Talk:Indian Scout (motorcycle)

2001-2003 Indian Scout (Gilroy)
A section should be written about the Gilroy Scout. Unfortunately, the info I have was printed from the old, defunct Gilroy Indian website from when they were still a viable concern, and it doesn't even have the old URL printed on it.

Some possible sources:
 * http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/Indian/indian_scout.htm
 * http://www.bikernet.com/news/PageViewer.asp?PageID=153
 * http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/indian_scout_2001.php

Any help would be appreciated. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion - Indian 101 Scout into Indian Scout (motorcycle)
I hereby begin a discussion to determine whether the article Indian 101 Scout should be merged into this article.

When I started the article on the 101 Scout, this article did not exist, and most of the information I had was about the 101. I figured the 101 was notable in its own right, and I still think it is.

However, the 101 also falls within the scope of this article, and this article is a bit small to have a child article, even if the "child" is older than the "parent".

Therefore, I believe the merging of these articles should be discussed, even though (especially because?) I am not sure whether they should be merged or not.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge I'd like to see a comprehensive article on the Indian Scouts, expanded to give good coverage on the whole history. After the main topic article is in very good shape, perhaps spawn some sub-articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

101 infobox picture
According to WP:MC-MOS, under "Infobox and Statistics":

"The main image of a motorcycle in Infobox Motorcycle generally follows WP:CARPIX."

Going on to WP:CARPIX, we have, under Item 6 "Use images of cars in good, complete, clean, and original condition whenever possible. Avoid pictures of heavily customized cars as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance, unless the text in context to the picture is dealing with the customization of the vehicle."

In light of this, why has the photo that was in the 101 Scout's infobox, which meets this criterion, been replaced by a photo of a hillclimbing special with a gigantic rear wheel with chains on it, a disproportionately large rear sprocket, a girder fork from a later motorcycle, and no front brake (there's no evidence of a rear brake either, but it could be hiding behind that huge rear sprocket)? Especially so when the replacement photo also shows an elevated bike in side view (contrary to Item 10) with a cluttered background (contrary to Item 5)?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All true, but isn't the other one modified too? Maybe I'm mistaken, so then we should put it back.I've been thinking we need to stop following the Automobile Project's picture view standard, of a 3/4 angle, because it foreshortens the motorcycle and makes it hard to get a clear idea of what the bike looks like. A plain side view makes more sense for a motorcycle. Glynn Kerr has mentioned several times that motorcycles are almost two-dimensional; they're so narrow that there isn't much to see from the front and the whole design is the side. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replacing the original infobox picture. I am not aware of the subject of the picture being modified; it looks much like the illustrations I've seen for 101 Scouts. What do you believe has been changed?


 * The angle can be discussed at the project talk page but, at present, both the automotive guidelines and the draft motorcycle guidelines mention 3/4 view, although the draft motorcycle guidelines give side view as an alternative.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2014 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Xoloz (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian Scout (motorcycle) → Indian Scout – The convention for the name of a motorcycle (and therefore for the name of the article about the motorcycle) is the make/marque/brand followed by the model name or code, e.g. Norton Commando, Honda Gold Wing, MZ Skorpion. This would make the natural name for this article "Indian Scout". Based on WP:DIFFCAPS, the capitalization of Indian Scout should identify the subject of the article as a product, and thus disambiguate it from other topics that would come to mind as Indian scouts, such as the United States Army Indian Scouts or Scouting and Guiding in India. This makes the "motorcycle" in parentheses at the end of the article title superfluous. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the US Army scouts article scouts are "Indian Scouts" so is directly ambiguous with this. The generic "Indian scout" (Native American scout) seems to be missing an article. Indian Scout should redirect to indian scout. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - No article exists on Indian Scout at the moment, so it is irrelevant what other things use this term (and the Indian scout you mention is located at United States Army Indian Scouts, I would expect). I would support this being located at Indian Scout, and the disambiguation page being moved to Indian scout (disambiguation), but I'm not 100% convinced that this would fit with standard practice (and if this was at Indian Scout without moving the disambig page, then it could be quite confusing.) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Indian Scout (motorcycle) is clear and precise. Moreover, "Indian Scout" as a title gives, to my mind, a primacy to the motorcycle in the use of the phrase "Indian Scout" which it does not necessarily merit. Smallchief (talk  12:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per Smallchief. Indian scout exists, having a parallel article with only different capitalization will create significant confusion, and the redlink can be fixed by making it a redirect.   Montanabw (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So WP:DIFFCAPS has no merit, then. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose The primary meaning of "Indian Scout" is not the motorcycle, but the historical practice of the US army to use Native Americans as scouts. The redlink should be a redirect or even better a disambiguation page.189.226.153.196 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the meaning of Indian scout, which has an article under United States Army Indian Scouts. A hat link would work in this case. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's the meaning of 'Indian Scout'. "Indian scout" is a more generic term for which we are missing an article. The US Army was not the only military with native auxiliaries, remember the French and Indian Wars? That predates the US' creation, and had "Indian scouts" as well. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have redirected Indian Scout (which was a redlink) to Indian scout. Indian scout is currently a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Should I assume from this action that discussion has ended? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * and oppose. Disambiguation page is better. Mama meta modal (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Oppose. See United States Army Indian Scouts, which is just as much as if not more of a primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Scout (motorcycle). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124132303/http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/WhatsOn/PastEvents/WFI/Pages/Records.aspx to http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/WhatsOn/PastEvents/WFI/Pages/Records.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)