Talk:Honda CBR600F

July 2010
This page's introductory paragraph is highly subjective and does not reflect the opinion of all users who have experienced the motorcycle. The paragraph below is also highly subjective and should be removed as it does not add to discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.171.229 (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Table removed
I removed this table which is simply a list of years and model numbers. I simply don't see what value a long two column table adds to the article. Given its stub state, what the article needs is substantial expansion with cited content, not trivia. Your opinion may of course differ. Discuss... --Biker Biker (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what makes the long table encyclopedic. It reminds me of lists of frame and engine numbers, which is information only useful to a certain kind of collector, and not what an encyclopedia is for. The codes clearly follow a pattern, and with a little thought the pattern could -- and should -- be summarized in the article. Perhaps use the aka field of the infobox. The number shows the generation, and the letters are just a sequential indicator of model year. Even so, a summary explaining the codes is a far lower priority than a thousand other bits of information about the bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Honda CBR600F3 and Honda CBR600F4 be merged into Honda CBR600F. I think that the content in the CBR600F3 and CBR600F4 article would be more appropriate in the CBR600F article as the F3/F4 is a subtype of the CBR600F. It would give the viewer more information about the series as a whole, instead of this stub. -- WhiteJoker88 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge These stub articles contain more infobox stats than prose, and in general merging related articles is an excellent way to deal with too many dinky little stubs with no meat to them. Merging now would create a single article with a little bit of substance to it. We should create a specs table that lets the reader compare the stats between revisions side by side through each version, e.g. Yamaha YZF-R1. A merge now does not preclude un-merging a separate article for the F3, F4, etc. if in the future an editor writes enough material to justify it, as per Summary style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A specs table would be nice, but for now, I'd settle with more info categorized by generation or year. --WhiteJoker88 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started to create a specification table. See section below.(Stephengmatthews (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Support merge common sense. JFDI. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I just added Honda CBR600F2 to the proposed merger list. I obviously support its merger into the main article. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would Honda CBR600F4i also be suitable to merge? It seems to be a subtype, but it obviously has more content then the others. Also the content suggests it is a separate motorcycle not just another generation, so I'm not sure. I guess it should get a summary in the new article, so I did however added a merger tag just in case. One can always delete it, I suppose. --WhiteJoker88 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I would only summarize Honda CBR600F4i in a section of Honda CBR600F, and link to Honda CBR600F4i as a main article. It could used more footnotes, but Honda CBR600F4i is a reasonably encyclopedic and neutral article with a fair amount of substance to it, so it's worth keeping on its own. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Supported With the addition of the new CBR600F (2011), the merger would also help clear confusion between the original CBR600F and the new one, as well as bringing together the different year models.

This is comparable to Cars like the VW Golf, Honda Civic and Toyota Coralla that have gone through up to 8 or more revisions over the years. They are seperate models, but closely related. In this case the CBR600F is effectively the 6th revision. Pyro (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

unfortunately you are all incorrect. Though they fall under the "CB600f" these bikes are all significantly different, in their production years and inner parts. Simply do a google search to look at the pictures, the bikes simply fall under this name as honda used it to create a model name for a race class. Also, if you were to do this you would be required to include the f4i as it is identical to the f4 but with slight exterior changes as well as a fuel injector. very simple small changes. Even the RR would be in a similar class. please leave this the way it is. it is correct and very informative to knew riders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.169.12912:09, 28 November 2011‎ (talk • contribs)
 * Why does jumping around between different pages make it easier to see the differences between the models over the years? If you tell the story of the development in one article it forms a coherent narrative, and you can see the reasons behind each change in context. If you spread that around on different pages, it makes it seem like each version was created independently. There is no magic rule that says if two bikes only share X percent of parts they have to be on different pages. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Support merge One page on the CBR600F and another on the CBR600RR, each covering the various generations/revisions within would seem to be the best way of covering all of the relevant information and avoiding numerous stubs. JZH (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Support merge I agree with merging the different CBR600F descriptions and each model should have it's own section within the same article. Nimik (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the other supporters. It is standard procedure to have one page for a model with sub-sections for it's year on year derivatives. Considering the CBR600F to be the model and 2,3,4,4i etc to be sub-model updates seems logical. This would best follow accepted format. ZadkielNZ (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly indifferent to the merger as such. However, in this joined state, I think it's highly inaccurate to have the 600RR in a different article. The only differences between the 2001-2002 FS/F4i and the 2003 RR was a slightly lower handlebar, moulded instead of welded rear swingarm, and a third minor difference I don't remember right now. The handlebar was raised back up in the 2005 (I think) model year of the RR, go figure. Anyone is free to look this up, please do. Honda marketing may want you (and journalists at the time) to think otherwise, but the reality is that the RR is the direct successor to the 2001-2002 FS/F4i with only minor differences -- differences that are much smaller than the differences between the F4/F4i, for example. Remember that the FS (euro F4i with the sportier two-tier seat) was discontinued as the RR was introduced. The 2011 F is something completely different from the 2001-2002 FS -- trust me, just look at the height of the handlebar (the seating position is extremely relaxed on the 2011 F, compared to the 2001-2002 FS; the difference is huge). I'm not opposed to having the 2011 F in here; I'm opposed to not having the RR in here. I don't want to start a controversy on the RR, but I firmly believe that if the merger is to be consistent, then the RR definitely belongs in here as well. Dsandlund (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Honda CBR600F. 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/20080109052138/http://powersports.honda.com:80/the_story/heritage/heritage_milestone.asp?Decade=1980&TargetUrl=Milestone/Milestone_Model_0113.asp&bhcp=1 to http://powersports.honda.com/the_story/heritage/heritage_milestone.asp?Decade=1980&TargetUrl=Milestone/Milestone_Model_0113.asp&bhcp=1

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 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

CBR600RR vs CBR600F4i/CBR600FS
I made an edit a few days ago, to make wording regarding the new CBR600RR vs the F4i/FS more accurate Be bold. These edits stem from my intimate knowledge and experience with these bikes. I currently own a 2001 CBR600FS (known as the F4i in NA with the split two-tier seat and other upgrades compared to the banana seat version) and a 2005 CBR1000RR, and I have also ridden a 2006 CBR600RR and a 1999 CBR900RR quite a bit. I ride about 20.000 km (12.000 miles) per year (most of them on my CBR:s) and have done so for a number of years, I also do some track days; I consider myself an experienced sport bike rider. My edits were however promptly reverted by user 72bikers with only a very vague and hard do decipher message: "all this wording stated was that with the introduction of the rr the f model was not there race replica bike but moved to sport touring". I don't really understand what that message means, please clarify. And crucially, do NOT revert improvements by other users (me) without a proper discussion first. The wording that I removed was very dubious, as I'll explain below. It really needs to go.

Previously, the article claimed that the F4i/FS "appealed to those willing to sacrifice a little performance". What performance? Engine horsepower is very similar. Here on Wikipedia the original CBR600RR is said to have 118 bhp at the crank and the F4i is said to have 109 hp at the crank, though I remember seeing the number 115 hp previously. This is a neglible difference hardly worth mentioning. If by "performance" instead you mean agility, then you should say "agility" and not "performance". For that matter, in my experience, and as an example, the chassis of the 1999 CBR900RR is a complete cow compared to that of the 2001 FS. And that's still called an RR! Just goes to say that there is no magic in the "RR" badge itself. The difference is in the model years, not the naming. However I digress. I decided to remove this statement mainly because it just sounds like baseless marketing jargon, for the reasons I mentioned.

The article also stated that the F4i/FS offered "a more comfortable riding position". While it's true that the original RR had sligthly lower clip-ons compared to the FS (10mm or so if i remember correctly), they were raised back up again for the 2005 model. And while it's true that the F4i/FS has a very slightly more relaxed seating position, the difference is very slight. The seat of the FS is flatter but harder (the CBR600RR has a softer and arguably more comfortable seat), and the foot pegs are somewhat lower on the F4i/FS. Overall, the differences are more to do with what the fasion was at the time.

Further, the article claimed that the F4i/FS has "an engine configuration better suited to everyday riding". How's that? I remember the engine of the 2006 CBR600RR feeling very similar to that of the FS. Power delivery over the entire rev range feels very similar: that is, very hot at the top, just like a true supersport, which is what both bikes are (for their time period). The gearing on the F4i/FS is very low, the bike absolutely screams at highway speeds when compared to my CBR1000RR (notice the "RR").

Finally, I added mention of the Euro equivalent model name. This was also removed by user 72bikers. English Wikipedia has an international audience (ie outside of North America), which makes me absolutely clueless as to why this information was removed. It does look like reckless editing/reverting to me.

Something else I should take the opportunity to object to (for the sake of this argument) is the inclusion of the 2011 CBR600F in this article. That bike has a very relaxed seating position when compared to the "proper" CBR:s (like the CBR600RR, CBR600F4i/FS, CBR900RR, CBR1000RR.. those are all proper CBR:s). I understand that some non-sport bike riders may tend to group the 2011 CBR600F as a "sport bike", and by all means it's a sporty bike as such, but it's NOT a supersport by any means. The 2011 CBR600F is very relaxed. Much more relaxed than, say, the F4i/FS (!).

And that brings me back to the issues above: trying to make the F4i/FS sound like it's not a full-on supersport for its time is just very inaccurate.

Anyone should be able to figure out that Honda marketing at the time was trying to boost sales of the new CBR600RR by trying to make it sound all new and awesome, and that any information originating from a marketing department in that situation (especially concerning the previous model) should always be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone notice how Ferrari, when a new awesome model comes out, suddenly explains to all the journalists how the previous model was flawed and utterly inferior? Yeah, right.

Sure, the CBR600RR was indeed all new and awesome when it came, and it's a much better supersport than the F4i/FS ever was. In the exact same way that the first CBR1000RR is a much better superbike than the later CBR900RR models ever were (the CBR900RR model name was changed to CBR1000RR as the engine size grew incrementally over the years; it's the same model line). And that's a very important point. I'd definitely go as far as to say that the difference between the later CBR900RR models and the first CBR1000RR is greater, than the difference between the CBR600F4i/FS and the early CBR600RR. Dsandlund (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Editor Dsandlund I am sorry you feel I have made inaccurate edits to the cbr 600f page. You make reference to me removing  CBR600FS or CBR600F Sport (two-tier seat) in Europe. That information is still there under the heading CBR600F4i I never touched it. I only added info box horsepower and torque numbers and there reference. I also added this bit of information with the reference it came from at Cycle World.alternative to Honda's more street oriented 600-class sport bike, the CBR600F4i. ,[11] while continuing to manufacture the popular F4i which appealed to those willing to sacrifice a little performance to gain a more comfortable riding position, as well as an engine configuration better suited to everyday riding. I did not seek to add any of my own personal  opinions only to add information as it was provided by reliable independent reference and to include that reference. I do not understand what you were trying to say by comparing the cbr600f to the cbr900rr. 600cc bike are always more agile than liter bikes even 600 sport touring bikes. I also would draw your attention to your statement I'd definitely go as far as to say that the difference between the later CBR900RR models and the first CBR1000RR is greater, than the difference between the CBR600F4i/FS and the early CBR600RR As I think you are aware the 900 from the 90 did not just change into the  cbr1000rr. It went from cbr900rr to cbr919rr still called cbr900rr to cbr929rr to cbr954rr to the cbr1000rr all those changes were as you even stated very small incremental changes as to the differences from year to year. The 03 cbr954rr had 130.8 hp rear wheel the 04 cbr1000rr had 136.1 hp rear wheel so like 5 hp between the two though it did have a lot of design changes. I would also like to state a bit of common knowledge yesterday's sport bikes are often continued to be made to be todays sport touring bikes by manufactures. I would also like to point out there are basically two distinct cbr's models. The f model designation dates back to the cb line back in the 70's the f model was for there sport bike of the day. The cb f model morphed into the cbr f model in the 80's of which I also owned a cbr1000f model from 96 this in its day was classified as a sport bike in the 80's but changed to a sport touring in the 90's.That morphed into the cbr1100xx there top speed bike. The cbr rr line which stands for race replica started in the late 80's with the cbr400rr in 88 then the cbr900rr in 92 a bike that was ground breaking in its time, then lastly the cbr600rr in 2003. They still use the f model designation in the cbr line reserved for more sport touring oriented bikes. There is also a cbr r model that is also more sport touring oriented model today that came from the cbr400r in 86 that came from the cbr400f of 83. To conclude I see you are very passionate about motorcycles as I myself am I would only ask that you do not let this cloud your editing judgment especially on a motorcycle you own. You wrote this Sure, the CBR600RR was indeed all new and awesome when it came, and it's a much better supersport than the F4i/FS ever was ,so I think you truly understand. Hope this resolves any problem you mite of had. 72bikers (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 72bikers I'll have to be a bit frank in my reply here as I feel that some of my points may not have come across.
 * Euro removal: It doesn't matter that the information is elsewhere. I improved the wording by making it more international; you removed this improvement without reason.
 * It does matter over stating something over and over is just redundant.72bikers (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sacrifice performance" wording: You didn't "add" information from CW; you just reverted my entire edit to a previous version of the wikipedia article in a very blunt way. And where's that reference to CW? It's not in that parapgraph, which is where it has to be if it exists. Please provide your reference. If that statement is straight from CW, there are three problems with it: 1. CW owns the copyright to it, 2. There is no reference to that source in that paragraph, 3. The statement is inaccurate, and I've made a very clear case of this, explaining how, and also explaining why the statement may have came about. You will have to respond to the case that I've made and, most importantly, precisely how the exact wording of my original edit was uncalled for, word for word. Just referring to some would-be article of some would-be journalist is not sufficient to ruthlessly just remove my entire edit altogether. If you look at the edit that I made, you'll see that I'm not vastly changing the meaning of the paragraph; I'm just removing dubious bias to the wording while keeping the basic meaning. Please explain how my edit was not a careful improvement.
 * It is just this simple my edit was referenced from a source your edits appear to be and of your own admission just sourced from just your opinion what you call your first hand experience this matter is just that simple. 72bikers (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, some information (from Honda marketing in 2003) on, among other things, the F4i being a top of the line supersport in 2001-2002. Note especially how Honda refer to Cycle World calling it the best 600 (fast forward to about 3:50 for it). This in itself brings into serious question the statement you made that the CBR600FS/F4i was a sports tourer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hip4R5RIKEo
 * For what it's worth, generally speaking youtube videos of manufacturess sales commercial are not reference sources. But all that video shows is that before the release of the rr model the f4i was there track bike and then the release of the RR built from the track up a much more track focused bike than the f4i was there new track bike. Which then relegated the f4i to more a street focus making it more a sport touring bike. If you look at the F4I bikes features such as clip-ons mounted above the top fork clamp making a more upright seating position and a center stand (high kickstand)though the spilt seat 01 to 03 model did not have the center stand attached it still had the mounts then the single seat after the rr was launched are all traits of a sport touring bike. And that is all that the information and reference were stating that I included and would appear to have been there in the article until you removed this information is saying. This information is not just from my first hand opinions unlike you this information is from reliable well established publication. Just facts no opinions.72bikers (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CBR900RR vs 600 argument: I didn't compare the CBR600FS/F4i to the CBR900RR. I just made reference to the difference that model years can have, making a sound case explaining that the difference between the CBR600FS/F4i and the original CBR600RR is down to regular improvements you'd expect over the model years, and nothing more. I'm not sure how you'd misunderstand what I wrote.
 *  the chassis of the 1999 CBR900RR is a complete cow compared to that of the 2001 FS. And that's still called an RR! Just goes to say that there is no magic in the "RR" badge itself your words do you fail to remember what you just wrote?72bikers (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CBR900RR vs 600 comparison: You state that 600cc sport touring bikes are "always" more agile than liter bikes. I can tell you with absolute certainty and in all seriousness that my 2001 CBR600FS is WAY less agile than my 2005 (2004 model) CBR1000RR, and I'm not taking engine power into account at all here. Those model years are close enough to render your statement moot.
 * And you go on to contradict yourself again if I was to address ever statement you made it would only go to show you constantly contradict yourself and to point out that your as you call it first hand opinions are not to be the source of information on any article page. I really fail to understand why you do not understand this plain fact.72bikers (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What CBR900RR: I clearly stated that I was referring to a late model CBR900RR. This would indicate the 929 or the 954. Referring to eg a 1994 CBR900RR as a "late model CBR900RR" would make no sense. Also notice how all model years are referred to as "CBR900RR" in its wikipedia article (and not "CBR919RR" etc), regardless of engine displacement, supporting my position on this matter.
 * I'm not sure why you mention the rwhp of the 954 CBR900RR vs the 2004 CBR1000RR?
 * Because you tried to state that the almost 10 hp difference between the rr and f model is somehow a neglible difference while the 5 hp difference of the 1000 and 954 is to be of some greater importance in that there is more of a difference from the 954 to 1000 model than f to rr model. How soon you forget what you just wrote.72bikers (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think most articles on wikipedia regarding various vehicles focus on their performance, reception and perception from when they were new. For example, I'm sure if you'd drive a Porsche 365 today, you'd hardly call it sporty by today's standards (ie when compared to today's sports cars). And yet we like to refer to it as a sports car (for its time). How exactly it compares to modern sports cars is usually not something that is mentioned or deemed important; it's just understood that performance requirements and perceptions change over time. In the same way, eg claiming that the CBR600FS/F4i wasn't a supersport (for its time) is just plain wrong. It was Honda's top supersport of 2001-2002, even if it wasn't marketed as an RR (yet). That it didn't perform as well as its replacement should be a given and hardly worth mentioning. To the contrary, if there weren't improvements over the model years, that's when it'd make sense to mention it! Which is why I removed wordings indicating that the difference was much greater than you'd expect; it just wasn't and it just isn't. As I've explained in great detail before.
 * F/R/RR model lines: I've already adressed the 2011 CBR600F and how model line naming doesn't necessarily reflect performance. I would also like to remind you, as I've stated previusly, that the CBR600FS/F4i is much sportier than the 2011 CBR600F.
 * You end your post by taking my statement completely out of context, completely misunderstanding the meaning of it. It was a conclusion after a long case I made; I really don't see how you could misunderstand it.
 * I supply first-hand information here, and I explain that I'm doing so, but you instead seem to call me "passionate". You need to be much more precise in your objections to my arguments, and I see you've misunderstood many of them. If anything is unclear to you, please ask me to clarify exactly what. Most importantly, you need to adress the actual wording that I used in my original edit of the article and how you feel that it was uncalled for. That's what's important here.
 * Dsandlund (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor Dsandlund I fail to understand your argument when you are constantly contradicting your self. I only added information that was referenced by a known and trusted source. You seem to be under the impression that you can add information that is only sourced of your opinion. I assure you that is not how wiki works. I would suggest that if you are still failing to understand this or still feel that I incorrectly edited. You mite want to take this to a notice board and talk to a admin and have them explain it to you. 72bikers (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Explain how I'm "constantly contradicting" myself. Just claiming so doesn't make it so.
 * Please clarify this statement, I don't understand what you mean: "You seem to be under the impression that you can add information that is only sourced of your opinion."
 * You do not cite or add any reference for any of your addition to or removal of information to a article page. You just state this is your first hand experience I.E. your opinions. You are not a professional writer for any reliable known publication I.E. your opinions have no weight here at Wiki. Wiki does not allow people to make contribution solely based just on there own opinions. It has to come from some known and reliable source I.E. books, magazines, online publications. It should be noted that I'm not merely browsing brochures or old magazines here; I have first-hand experience your words and more of your words I supply first-hand information here, and I explain that I'm doing so. and your words here These edits stem from my intimate knowledge and experience with these bikes. I currently own a 2001 CBR600FS. This is not allowed as can be read here.Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are to the topic of the article, and  the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.Read this No original research and this Verifiability
 * Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is, it be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described here.72bikers (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made great effort to be very precise in my arguments. You fail to adress pretty much any of it. You don't seem to be giving it hardly any effort.
 * In summary, it seems to me that you are more interested in having your way, than in improving the article. Your failure to discuss any of the points I made, or the edit i originally did to the article, makes be doubt your good will at this point. Your behavior stifles constructive discussion and improvements to the article.
 * Dsandlund (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion has been requested. Please read too long, didn't read and wall of text. Both of your posts are long, and it is hard to determine what the question is, other than that one editor made some bold edits and the other editor boldly reverted them. Will at least one editor please state, in one paragraph, what the question is, and then maybe a third opinion will be easier? If another volunteer is able to respond to this lengthy exchange, I thank them. If this exchange is summarized, I will thank the editor who summarized it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure I think I can summarize very easily. Editor Dsandlund has taken issue with my recent edit to the cbr600f page. When all I did was add power numbers to info boxs with reference and one brief statement about the comparison of the cbr600f to the new cbr600rr with a reference from Cycle World. He claims this statement is some revert of information he recently removed. I was not even aware that the information was on the page before and is not even a exact match word for word and did not have the reference attached as I have included. Also he seems to be under the impression that he can add statements and opinions to a article with no source reference just what he calls his experienced opinion. And that some how adding referenced material is copyright infringement. Not sure if he understands how wiki works I tried to explain this maybe you will have better luck. 72bikers (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I am not ready to provide a third opinion.  While the statement above is concise, it refers to lengthy previous edits that I haven't had time to parse through.  I suggest asking at WP:WikiProject Motorcycling for an editor with more familiarity with motorcycles to read the questioned edits.  I will state, first, that an editor should not unsourced material based on their experienced opinion.  I don't know whether an editor did that.  I will state, second, that in a few cases, adding referenced material may be copyright infringement; if the material that is added is taken word-for-word from another web site (or a book), and is referenced properly but not in quotes, and therefore is in the voice of Wikipedia, that is copyright infringement.  I don't know whether an editor did that.  I will advise both editors to be civil; the discourse is becoming uncivil.  Comment on content, not on contributors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor Robert McClenon thank you for your response and you are right to state that things seem to be getting off subject. I assure you my edits while being referenced they are of my own words and not copy and paste from the reference to be precise some of the sentence with the reference was moved from the RR page to F model page as it was talking of the RR model. I understand the wiki rules on copyright infringement. I fully believe if someone would read through all of this they would see that editor Dsandlund is adding and removing content solely based on just his opinions what he calls his first hand experience and not sourced from any reference. Further more I believe someone should go back and check all of his contributions as it would appear he has been adding and removing content solely just based on his opinions and never citing any sources. It would appear that editor Dsandlund is trying to cover his tracks so to speak by making a few minor edits today to various pages and finally adding some references for the very first time. He has only made 200 contributions in over ten years and half of that was on talk pages arguing his opinion on things with no references anywhere now today 5 after here with three references. 72bikers (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Commentary after the question
Well the edit log will tell a different story. To make things clear, this is the version of the article just before my edit (dated 17:16, 21 June 2016):
 * In 2003, Honda introduced the CBR600RR, a higher-performance, race-ready, super-sport middleweight, while continuing to manufacture the popular F4i which appealed to those willing to sacrifice a little performance to gain a more comfortable riding position, as well as an engine configuration better suited to everyday riding. The F4i remained available for three more years before being discontinued, with the 2006 model being the final one to be released. No major updates were made in these final years except for color scheme changes.

I felt that model differences were exaggerated in a misleading way with that wording (issues highlighted here in bold). I think most articles on wikipedia regarding various vehicles focus on their performance, reception and perception from when they were new. To me, it sounded a bit like a sales person trying to sell the new model over last year's cheaper alternative. That's not a balanced view. It attempts to make the FS/F4i look like it wasn't a full-on supersport for its time. I felt that some of the wording should be toned down and that's what I did, nothing more. I explained most known differences between the models (see discussion above), and how they were not so significant, in some detail (which 72bikers so far has completely failed to adress). It should be noted that I'm not merely browsing brochures or old magazines here; I have first-hand experience. I have argued (explaining my view at depth) that the actual differences between the two models is down to no more than regular improvements you'd expect over the model years/generations, supporting this with a comparison to a similar model line by the same manufacturer at about the same time (CBR900RR/CBR1000RR). I adressed these issues in detail on the Talk page. I have also supplied evidence (link to video) of Honda's view on the CBR600F4i at the time, being a top supersport with 16 championships, as well as mention of Cycle World's view. I also made a comparison to the 2011 CBR600F and how the differences between the CBR600FS/F4i and the first CBR600RR are neglible in comparison to that, highlighting how the "F" vs "RR" in the model name isn't something to go by in itself when deciding what the bikes are like (that model naming is more down to historical reasons; the 600 line needed to be renamed to match the new 900/1000 line's name). It should also be noted that historically, Honda's sport bikes have usually been regarded as more relaxed when compared to its competing brands, but this should not be confused with comparisons to its successor. I wanted to remove dubious bias to the wording while keeping the basic meaning, no more. After my edit, the paragraph looked like this (14:48, 14 July 2016‎):
 * In 2003, Honda introduced the CBR600RR, a higher-performance, race-ready, super-sport middleweight. The CBR600RR replaced the CBR600FS in Europe[citation needed], while the F4i in the US with the banana seat remained available for three more years before being discontinued after the 2006 model year. No major updates were made in these final years except for color scheme changes.

Notice my addition about the Euro model (highlighted in bold). Later, this is the paragraph after 72bikers' edit (19:56, 15 July 2016‎):
 * In 2003, Honda introduced the CBR600RR, as a higher-performance race-ready, race replica alternative to Honda's more street oriented 600-class sport bike, the CBR600F4i. [11], while continuing to manufacture the popular F4i which appealed to those willing to sacrifice a little performance to gain a more comfortable riding position, as well as an engine configuration better suited to everyday riding. The F4i remained available for three more years before being discontinued, with the 2006 model being the final one to be released. No major updates were made in these final years except for color scheme changes.

Notice how large passages from the original edit are now back (highlighted in bold), inserted back by 72bikers (as can be seen from the edit log). And yet 72bikers now claims that he/she knew nothing of this. In addition, the differences between the bikes have been made to sound even greater, with the addition of the wording I have highlighted in italics. Also notice how my mention of the CBR600FS is now gone, making it seem that the recent edit by 72bikers (19:56, 15 July 2016‎) was more of a copy-paste from the first version (17:16, 21 June 2016), rather than a careful and considerate improvement on my edit.

I have made great effort to be very precise in my arguments previously. It should be noted that 72bikers has offered no clear answers or discussion on my key points (sometimes, frankly, giving the impression that he/she hasn't even bothered to read or understand them). I would also like to add that 72bikers' view that I have added statements to the article is clearly false (the only thing I added was mention of the Euro model, as can be seen from the edit log). Regarding referenced/copyrighted material, that statement by 72bikers here is a bit unclear to me as he/she is not directly adressing what I wrote.

Dsandlund (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor User:Dsandlund please remove this wall of text under this heading Third Opinion and put it under the heading you started CBR600RR vs CBR600F4i/CBR600FS. Did you really fail to understand the instruction given by editor User:Robert McClenon. He simply asked for one editor please state, in one paragraph, what the question is. Your statements are all false and you have never added any reference for anything on this cbr600f article page ever. And from what I have seen you have never added any reference for anything you have ever edited not sure how you have gotten away with this for so long. And it also appears that when another editor changes anything you edited you go on these rants of how you are some authority on the subject it is really not helpful.


 * Wikipedia is not a place for your first hand opinions!!! 72bikers (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I’m too involved at this point to satisfy WP:3O requirements, but figure I might as well chime in on this: I’m not going to comment on the conduct of either editor here; let’s just focus on what the sources say. If the sources explicitly make a comparison, then we can do the same along with an in-text citation. If they don’t, we cannot. Please review my edits and let me know whether my version is faithful to the sources and to WP:NPOV. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Specifications table
The infoboxes for each model contain slightly different specification detail, so they appear to be inconsistent. The content of the infoboxes could be moved into one large table. I started to make this table in this revision. (Stephengmatthews (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC))
 * I think he meant there are specs listed for one model that aren’t for another, so some cells in the table would be empty. Like we don’t have the bore for the first model. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn’t read through the Talk page, but this seems a better solution than the problem I tried to solve by putting clear in front of every section. If we can get rid of the multiple infoboxes, then let’s please do. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata
I have started to populate wikidata with data about CBR600Fs. For wikidata examples, see CBR600F and CBR600F4. (Stephengmatthews (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

Unsourced text
Does anyone dispute that the vast majority of the text in the subsections of is entirely unsourced? The fact that there are entire paragraphs with zero citations of any kind? Does anyone think the use of this template is unjustified or improper? I’m currently in a dispute with a user on my Talk page over it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the unsourced text? The whole section would be reduced to the following:

"The Honda CBR600F4i is a sport bike that was produced by Honda from 2001 to 2006. It was sold as the CBR600F (banana seat) and the CBR600FS or CBR600F Sport (two-tier seat) in Europe and in the US with just the two-tier seat known as the CBR600F4I from 2001 to 2003. After 03 it was only sold with the one piece seat.

In 2003, Honda introduced the CBR600RR, as a higher-performance race-ready, race replica alternative to Honda's more street oriented 600-class sport bike, the CBR600F4i. While continuing to manufacture the popular F4i In 04 a one-piece “banana” seat replaced the split seat. It appealed to those willing to sacrifice a little performance to gain a more comfortable riding position with a one piece seat and clip-ons mounted above the top fork clamp."

It seems that the remaining text has itself been the subject of some dispute (and some of that isn’t sourced either), but my question is about the removal of the rest. If anyone does object, please provide the necessary citations (see WP:ONUS). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Did it, and I reworded some of the above to better match the source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The shortening of the article has had some drastic effects on infobox and image positioning and whitespace. I’ve done my best to mitigate this, by placing clear just before every section heading. This also visually ties the infoboxes more closely with the body text—before, I was seeing the F2 infobox begin in the F3 section, for instance. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And I’ve just noticed User:72bikers has reverted these efforts, without discussion or comment. How about we talk about it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, I’m open to alternate solutions. This was just the best I could come up with, so we didn’t have infoboxes trailing down the side of a lot of nothing. (Which, to me, is about just as bad as having infoboxes bleed into the wrong sections.) Does anyone have any better ideas? Or do people prefer it the other way? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that before chunks of text are removed, due to a lack of citations, that some attempts are made to support the content in question. If after a reasonable amount of time is given to provide citations, none are provided, then I guess we can consider content removal. It's not a BLP issue or anything really controversial, so let's give it a little time. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I should point out that WP:PRESERVE, which you cited in your edit summaries, states that content should be retained if it meets WP:Verifiability, which the restored content doesn’t. But your recommendation is fair enough. What about the concern of the undue weight given to a specific model of the line? If that’s not addressed one way or the other, then it seems like Honda CBR600F4i should be split off into its own article. Thoughts? By the way, please restore the non-contested changes I’ve made to the article, especially the changes to make the sourced text more accurately reflect the sources; you reverted them along with restoring the unsourced text. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What is your fascination with this page User talk:67.14.236.50? You have never edited one single motorcycle article before this page. If you are referring to the way you rearranged the page to have large empty spaces between content. Then that was disputed as well as your speedy removal of large parts of content. I have never even seen another page set up like that ever. With no discussion with anyone in fact it was strangely odd at the way you went about it. You posted on the talk page of removal of content then only minutes later removed all of that content. If only doing so to have some argument then after impatiently waiting getting no response to argue with you. You then removed large sections in what seemed like your effort again to invoke a response to argue with. You have even gone on a mission to remove references that come in the format of PDF to no avail. That are on this page again in what seemed like a effort to invoke a argumentative response. Even trying to interject yourself into old discussion on this page again in a effort to get a argumentative response. From your talk page and your contribution history it would appear all you do is remove content and argue about it as if this is what gives you enjoyment in life. As you show some intelligence as in the way you are able to tiptoe around the rules and not be blocked or address the right notice boards. Why not then contribute something and stop trying to be so controversial. Seek enjoyment out of contributing instead of controversy. As these statement will surely feed your inner demons I assure you they are only to show you I got your number and you can run no games here. You are seen Sir or Mam or child for a assure you will not get that kind of enjoyment here. 72bikers (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, we are all here to build an encyclopedia. On this particular article, does the content under discussion harm or benefit the article? I'd say that it benefits the article. Is it controversial or is the accuracy of the content disputed? Is it a BLP or similar issue? There is little point getting into a month long debate over content that isn't controversial. From the large number of "citation required" tags all over wikipedia, there are 10000s of articles that lack citations, so why spend time complaining about this one? In the time it will take to debate this issue, another ten articles lacking citations, could have had those citations provided. It seems like conflict for the sake of conflict. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not come here seeking an argument. I came here seeking discussion, trying to build a consensus to deal with what I saw as problems. One section of this article is many, many times larger than the rest due to a large amount of unsourced content. I tried to address that. The infoboxes and images are all over the place, disassociated from the relevant body content. I tried to address that. If you disagree with my methods, fine, that’s why I asked for discussion. But don’t assume bad faith. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone who has been the subject of a lengthy ANI report, for deleting content due to it lacking sources, I have already discussed this with numerous editors/admins and at no time has there been clear consensus on if it's ok to remove unsourced content. There should be sources for all content, but there isn't. Wikipedia rules such as should not contradict each other, but they do. Unless the content is really controversial, or rather than not having sources to show it to be accurate, you actually have sources that show it to be inaccurate then I don't see it as a major issue. I'm not that concerned with layout, I just care about having nice content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The info box subject will be moot as all the information gets transferred to the Specifications table. And as far as content I believe it is all sourced now with the additions I have made of new references and I have more to add as well. And to the matter of to much weight on one given model I am also in the processes of trimming it down. All matters will be addressed in the next 30 days of protection. There is really not any more reasons to debate this subject anymore time to move on. But in keeping with the collaborative effort of wikipedia if any new issues need to be addressed please state these new ideas. 72bikers (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and as I mentioned under, I’m looking forward to that. (By the way, why did you remove your comment from there, but leave my orphaned reply?) The changes I was asking to be reinstated are as follows:

"The Honda CBR600F4i is a sport bike that was produced by Honda from 2001 to 2006. In 2004, a one-piece “banana” seat replaced the split seat. Clip-on bars mounted above the top fork clamp gave the bike a seating position that Jerry Smith of Motorcyclist called "less contorting than other bikes in the class".

In 2003, Honda introduced the CBR600RR as a higher-performance race-ready, race replica alternative to the F4i."

If there’s anything objectionable here, please explain. Otherwise, please restore it.

Thank you muchly for that explanation. However, I disagree with your assessment; it seems to me that Wikipedia policy is consistent on the idea that unsourced text is at risk of removal at any time, and must be sourced before it may be restored; but the editorial consensus you encountered does not match the relevant policies. So maybe those policies need revising? And though 72bikers has addressed it, you seem to have ignored the matter of due weight that I keep bringing up. Is the 4i somehow more important to the overall subject than any other model? Will it be spun off into its own article? Why does that section need to be so much longer than the others? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding these reversions, my edits were in keeping with the guidelines; please see WP:TPO and WP:LISTGAP. And regarding the summary comments, I thought we had agreed to be civil toward each other. Please stop your antagonistic behavior, and please stop accusing me of same when I’m the only one making an effort. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * From prior experience, I would say that consensus is anything but consistent when it comes to dealing with unsourced content. If it was consistent, I wouldn't have had an ANI report against me in which I had editors suggesting that I should be subject to a lengthy block for removing unsourced content. We have plenty of options. 1. citation tag. 2. find a source, rather than removing content. 3. inform the editor who added the content, that they should find a source. 4. remove the content. 5. leave the content. Just because you can remove content, does not mean that you should remove that content. I remove content all the time, I remove it when it is unsourced and controversial/dubious - I don't think this content is controversial or dubious. The article would benefit from leaving the content along with a citation tag, far more than it would benefit from losing the content.


 * Regarding undue weight, if one section is much larger than another, we always have the option of adding more content to the other sections to provide balance. I don't think the article is large enough to require splitting into separate articles, so more content to other sections would be a great fix for this. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your persistent tampering with my statement on this talk page are not covered under the rules you have chosen to list. Your interpretation of the rules is not a valid reality just because you state it does not make it true. You have ignored my repeated request for you to leave them alone. This is proof that that while your speech is civil your actions are not just your game playing. Your actions have been completely uncivil and antagonistic along with your actions to try and interject your self into my old discussion on this talk page. What you have asked to be restored has already been rewritten. As far as due weight on the F4I model it is being trimmed down. But it does deserve a little more content for a number of reasons. Such as having the longest model run and being the model that saw the release of the RR model being the only model to be released in two variations. Also there simple was more written about it than other models especially that is still accessible to reference today. But this model does not have a distinction that deserves its own page. So again I believe all of your concerns have been met this does not need to be debated endlessly. So unless you can bring up any new concerns I believe it is time to move on. 72bikers (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I could quote the relevant portions of those guidelines to you, if you wish. But I have asked you numerous times to stop neglecting WP:AGF with these constant personal attacks, especially on an article talk page. Take it to one of our user pages or a noticeboard or something if you truly believe I’m WP:NOTHERE, or just stop. (I would address this on your own page rather than here, but I don’t want to make you even more unreasonable by posting there again.) Anyway.  About removing unsourced content, please note that I said the policies were consistent on that, even if editors contradicted it. And thanks for explaining your rationale about the weight balance, both of you. But if the one model has a good deal more that’s been written about it, wouldn’t that mean it satisfies WP:N? The section itself still has a few issues, though; for instance, I’m not really sure what is meant by this line from the first paragraph, if not what I replaced it with above: While continuing to manufacture the popular F4i In 04 a one-piece “banana” seat replaced the split seat. It’s a rather confusing sentence, and the nonstandard formatting of “2004” doesn’t help. And I see nothing in the source to support the POV statement after that (about the model’s “appeal”), nor is there any in-text attribution for it per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (again, see my earlier edit above).  I considered requesting unprotection so I could try and fix these little things myself, or posting separate edit requests for each one, but this seems more expedient. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(Outdenting so I can use quote.) since you asked:

"Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

[…]
 * Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation. Another helpful template is the Talk page Reflist, reflist-talk. The template should be placed after the discussion that includes the references, as it will include all references before the template.
 * Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc."

"Colons at the start of a line mark that line as part of an HTML definition list. The visual effect in most web browsers is to indent the line. This is used, for example, to indicate replies in a threaded discussion on Talk pages. This is not ideal for accessibility nor semantics, but is currently in wide practice. Blank lines should not be used between indented lines as they are currently rendered as the end of a list and the start of a new one. If a space is needed, insert an extra line consisting of the equal number of colons to those preceding the following comment."

This seems unambiguous to me. If you disagree, please point out what you believe I’m misinterpreting. Cheers. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the rules is not a valid point as I have already stated. None of my format is expressly forbidden. You yourself have used this same format and you have been in other conversations and never tampered with other editors statement that have used this format.  Your persistent childish game playing indicates that indeed you are a child and not a adult. I will take this into account when gaging my responses to you. Also I would like to point out you removing headings in one of your attempts to interject yourself into a old conversation and is not allowed. Also doing that was clearly your attempt to be antagonistic is not allowed. Just wanted to point these simple facts out to you so that you do not make these mistakes again. 72bikers (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not done, and am not, any of these things you accuse me of. I don’t know why you’re still worked up over all this, but it was a stupid misunderstanding and we’ve both apologized for it ages ago (and this page continues to not be the place for this). Please immediately cease the personal attacks (which are not allowed per this policy) and the pointless hostility so we can get on with encyclopedia business. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If your not playing childish games why are you still tampering with my talk page statements. Your actions speak louder than your words and are a personal attack on me. This is all not allowed as I think you know. You try and speak nice whilst your actions have been to goad me into bad behavior. I told you from the start you are seen kid. All of my statements have never been a attack on you, just a response to point out your antagonistic actions. I am completely calm if you can't handle me pointing out your uncivil actions it is easy to solve just stop doing them. From your actions, I know you are still young and learning life so I will leave you with a bit of a life lesson to get respect you have to show respect. 72bikers (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If by “tampering,” you mean removing your personal attacks… that’s because of WP:NPA. Far from goading, it was an effort to hide your bad behavior, which I just want to stop. Your personal opinion of who I am has nothing to do with improving this article, none of this has anything to do with improving this article, so please remove this discussion and post it to my own Talk page or some other appropriate venue. Or report me to a noticeboard if you wish. But stop cluttering up this Talk page with your off-topic paranoia. If you’re still convinced that I want you to act out, then for God’s sake, stop giving me what I want. Now can we please address the concerns I’ve raised about this article? What is that line about the banana seat intended to mean? Does it mean something different than the simpler In 2004, a one-piece “banana” seat replaced the split seat? And I still don’t see support for the claim of the bike’s appeal. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2016
In, please replace the unreferenced section template with , since the section now has one source.

67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2016
Under, please replace

While continuing to manufacture the popular F4i In 2004 a one-piece “banana” seat replaced the split seat.

with

In 2004, a one-piece "banana" seat replaced the F4i's split seat.

Also, the very next sentence appears to be a POV statement which is not directly supported by the cited source, so please add fv to that or otherwise address it.

67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed altogether, appeared a bit like commentary — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The second requested change has been reverted, with worse grammar and little done to address the reason given for removal. Reopening the request with all the above rationale. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Done The requested change has been made (by myself and a previous editor). Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)