".


 * 1) Is there a statement that you challenge now? I do not see any that are likely to be challanged. Those are the only two applicable circumstances requiring references that WP:Cite lists.
 * 2) Is there some view point or bias that you wish to challenge under WP:NPOV?
 * 3) No one that I know of has said any paragraph in this article isn't worth editing. Rather anyone that has worked constructively on the article has the right to wonder what your specific complaint is. We find "this article seems to have a lot of unreferenced, original research" unhelpful. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The original paragraph was 100% original research. Because you've linked to bike shops that sell unicycles, etc. does not validate the premise of the paragraph, nor does it meet Wiki standards. Like much of the article, this paragraph remains on thin ice.842U (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because the author did not expect a statement to be challenged and so did not bother to provide a reference, per WP:Cite, does not make it original research. It is not an extraordinary claim, and so does not require extraordinary proof. Self published sources, while not ideal, are perfectly valid, according to the Wiki standards I've cited above, in cases where there is no reason to doubt them. In many cases, where the obvious is being stated, they are the only source available, and just because it is obvious to anyone familiar with the topic does not mean that it is not of interest to someone unfamiliar to the topic. Do you doubt that the cited source does in fact sell unicycles from their bike shop? Do you have some other Wiki standards? Do you challenge the 'premise of the paragraph'? If you do not, then it doesn't even need a source, as has been explained repeatedly above, and perfectly meets the standards of Wikipedia.


 * You continue to make vague accusations that are trivially answered and insinuations that do not deserve an answer, such as "much of the article...remains on thin ice", whatever that means. When asked for details you fail to provide them. Unless you can come up with something concrete, I consider this matter closed. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Local bike shop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213051839/http://www.bicycling.com:80/article/0,6610,s-5-33-12126-1,00.html to http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s-5-33-12126-1,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061024115929/http://www.crankdaddys.com/training.html to http://www.crankdaddys.com/training.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Local bike shop. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.act-bicycles.com/cgi-bin/ACT/ACTcgi.pl?pg=50
 * Added tag to http://bethelcycle.com/page.cfm?PageID=183
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123144619/http://tandemcycleworks.com:80/our_shop.html to http://www.tandemcycleworks.com/our_shop.html

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) 03:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)