Talk:Honda Super Cub/Archive 2

Honda EX5 Dream (C100EX) is a Cub
Hi all,

I noticed that the Honda EX5 Dream is actually a member of the Super Cub family. It was debuted in 1986 in Thailand (as Dream) and followed by Malaysia (as EX5) in 1987 before being standardised as the EX5 Dream in 2003. Honda Japan imported the made-in-Thailand Dream as the Super Cub C100EX in 1988 and it was facelifted in 1993.

Please update the article by using these two primary sources:-
 * Honda Press Release, 1988
 * Honda Press Release, 1994

Cheers. - Hezery99 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not the predominant model of motorcycle taxi in Vietnam
Article says

"In Vietnam, Super Cubs are the predominant model of motorcycle taxi..."

Maybe this was once true but I've been in Saigon for a while and most of the xe om drivers have more modern bikes. A xe om driver with a Super Cub would be quite unusual. Most of them have newer Honda models such as Super Dream, Wave and so on, or equivalent bikes from other brands. Oliver9184 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any Wikipedia fact only is the most recent information we have; a 2002 source is pretty recent. But of course if you can cite a more recent one then by all means do so. The larger point is that the word "Honda" became a metonymy in Vietnam. It's also possible that you saw examples of the Super Cub's modern variants around the globe, such as the Honda 70, or the DYK Wolf. There are hundreds of similar models.One of the biggest challenges with the Super Cub is tracking the diaspora of derivatives. I would be the first to welcome more citations in the period since 1980, especially about Super Cubs in the developing world. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Like" vs "such as"
This is not an argument of "succinct" vs "wordy" usage, but one of correct usage. Even if it were, the use of "such as" is hardly wordy in the context.

To say "...models like the CB750" is not inclusive, and can mean that it was models similar to the CB750 that led to the decline, but not the CB750 itself, whereas "...models such as the CB750" is inclusive and specifies that it was the CB750 that had influence over the decline. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Like" does not mean the same thing. It means similar - possibly very similar, but not the same.  So that means something similar to the CB750, but not the CB750 itself.
 * I know that "such as" is not singular, and I don't know where you get that implication. The fact it is not singular makes it a perfect replacement for "like".  I make no claim that the CB750 was singularly responsible for the decline of the british motorbike industry, just that it was one of the motorbikes that was - rather than the wording before which said that it was bikes similar to the CB750 that contributed to the decline.
 * If you think that the CB750 was not influential for the decline, then change the bike to one that was, but please source it at the same time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The CB750 was one of several lines that undermined large British bikes. The Kawasaki triples were another. The meaning of 'such as' and like is equivalent. See . The only difference is that 'such as' is more formal, i.e., more words, same meaning. Formality is pompous wordyness, trying to appear smarter with stilted language. It's bad writing.Please revert your edit warring and wait for other editors to weigh in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your example link there actually supports the use of "such as" over "like":


 * "We can use such as to introduce an example or examples of something we mention"
 * and
 * "Such as is similar to like for introducing examples, but it is more formal, and is used more in writing than like:" - my emphasis.


 * Also, please point out the edit warring I need to revert? I see none.  Either that, or retract the accusation, thanks.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought your revert of your talk page was another revert of Honda Super Cub.Again, it's the same thing, but more formal. What does it need to be more formal? Like conveys the meaning correctly, but without the useless, wordy formality. I don't see any dictionary sources that say using like this way is slang, merely less formal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Being less formal does not automatically equate to slang. I don't see anywhere that I claim such a thing.  Accusations of editwarring, that I claim the term to be singular, the implication that I consider "like" to be slang... Where are these thoughts coming from?


 * I have no bones with the term "like" when it is used to mean "things similar to, but not the same as", but not when it is used to mean "the exact thing I'm about to describe"
 * It is not the case that the term needs to be more formal, but that it needs to be correct. It just so happens that in this instance, the correct term - one that implies inclusion, rather than comparison and similarity - is considered more formal.
 * Here is a link provided by an editor that states that "Such as is similar to like for introducing examples," - it does not support the claim that "like" is the same as "such as".
 * Here is another example that support the difference, and that "such as" implies inclusion, which "like" does not. And here.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Question
Ok, here's a different slant on it. Do you believe that use of the term "such as" is incorrect use of language, and wrong? I'm not asking if you think it's wordy or formal, but rather if you think the term is being used incorrectly, and puts forward an incorrect statement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if an editor doesn't respond in 2 weeks - even taking into account Christmas - it can be reasonably assumed that they've backed off from the topic. So without further dissent I've changed it to the term "such as", and as a show of good faith, and acknowledgement that the term is not singular, included the Kwak Z as well, which was equally influential.  I threw in a source too, liberally lifted from the Z1 article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Underbone?
Underbone is a term I've never seem used in western english motorcycle sources, but according to the wikipedia page it means a Step thru type with a partially tubular frame, and of course the Supercub has an all pressed steel frame without tubes. So either this isn't An underbone design, or else the Underbone page has an incorrect definition. But In UK english terminology at least underbone is meaningless, and Step Through would be far better.212.159.44.170 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a term developed by NASA to ensure safe spacecraft reenntry. Underbone is slang that originated in non-English speaking countries to generally describe a type of motorcycle that appeared on a couple 1950s European models, became phenomenally popular with the Super Cub and it's myriad imitations. The definition isn't that precise, and the man on the street who says "that bike is an underbone" doesn't really know exactly how the frame was made. Wikipedia can't take a word that people use perhaps loosely and redefine it so it's neat and tidy. Our sources tell us the Super Cub is an underbone, so we put that in the article. We don't decide what to classify the Super Cub as. We only summarize what it has been classified as. Our sources give us a definition of underbone, so we put that in the article about underbones. Is life sometimes contradictory? Yes. Often. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed Flying Pigeon note
In the second graph, the statement "the Super Cub is the most produced motor vehicle in history" had an asterisks for a note stating that the Flying Pigeon is the most manufactured vehicle in history. I'm not disputing that, but it seemed strange to put this as a note here. The original statement is not misleading at all; the distinction rendered by preceding "vehicle" by "motor" is clear. 211.23.25.61 (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The asterisk is there to flesh out the superlative most produced motor vehicle, by explaining that if you remove the qualifier "motor", the Super Cub is in second place behind the Flying Pigeon. I would actually improve this note by adding that if you keep the qualifier 'motor vehicle', and narrow it to cars, then the Toyota Corolla is in the #1 spot. This paints a complete picture: Flying Pigeon is the #1 vehicle; the Super Cub is the #1 motor vehicle; and the Corolla is the #1 car in history.In any event, you don't have a problem with any of the facts here. Your sole reason for the deletion is "it seemed strange". All I can say is that it doesn't seem strange to me, and it didn't seem strange to the editors who carefully reviewed this article to promote it to Good Article status. The little footnote isn't hurting anything; it merely adds some detail and it does so unobtrusively. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, I won't redelete the note, but I want to reemphasize that the meaning of "motor" in the sentence is obvious and clear. There is no way to misread the text that could lead you to think the statement extends to nonmotorized vehicles. "The fastest land animal is the cheetah." Should this also have a note pointing out that if you remove the modifier "land," the cheetah is in second place behind the peregrine falcon? 211.23.25.61 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could worry that readers are too sloppy to notice words but that's rather condescending. Without any evidence to the contrary I think we should assume they're smart enough to see the words in front of their eyes, and to notice why there is a difference between 500 million bicycles and 60 million motorcycles. If it turns out people are confused I guess we could add some redundancy to beat the point home and avoid confusion, but it's been like this for 3 years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? It sounds like you're making my point. The use of the note implies that readers are too sloppy to notice words (i.e., "motor"). I removed the note because I didn't think that the article should condescend to readers by worrying that they might mistake "motor vehicle" to mean "all vehicles, motorized or not." 211.23.25.61 (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I can't help you. Maybe somebody else can understand what your concern is and can help address it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled that you don't understand. My point is that the note is unnecessary. The sentence clearly states "motor vehicle." There is no ambiguity -- but the note suggests that there is ambiguity, as if clarification is necessary. But as you said, there is no reason to assume that readers don't notice words; they will notice the word "motor," so they will know that the statement is regarding motorized vehicles, a category to which bicycles do not belong. Thus, there is no ambiguity and no need for the note.211.23.25.61 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The footnote contains information that is not in the lead. It tells you how many Flying Pigeons were made, and that it is the top vehicle ever. You don't want say that in the lead because this is not an article about Flying Pigeon bicycles. But it's still relevant in understanding the context of the Super Cub's record. You want to have it there for those seeking detail, but you want it out of the main text. What to do? Hey, well, someone has invented a thing called a footnote and the problem is solved. There's a second footnote saying that Herb Uhl had a more famous son, also not really about Super Cubs but some people care so, again, footnote to the rescue. It works. Everything is fine here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but I am arguing that readers don't need to know about the Flying Pigeon record to understand the Super Cub record. The Super Cub record is that it is the top-selling motor vehicle ever. Everything that you need to understand this record is contained within the preceding sentence. You don't need to know that the peregrine falcon is the fastest animal to understand that the cheetah is the world's fastest land animal.211.23.25.61 (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Context is necessary to understand the magnitude of any number. How can you grasp how far away the Moon is without having any idea how far away the Sun is? Talking about what is a lot of money in a US State budget (sooner or later) makes it necessary to understand what is a lot of money in a city budget or the US Federal budget. Understanding how fast a really fast motorcycle is eventually requires having an understanding of what a fast runner is, or a fast bicycle, a fast car and a fast plane. Looking at only one in isolation is fine for getting a basic fact -- which is what we do in article intros -- but we also look for depth. It matters a great deal that 60 million Super Cubs is, on the one hand, a pittance compared to bicycles, while, on the other, a staggering number compared to the volumes of cars. Context is what gets you from merely knowing a bunch of facts to having insight.If anything you've convinced me that this information needs to be moved up from the footnote to the body of the article to have greater prominence, though still not in the intro. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Honda_Super_Cub 60.248.185.19 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that the Flying Pigeon bicycle should be mentioned in reference to the claim "the Super Cub is the most produced motor vehicle in history" I would respond by saying that the Flying Pigeon is the wrong choice. There have been well over four billion Hot Wheels produced, making Mattel by far the worlds largest producer of vehicles ever. What's that you say? Little toy vehicles don't count? Sorry, but if you are going to count bicycles in the context of "motor vehicles" you should also count toys. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying bicycles are motor vehicles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you not the editor who wrote above that "It tells you how many Flying Pigeons were made, and that it is the top vehicle ever." (It isn't. Hot Wheels are) and "it's still relevant in understanding the context of the Super Cub's record"? Please explain, in detail, how you decided that bicycle sales are relevant to motorcycle sales but toy car sales are not. Because pretty much everyone else thinks you are comparing apples to orangutans. BTW, I would have to do some digging, but I believe that there are roller skates and toy motorcycles that have outsold the Flying Pigeon. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should go over to Talk:Vehicle and announce to the editors there that the definition of a vehicle is no longer "a machine that transports people or cargo." Now it includes toys representing machines that transport people or cargo. Like a picture is a representation. Is a picture of a vehicle also a vehicle now? A picture of a vehicle does not actually transport people or cargo, it only represents a thing that can. A matchbox car is no more capable of actually transporting anything; it's only a representation. Also, you're mixing up brand with model. You'll need to cite numbers for the most produced model of Hot Wheels, and most produced model of roller skates. We're not adding up all Hondas and all Toyotas ever made.The basic reason why this article, and vehicle, compares the most-produced numbers of bicycle, motorcycle, car models is that it reflects what is found in the sources. The contents here aren't simply pulled out of thin air by an imaginative Wikipedia editor. Multiple sources illustrate the relative magnitudes of these numbers by comparing them with each other. The basis is obviously that bicycles, motorcycles and cars are practical transport that people rely on. The reason 1 billion Flying Pigeons were made is not because they're fun (and cheap) toys like Hot Wheels, it's because people needed them. The same is true of the Super Cub. Tens of millions were sold because it suited a practical need for millions of people. People use an underbone motorcycle because they can't afford a car. They use a bicycle because they can't afford a motorcycle. Nobody uses Hot Wheels, or roller skates, because they can't afford a bicycle.Now over on Toy, the numbers of the most-produced models of toys in history would be an interesting detail.This is the very first time anyone has ever suggested that Hot Wheels or roller skates are in an way comparable. The comparison is not in any sources on this topic; if I had ever seen a source that had included this I would have probably considered mentioning it. If you want to show me sources that treat toy cars as comparable to bicycles, motorcycles and cars in this way, please do.Why is this footnote suddenly a problem? It has been there since January 2012. Six years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The general basis for this kind of comparison has been challenged, and I'd like to point out common examples. Vox has a graphic comparing the total biomass of all life, demonstrating the magnitude of difference between different categories. Lists of organisms by population walks through a similar comparison of the numbers of species in existence. Similar comparisons of extreme magnitude have been made of sub-atomic distances, solar orbits, the size of the galaxy and the observable universe. XKCD has frequently explored this, seriously and fancifully. It's context. By placing a statistic in context, between that which is a magnitude larger, and a magnitude smaller, we gain deeper understanding of the meaning of the numbers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Pop culture section
The problem with this is explained at "In popular culture" content. Content doesn't belong at the end of an article in a garbage dump or miscellaneous trivia section. If something is relevant to the topic of the Super Cub motorcycle, then the place to add it is in the chronology: Development? Design? Later? EV Cub? Where does Super Cub (novel series) become part of the story of the Honda Super Cub? And we need sources saying so. That's the problem. It doesn't fit anywhere. At no point in the timeline of the motorcycle does the manga have any connection to the motorcycle. A character in a story wants a "motorized bike of some sort." Some sort. They pick literally the most commonplace, universal light motorcycle. Fine. But, as the article tells us, tens of millions of people have done that. Run of the mill occurrence.It's like if a character in a story is thirsty and a vending machine has the most commonplace beverage, say Coca Cola. Fine. But do we need to mention in the Coca Cola article that it was in that story?Only if reliable sources tell us there is good reason to. Or as WP:POPCULTURE says: "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." Cite a source telling us the significance to the topic of this Honda motorcycle and it's fine. Otherwise, there's a whole separate article where we can write about the manga. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Re step-through
Heh heh... I thought someone might act too quickly on that, so immediately sourced about a dozen sources for it, even some from England; I'll try to revise with cites later today. I've got a nice pic of my older brother racing to 9th place in the 1967 Isle of Man TT (first appearance of (red & white) coloured leathers since a white pair in the 1930s, I think) Tiddlers race. On a works Heldun, not a Honda C100 or C102!. I'd like to send a copy to the person who reverted it, if they mention where they want it sent.

My brother had bought his first step-through (a C105; dubbed the Step-through 55) a few years prior to that. The copyright for "Super Cub" was owned in the USA (Honda's biggest target market) by Piper for their airplane, so the bikes weren't sold with any Super Cub branding. Other than by model number, they were always called a Honda Step-Through (or Step-Thru... Americans!). I don't know when Honda got permission to use the name Super Cub in the USA. SmarterAlec (talk)
 * It is a step-through. It has an open frame in front of the seat, so you can step through it. It's an astoundingly popular example of a step-through. Just like the Ford F-150 is a very popular pickup truck. And you can call it a "Ford pickup truck". Just like you can call the Super Cub "a Honda step through.". That's how words work. "Ford Pickup Truck" is not another name for the F-150, and "Honda Through" is not a name for the Super Cub. It's just something people call it because it's a Honda and it's a step through.If you have sources that say otherwise, please make sure you are not presenting original research and your sources meet the standards for reliable sources. Some old photos of yours for example. That is not what Wikipedia means when we say facts must be verifiable; it needs to be published by a trustworthy organization so others can check it, and if it's a primary source it can't require any interpretation to suss out the meaning. See WP:Verifiability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)