Talk:Honda CBF1000

September 2006
There more about this bike on a dedicated website called: CBF1000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.56.176 (talk • contribs)

This whole page is a single marketing pitch, with text straight from the brochure.
 * I agree. Search for example for "long-misunderstood force called torque". Not from a brochure, but stolen anyways. Technical details are copied right from an article or from a brochure, the copier has not even bothered to remove/explain the asterisk (meaning the ABS version). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.107.251 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Marts 2010
Dbratland - you have deleted a large part of the article, arguing that it is copyright material from elsewhere. But you also deleted the section I wrote titled "owners support" which is genuine and contains very useful information for CBF1000 owners. Was that a mistake or do you have other reason for this deletion? Regards ... FireBladerDK FireBladerDK (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll want to take a look at WP:NOTDIR, and WP:ELNO. The first explains that Wikipedia is not the place to provide lists of links of that type, such as serving as a guide to forums. You would instead want to go to www.dmoz.org the Open Directory Project and submit your links there.  WP:ELNO explains that links to anonymous community forums, social networking sites, clubs and so on are not allowed.As far as what you can do to make this a better article, I might suggest following the model of Holden VE Commodore, Maserati MC12 and Talbot Tagora, all of them featured articles.  There are no featured motorcycle articles, but I personally think Kawasaki Ninja 250R and Suzuki Hayabusa are fairly good.  --Dbratland (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cover all CBF1000 models
Suggest that this page cover all CBF1000 models in detail, including CBF1000F. CPES (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I suggest that CBF1000 be taken as the generic reference for the family of models: CBR1000GT, CBR1000ABS etc. Originally the page did this in places but was not consistent. For example it was stated in the right column that the CBF1000F replaced the CBF1000. The CBF1000 range is current so I have deleted the references to 2013 but am not sure if there was a significant model change in 2013; the Honda site is a nightmare and their brochures aren't much better.  CPES (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After doing a bit more investigating it seems that the Honda CBF1000F (ally frame) was not made available in the UK in 2010, although there is now a new model on the Honda UK website, which seems to be based on the F version. It is always difficult to keep track of Honda models and markets so I suggest that a separate heading be created for each major model change so that the details can be more clearly described. As far as the detailed specifications go, as covered below, the suggestion that these be included in a table rather than in the right panel becomes more important. The overall approach is used successfully on other Wiki motorcycle pages. CPES (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Spec and right panel overlap
The above overlap, in fact the right panel gives more detailed data than the spec section. suggest that the right panel be very much reduced and most data put in spec section. Or even delete spec section and leave all data in right panel. All that would need to be added would be fueling. CPES (talk)
 * Yes, that helps some. The formatting will always be a problem when you don't have a lot of text to go with the specs. There's no perfect solution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, there is a dilemma where to put tech info. I propose that all detailed technical info be moved into the 'Specification' section and that general info, model types year etc be left in the right column. CPES (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)