Talk:Ducati/Archive 1

Links
Whoever the anonymous user (81.86.109.12) who keeps changing the order of the external links is, please stop. I reported the vandalism to your ISP (Pipex) - Izaakb 18:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Development of the Article
I plan to add additional info regarding the history of the company, other products they have made, and info on the designers of Ducati bikes. I may add some additional info on model types and better details on the generations on types Izaakb 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add the following sections/infos:


 * Company History by era (Ducati brothers, Government, Cagiva, TPG, current)
 * The Berlin brothers
 * Subsections for the race categories (?)

anyone else have some good ideas? Izaakb 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just edited the page on the Ducati Paso - you might want to review and nick some of it for this page? Rgds, --Trident13 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pics not working?
Can't figure out what's up with the pics. Wiki not working? Izaakb 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seem fine to me - --Trident13 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Models
I have added a models section - it's presently a very unexhaustive list! Any help appreciated. Rgds, --Trident13 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How extensive are you thinking of going? I think maintaining a full lineup may be too much work.  Perhaps a general lineup with notable bikes showcased?  That's what I was going for.  --Izaakb 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cagiva, TPG, Ducati and correct name
The TPG purchase of Ducati from Cagiva was initially a joint venture, with TPG buying 51% of Cagiva's holdings. (New York Times, Oct 1, 1996) Cagiva later wanted to get out of any ownership of Ducati (competing with their own marque) and sold the rest of its holdings to TPG in 1998 (Mergerstat M & A Database, 9/6/2003, Ducati Motor Holding SpA)

As of July, 1998, TPG was the sole stockholder (100%) of Ducati's outstanding shares.

From Mergerstat: (Deal Description: Texas Pacific Group and Deutsche Morgan Grenfell acquired the remaining 49% of Ducati Motor SpA from Claudio and Gianfranco Castiglioni for an undisclosed amount. Texas Pacific Group and its partners had acquired 51% of Ducati in September 1996. Ducati will continue to operate under the direction of its Italian management team and will remain based in Bologna, Italy. Ducati had sales of ITL386.3 billion (US$ 218.3 million) in 1997, representing an 86% increase over revenues of ITL207.2 billion (US$117.1 million) in 1996. Percent Owned Before: 51.000% Percent Sought: 49.000%)

There was some discussion of a joint-venture between TPG and Cagiva but it did not come to fruition. Cagiva was apparently very reluctant to sell Ducati. (Ducati & Texas Pacific Group: A "Wild Ride" Leveraged Buyout, Harvard Business Publications, Feb 2, 2001) Cagiva was so indecisive that TPG nearly walked away from the deal after negotiation for over a year.

When Ducati (DMH) was floated in a public offering (March 1999), TPG sold off part of their holdings and remained with approximately 30% of outstanding stock. (Hoover's IPO Reports, March 19, 1999)

TPG's sale to Investindustrial was TPG's "30% holding minus one share." Mergerstat M & A Database, 3/3/2006, Ducati SpA 

Ducati's "official" name as of their IPO is Ducati Motor Holding S.p.A. (Hoover's IPO Reports, March 19, 1999)

The current CEO of Ducati, Federico Minoli, was originally appointed to the board by TPG and later elected to be CEO. He no longer has an affiliation with TPG, having returned to Ducati "out of love" (Ducati: a success story in red, Credit-Suisse EMagazine, Sept 8, 2004)

-Izaakb 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Galuzzi article
I heard that Miguel Angel Galuzzi saved ducati with his monster design. I think he deserves a section on the "Ducati Motor Holding" article or a full article.

Also the text below all photos should say the year that the bike is.

Licurgo 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know that Galuzzi needs a whole section in this article, but certainly honorable mention. Galuzzi has quite a bit of success, maybe a whole separate article for him.  I know of three successful bikes he's designed.  Good idea to add the year for the photos, thanks--Izaakb 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Galluzzi article created. Please note the correct spelling of his name. -Izaakb 18:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ducati History
Just added two subsections on early history: singles and air cooled v-twins with intent to do water cooled v twins and appolo v4 sections. Hope its OK. Seasalt 14:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ducatis, BMWs and Moto-Guzzis use dry clutches, most other models use wet clutches."

http://www.clarity.net/~adam/buying-bike-content.html

Seasalt 11:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But is that an authoritive statement and what is the scope covered? GraemeLeggett 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the timeframe is implicit not explicit - my Bantam had a wet clutch in 1953 - so what does adoption mean? GraemeLeggett 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not aware that BMW nor Guzzi currently use dry clutches. I think it is fair to make a reference to it, but the article should be clear that Ducati is the only current company to make motorcycles with a dry clutch.  Izaakb 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Graeme, I thought I had made it more acceptable, but feel free to edit/clarify. It is currently linked to a Yamaha oil use recommendation page, quoted below: "Motorcycles use a drive system similar to that of a standard transmission but with a couple of very significant differences. The clutch is contained within the engine cases running in the same oil as the engine components as well as the gear box. The oil not only has to lubricate the moving engine parts, it must cool and protect the clutch plates plus resist the extreme sheer forces acting upon the transmission gears. The formulations used to blend standard automobile oils do not address these conditions and in the case of additives like friction reducers can actually accelerate the wear and adversely affect the performance of the motorcycles power transmission. NOTE: there are a few exceptions where motorcycles use a dry clutch or external gearbox but these are not common."

Seasalt 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Izaakb, the shaft drive models used to, and I assume they still do, but its a single plate car type dry clutch. Also CZ motorcrossers used to use multiplate dry clutches. "Ducati is the only current motorcycle manufacturer using the multiplate dry clutch in its road bikes."? Feel free to edit anything left unclear or just plain inaccurate.Seasalt 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for the "Ducati History" section:
Izaakb 15:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Government management years (1974? - 1985)====
 * Cagiva Ownership Years (1985 - 1996)====
 * American Owners and going public (1996 - 2005)====
 * Investindustrial: Back in Italian Hands (2006 - present)====

As I understand it, the government was involved before 1973, but changed the government administrator to De Eccher, who put an end to singles, round case V-twins, and racing. I think 1973 is the year u wanted above. A very good idea,and, to take it back to beginning....


 * Government IRI management years (1950 - 1967)====
 * Government EFIM management (1967 - 78(control over day-to-day factory operations)====
 * Subsidiary of state-subsidised VM Group (1978 - 85)====
 * Cagiva Ownership Years (1985 - 1996)====
 * American Owners and going public (1996 - 2005)====
 * Investindustrial: Back in Italian Hands (2006 - present)====

(The EFIM management had a change of "overseer" in 1973.)

That is only as far as I currently know.Seasalt 11:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent additions.

Fyi, Ducati Elettronica was the name of the Ducati subsidiary prior to 1950s split. After split, the subsidiaries were Ducati Meccanica and Ducati Elettronica, but later called Ducati Energia. (see www.ducatienergia.it for info) Izaakb 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In the eighties it changed. So its not relevant to 1953.Seasalt 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Desmosedici photo will be deleted
It's been decided that the Desmosedici PR photo will be deleted from Wikipedia due to the policy on PR material use. Ducati releases the photo for personal or non-commercial use, and I believe it qualifies for fair use by Wikipedia, but the concensus was that it does not. Being an IP attorney, I am a little surprised at this considering the manner of distribution which Ducati offers (i.e. image copyright is asserted, but distributed free for any non-commercial use -- is Wikipedia commercial?) I practice law using statutory copyright laws, not GFDL type rules, so please help me out here. I contacted Ducati before posting all the photos in the Ducati article and was told that any non-commercial use was acceptable -- I specifically mentioned I was contributing with the edits to Wikipedia and that it was acceptable to them. Izaakb 15:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ducati ownership history since 1985

 * 1985 - Cagiva buys out Ducati from Italian government
 * 1996 - TPG buys 51% and all assets from Cagiva
 * 1998 - TPG buys remaining 49% from Cagiva.
 * 1999 - TPG floats Ducati stock and sells approximately 65% of its ownership in stock
 * 2006 - Investindustrial Holdings buys TPG's remaining 30% stake, minus one share. HOOPP Investment Management and Italian private equity firm BS Private Equity SpA purchase "an undisclosed minority stake" (probably the other 5% of Ducati stock in TPG's holdings)

All data from Mergerstat M & A Database

-Izaakb 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC) The Castiglioni's told Alan Cathcart it was initially 49% and 49% with "the remaining 2% being parked with an Italian Bank as a gaurantee of good faith between the parties, and to hold the balance in the event of a dispute" Thought then to be Fiat Bank, but unspecified at time of writing.(Australian Motorcycle News, August 23, 1996, Page 31)

Cagiva had a buy back option (they were never able to exercise)

It was included in the deal "that Ducati will be floated on the New York Stock Exchange within three years, thus effectively providing TPG with the profit from its investment." (ibid)

The Castiglionis had cash flow problems, meaning bills dont get paid and production staggers, and the TPG deal was their answer. In anticipation of the split, they set up a second design centre in Varese under Galluzi separate to the San Marino CRC under Tamburini.

There's a great quote from " a top Italian industry executive"

''"Because demand for Ducati bikes remained so high, the Castiglioni family had no choice but to concentrate most of their available investment in it. The profits from Ducati propped up the rest of their empire. To be honest, Ducati is a niche marque which has limited potential growth. There will never be a Ducati with more than two cylinders, and that only appeals to a limited selection of customers."  "Cagiva has the potential to become a fully fledged world marque building four cylinder bikes that are capable of taking on the Japanese."'' "Don't write them off: these guys know how to make motorcycles the public wants, and now they've bailed themselves out of their financial jam, I'm sure they'll bounce back stronger than ever."Seasalt 15:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty interesting bit of info. Cagiva has a lot of potential, but since they've never broken into the US market, it makes it hard to succeed.  Shame, really, but it's provided a lot of room for Ducati to succeed, actually.  If the Cagiva Raptor was available in the US, I would be hard-pressed not to buy one.Izaakb 15:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

MotoGP championship in 2003?
neither ducati, nor loris capirossi won the rider's or manufacturers MotoGP championship in 2003, please correct, the 2003 championship was Valentino Rossi (riders) and Honda (mfg)
 * Good catch. I checked around a little bit. I wonder how that got there... It's gone pending investigation. -- Ben 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was my fault -- I was using the tables from the ducaticorsepress.com website and must have misread it, it was probably a podium/1st finish for Capirex in '03. Unfortunately, I cannot find the table i was using, which I also used to update the WSBK standings and manufacturer titles.  Izaakb 15:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of images
Folks, in the interest of civility, please don't delete images whose status are questionable unless their status is FINAL. Images who are being "considered" for deletion do not qualify. Simply put, leave the image until the image is scheduled for deletion. And if you want to be a REAL Wikipedian, then find a good suitable replacement for the image, as others have done. Thanks! Izaakb 15:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA Superbike
Why was the information about Ducati's AMA efforts removed?--Davidwiz 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * it would help if you post a link or a diff to the material IzaakB (my Talk)contribs 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was there, now it is gone. I'm going to add info about AMA Superbike and MotoGP.--Davidwiz 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cagiva/TPG history detail
From http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/06/30/0001156973-04-000783/section5.asp

''In 1996, DMH was formed by affiliates of TPG and Deutsche Morgan Grenfell ("DMG") to acquire the Ducati brand name, trademark and related intellectual property rights from Cagiva. Cagiva contributed the other assets and liabilities associated with the Ducati business to DMH in exchange for shares issued to Cagiva representing 49.0% of DMH's total issued and outstanding shares. Following these transactions, TPG and DMG indirectly owned, in the aggregate, 51.0% of the shares of DMH. On July 30, 1998, TPG and DMG through their affiliates, together with a third investor, acquired the remaining 49.0% of the shares of DMH owned by Cagiva.''

Who was the third investor? izaakb   ~talk ~contribs 11:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"World's first four-stroke scooter"?!"
A lot of this entry seems to be poorly-researched PR fluff rather than scholarly history. For example, the entry states "Ducati made an impression at the early 1952 Milan Show, introducing the Ducati 65 TS cycle and the Cruiser, the world's first four-stroke scooter." This is absurd. The Motoped -- the very first mass-produced motor scooter, back in 1910 -- was four-stroke, as were the hundreds of thousands of Cushman scooters produced in the 1930s and '40s. It also states "In the 1960s, Ducati earned its place in motorcycling history by producing the then fastest 250 cc road bike available, the Mach 1." Frankly, I doubt this, but I'll have to go through my resources to find out one way or another. Since the claim doesn't cite references, it's just that -- a claim -- and has no business being in a WP entry. Bricology 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, some crap has worked its way in -- you can attribute most of it to the anonymous editors that fiddle around. The claim about the Mach 1 comes directly from the Ducati Heritage website and is a quote from (I believe) Motociccicolo magazine.  Multiple references mention this.  izaakb    ~talk ~contribs 10:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've actually sent the Ducati Heritage webmaster two e-mails asking them to correct their misinformation. The first one got a polite response that they would change it.  That was a year ago.  The second one got no response.  The Mach 1 claim is pretty absurd on its face.  In 1965, when it was introduced, there was no shortage of fast 250s from MV Agusta, Aermacchi, Honda, Yamaha and others.  I find it interesting that Ducati singles never won even one Grand Prix World Championship.  Indeed, the first time that Ducati even scored any points was in 1956, with a rather sad 16th place in the 125cc class.  In 1958 they did better in that class, reaching 2nd place, but their 250s never managed higher than 18th place throughout the '60s.  In Grand Prix racing terms, Ducati was undistinguished throughout the '50s and '60s.  That's not to suggest that they can't be good bikes; I had a '69 350 that was very quick, albeit highly temperamental. Bricology 04:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellence
This is an encyclopedia and is intended to offer as much as possible a neutral point of view. To say the company is noted for excellence, and then have that statement footnoted to an enthusiast's website -- is a bit specious.

Let's work on a more balanced way of describing Ducati's particular forte's and prowess -- but let's stay away from grandstanding in the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.232.63.100 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving the Article Title
Shouldn't this article be moved to simply Ducati? When people refer to this company, it is simply by this name. We use Piaggio instead of Piaggio & Co. SpA, likewise MV Agusta instead of MV Agusta Motorcycles SpA. Also, every other Wikipedia uses simply Ducati. I don't know if we need the definition at the header either; Ducati in this sense was simply the founders' surname. Icsunonove 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Piaggio and MV Agusta articles are incorrectly listed then. All companies' entries should be under the full name, with a redirect from the short name.  If other Wikipedia articles refer to Ducati, SpA as "Ducati" then perhaps they should be corrected.  Also, where is there a definition at the header?  I see none, only a reference to the corporate history and then the founders themselves.  rgds  izaakb    ~talk ~contribs 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "definition", I'd guess you would want to go back and look at the state of the page the day I posted, eh? My feeling is the Piaggio and MV Agusta pages are listed correctly, and it is this page that should be listed at its most commonly used name.  We also don't have Alfa Romeo at Alfa Romeo Automobiles S.p.A. or Harley-Davidson at Harley-Davidson Motor Company. Icsunonove (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that plenty of articles are listed with the so-called "common" name. That doesn't make it right, also there is no Wikipolicy on company names as far as the article names.  I feel it should be listed with the full name and a REDIRECT from the common name.  Also, it is possible the common name can have other listings.  "Ducati" can also refer to the electronic company, to a form of money and a few other things.  Also, by listing the main article under the full name, it is listed at the top of the article.  Thus, you educate by convention -- typing in "Harley-Davidson" (or some other derivation) would redirect to "Harley-Davidson Motor Company" etc.  izaakb    ~talk ~contribs 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * General policy overrules -- "common usage". Icsunonove (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Izaakb have you read the Naming conventions particularly the section "Use the most easily recognized name"? The argument over other usages is addressed in the section "Be precise when necessary", if there is no majority usage the a dab page may be the solution, or if there is a common usage but also minority usages as well then a hatnote using the template Otheruses may be appropriate --PBS (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to Ducati. I originally closed this as "no consensus", but after a request for reconsideration on my talk page, I re-evaluated the discussion. Considering that Ducati has been a redirect to this page since 2002, it seems somewhat implausible that there is any other WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Ducati" other than the motorcycle company. --Aervanath (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ducati Motor Holding → Ducati &mdash; Ducati is by far more in compliance with easily most recognized name and use the most common name than is Ducati Motor Holding, and I see nothing at WP:NCCORP that indicates WP:NC policy should be overridden here. Since Ducati already redirects to the article, there is no ambiguity issue, and the current name seems like an obvious case of unnecessary precision to me. — Born2cycle (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose - The article for the compnay should be under the actual name of the company, not the shorthand name for it. A redirect from "Ducati" is sufficient. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why use the actual name of the company? The "shorthand" name, Ducati, is both the easily most recognized name and the most common name for the topic of this article.  Why not follow Wikipedia article naming policy? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In short, Ducati Motor Holding Spa and Ducati Energia Spa are distinct companies and they are both extant, therefore WP needs to recognize the difference.--Dbratland (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In most cases the WP policy of using the most recognized English name would apply and the page should be moved to Ducati with no debate. However, it is important to realize that Ducati Meccanica split from Ducati Elettronica in 1953, one becoming today's Ducati Motor Holding and the other still thriving as Ducati Energia, SpA .  Though Ducati electronics are not exactly household names in the English speaking world today, they still have a presence and their efforts in wind turbines and zero emissions vehicles could bring them to greater prominence in the future.  Just as importantly, Wikpedia has several extensive articles on the history of Italian motorcycle brands, and the Ducati lineage in particular, and to blur the distinction between these two arms of Ducati would create confusion and make writing future articles more of a headache than one already encounters when trying to tell the sordid and tangled tale of Italian companies.


 * No one is suggesting merging those two articles. The existence of the Ducati redirect to this article establishes that the topic of this article is the primary topic for Ducati.  If that's incorrect, then that's a separate matter (and the redirect should be changed).  Despite the fact that Ducati redirects here, concerns about blurring have not even caused anyone to add a hatnote link to Ducati Energia, SpA at the top of this article.


 * With regard to what Ducati electronics might come to mean in the future, see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Currently, this article has hundreds of links going to it, Ducati Energia, SpA has two.


 * I appreciate your detailed knowledge about the respective histories of these companies, but you've not explained why Ducati could not or should not be the title of this article. I don't see how it's significantly different from any other situation in which an ambiguous name has a primary topic.   --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Common sense is the explanation. Wikipedia is a real repository of knowledge written by real people about actual things that actually exist is the explanation.  It is not an abstract game about abstract imaginary sets and subsets is the explanation.  It is not a plaything.--Dbratland (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you change Ducati Motor Holding to Ducati makes it falsely appear that Ducati is the parent company of Ducati Energia/Ducati Elettronica. Readers are currently not confused by this.  The proposed change would create new confusion where before there was none.  This proposed move will make those of us who write WP articles about Ducati have to add additional explanations to overcome the confusion created by WP's artificially-imposed naming convention.


 * This is all fine if you only care about Wikipedia as an abstraction. But for the readers and writers of the actual articles, the subject itself matters more than someone's need to perfect and beautify the high-level concepts behind WP. --Dbratland (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What reason do you have to believe that changing this article name to Ducati would make it appear that Ducati is the parent company of Ducati Energia/Ducati Elettronica? Who makes assumptions about what company is the parent of what other company based on how WP article about companies are named?  I don't.  Do you?  Anyone? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Summary. This particular oppose argument completely ignores WP:PRIMARYTOPIC perhaps out of ignorance, or maybe because this is really just another WP:ILIKEIT argument. In any case, it should be given little if any weight if arguments based in policy and guidelines are given considerably more weight than those that are not. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. To the vast majority of English speakers, if they've heard of Ducati at all it's a motorcycle. The lead should be rewritten to reflect the change, of course; The main article at Ducati should be about the motorcycle marque, and the organisation that manufactures them should be described either in a section of ths article or in its own article. Andrewa (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support In this case, Ducati is the common name and with no chance of confusion. YeshuaD avid  • Talk  • 15:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. An argument based on naming policy.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Use the company's correct name as with BMW Motorrad not BMW (motorcycles), Triumph Motorcycles Ltd not Triumph (although this is used to distinguish from older version of Triumph), Yamaha Motor Company not Yamaha, Kawasaki Heavy Industries Consumer Products and Machinery Company not Kawasaki, Clews Competition Motorcycles not CCM, IMZ-Ural not Ural. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Use the 'correct' name" is not an argument based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines. I call WP:ILIKEIT. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per above. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Echoing arguments made in policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. As nominator.  The nomination and all support votes are supported by arguments based on Wikipedia naming policy and guidelines.  All of the oppose votes are entirely based on WP:ILIKEIT.  The numbers are close, but the arguments are not.  Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the appropriate call here is clear.   --Born2cycle (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I think that the best example of why this should be kept is Ford Motor Company. Everyone knows it as Ford, nobody calls it Ford Motor Company, yet one of the world's largest car companies is listed by its full name. Ditto Saab Automobile. For Brits the exact same principal applies to Vauxhall Motors and Lotus Cars. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ducati Corse is a subsidiary of Ducati Motor. Ducati Sistemi is a subsidiary of Ducati Energia. Ducati Energia is not a subsidiary of Ducati Motor Holding. Understanding these relationships is a significant part of Ducati history, i.e. that they prospered making radio equipment for the fascists during WWII, and were part of the radical realignment of Italian industry due to the postwar reconstruction and the Potsdam restrictions.
 * To clarify, I want repeat that, as the article says: Currently, there are four Ducati companies: Ducati Motor Holding (the subject of this article), Ducati Corse (which runs the Ducati racing program and is wholly owned by Ducati Motor Holding), Ducati Energia, a designer and manufacturer of electrical and electronic components and systems and Ducati Sistemi, a subsidiary of Ducati Energia. All are located in Borgo Panigale in Bologna, Italy.

And so on and so forth. Wikipedia is not just a current events site where the brand recognition of Ducati motorcycles in 2009 is all that matters. History is just as important.

There is also no problem that is being addressed by this move proposal. There have been no complaints, there is no evidence of confusion or error. There is no evidence that something is broken and must be fixed. The only justification here is that policy is supreme and the strict obedience to policy is all that matters. Many Wikipedians disagree with that, and there isn't even consensus that policy is being violated given that WP policies are by their nature flexible.--Dbratland (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note. The no problem argument probably applies to almost every, if not every, proposed move at [].  So there's no burden to a show a problem exists in order to justify a page move.   --Born2cycle (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're right about all those useless move requests, then that is a problem. If others are making pointless move requests, perhaps your efforts would be better spent trying to get them to stop.  Or at least you could refrain from making the problem worse.


 * Discussions like this one or that one waste the time of editors who could otherwise be improving articles that sorely need it. The strife that is brought out by debating it does nothing good for anyone and makes many editors decide that editing Wikipedia is too fractious to be worth bothering with.


 * Campaign to drive away productive contributors, and WP:POINT and What Not to Post and Snowball clause (and do I need to go on?) do place a burden on all editors to not waste anyone's time, and not to start debates for no good reason.--Dbratland (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was interpreting your definition of problem (no complaints, no evidence of confusion or error) to exclude not conforming with Wikipedia naming policy. Is that not what you meant?  Most of those requests, including this one (as is made evident by the multiple citations to policy in the nomination), fall into that category.


 * If editors learned and followed naming policy when creating articles in the first place, or even just did not object when related corrections are proposed, then there would be none of the strife or disruption from productive article editing that you talk about here.


 * Speaking of policy, with reference to the other companies that use the Ducati name, this one clearly falls within the bounds of what is known in Wikipedia as the primary topic (if the topic of this article is not primary, then Ducati should not even redirect here, but should be a dab page). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So we can agree that there is no point to this except that policy (as you interpret it) must be obeyed.--Dbratland (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why put such a slant on it? Are you suggesting I'm interpreting policy different from consensus interpretation of policy? What specifically are you talking about? (what's the policy, what do you think my interpretation is, what do you think consensus interpretation is, and how do they differ?) How did Parsecboy (a WP:RM closing admin) put it?  "Arguments need to be based in policy and guidelines for them to carry any weight." [1].  It's not about my interpretation of policy.  It's about how consensus interprets policy, and, in particular, what the closing admin perceives that consensus to be (which I have usually found to be in line with what I perceive it to be). If policy is written such that interpretation of what it means varies a significant amount, then that is a separate issue, indicating room for improvement in the relevant policy.  I can name several examples of that, if you're interested, but I don't think any of them apply here. I have argued for this move, just as I do in about every move request I'm involved in, using arguments "based in policy and guidelines".   I suggest if you did the same, there would be much less of the strife you're concerned about.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is no clear consensus to support a move as opinions are divided. It looks to me that this is using the same arguments used at Ford Motor Company, a move requested by the same person and subsequently rejected. I suggest the move be abandoned as nothing new has been presented in this discussion that wasn't already discussed in the Ford move. Do we need to get an admin in or someone else to make the decision? --Biker Biker (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who makes the move should not be a consideration, only the arguments should be. The Ford Motor Company proposal was different in several ways, not the least of which is that the name "Ford Motor Company" is widely known among English speakers, while "Ducati Motor Holding" is virtually unknown.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ducati Motor Holding is not virtually unknown. The Google argument was well refuted in the Ford discussion as well as here, and it is very frustrating to have to repeat the same debate over and over.


 * I think the person behind this stuff matters. Your love of citing WP:AGF is a lame excuse.  If AGF meant what you think it means, there could never be any such thing as wikilawyering, tendentious editing, or disruptive editing because no matter what, we would have to forget the past and look at every act in total isolation. The fact is that wikilawyering, tendentious editing, and disruptive editing do exist, and there is no gag order telling us we can't say so when we recognize them.


 * WP:AGF also puts common sense front and center and tells us we are not held in a strait jacket by policy.


 * It also matters that the opposition for these moves is coming from those who write articles on the topic itself, and the support comes from those who are more involved in WP meta debates than article creation. It's very easy for them to support disruptive changes whose fallout they don't have to clean up.


 * It's very logical to deduce that your campaign of starting disruptive debates over Wikipedia:Naming conventions will not end here. You aren't doing this because you care about Ford, or Ducati, any more than you care about the names of plants.


 * Therefore it is logical to conclude that if not discouraged, you will carry on this campaign with Triumph and Yamaha and BMW and who knows what else. Common sense is given very prominent mention at the top of all of the policy articles cited.  Common sense says there are far more important problems that article content creators, such as we who oppose your campaign, need to work on than the name of the article, and time spent debating it with someone with their own agenda is not time well spent.  Yet if we don't debate you then by forfeit, you get your way by bullying, driving away editors with these tedious marathon debates. Why not stop this and put your efforts into fixing things that uncontroversially broken and easily fixed?


 * If this move request were denied, it would be helpful in discouraging more of this type of thing, beyond preventing making Ducati Motor Holding a worse article.--Dbratland (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've addressed this in a more appropriate forum. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

from vacuum tubes to motorcycles?
In 1926, three brothers, Adriano, Marcello and Bruno Ducati, founded Societa Scientifica Radio Brevetti Ducati in Bologna to produce vacuum tubes, condensers and other radio components, becoming successful enough by 1935 to construct a new factory in the Borgo Panigale area of the city. (...) ''In 1950, after more than 200,000 Cucciolos had been sold, in collaboration with SIATA, the Ducati firm finally offered its own Cucciolo-based motorcycle. This first Ducati motorcycle was a 60 cc bike weighing 98 lb with a top speed of 40 mph (64 km/h) had a 15 mm carburetor giving just under 200 mpg (85 km/L). Ducati soon dropped the Cucciolo name in favor of "55M" and "65TL".''

It seems quite unusual for a company manufacturing radio components to suddenly offer a motorcycle. A documentary I just zapped past casually mentioned world war II was the reason they started building those, but (albeit unsourced) this article mentions that move not to happen until well after the war, in 1950. Are there any sources out there mentioning what brought this about? -- MiG (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Should be more added on 1980's and 1990's on the Ducati Paso's
Thought I bring this up to ask we should add more on the Paso's, they were much part of the 1980's and 1990's but also that the Paso was the only bike that saved the company from going bankrupt adding that Bimota stepped in to help design the Paso to save Ducati from going under on the article.--Bimotacycle (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An article should be written on the 907, and related models, eventually. The biggest hole in Ducati coverage is about the pushrod singles and two strokes of the 1950s to mid 70s. As far as saving them from bankruptcy, I'd like to see a source. Seems like Ducati is forever on the verge of bankruptcy and whatever bike they're selling at the moment is saving them from going under. --Dbratland (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Massimo Tamburini designed the original Ducati Paso from Bimota. I leard this from a Ducati dealership in California on Ducati factory worker from Italy back in 1998. Told the whole story but I am sure there is an article on it but the point is the Paso bike was made to boost customers to Ducati bikes since everything Ducati made was for racing and this drove away business, Bimota step in and help Ducati with a fresh look to save the company which was the Paso.--Bimotacycle (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If what the factory worker told you is published by some reliable source(s) then it would make an interesting addition to the article. If there aren't any sources then, even if it is true, is can't be used here because it is original research. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Tone
Unless the statement "...long been known for their excellence in design and performance but unfortunately, not reliability" is somehow verified, this sort of claim seems to be nothing more than a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.244.206 (talk • contribs)

1970 not = 2000
More than half of the section labelled "1970s' is actually about bikes of the 2000s. I am going to move the text to the right decade. Jpg1954 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Post 1990 bias
The section on competition history ignores everything before 1990.

the list of "engines produced" ignores both the 125cc desmo single and the 125cc desmo twin, which are crucial engines in the development of the overall Ducati engines Jpg1954 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Finding out what S.p.A. means on the Ducati article?
Re:. Why is it a fit subject for the article on Ducati to explain what S.p.A. means? Should every article on an S.p.A. include the same footnote? There are hundreds of them. The information belongs in Joint-stock company, not here. Just wikilink it and go fix the other article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ducati. 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/20150109004548/http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/16092008/58/hayden-join-stoner-ducati.html to http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/16092008/58/hayden-join-stoner-ducati.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 23:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Ducati. 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.audi.com/etc/medialib/ngw/company/invest_relations_20121.Par.0008.File.pdf/hjfb2012_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116183118/http://hellforleathermagazine.com:80/2008/08/ducati-to-be-sold-to-performan.html to http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2008/08/ducati-to-be-sold-to-performan.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.monsta.at/site_article_368.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221173802/http://is2.lse.ac.uk:80/Support/ECIS2001/pdf/040_Jelassi.pdf to http://is2.lse.ac.uk/Support/ECIS2001/pdf/040_Jelassi.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516202843/http://www.superbikeplanet.com:80/2007/Mar/e/n070308b.htm to http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2007/Mar/e/n070308b.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930190036/http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2006/Aug/060822a.htm to http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2006/Aug/060822a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)