Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 500R

Is someone in charge of putting the motorcycle specs for the various Ninja's in consistent format? i.e. the 250 uses a table, the 500 uses bulleted headings, etc. Michael.Pohoreski 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

metric/imperial conversions
seem to be off. for instance: 229 miles [max cruising range] should actually be 369[ish] km. This is the only one I noticed, because it's been about 340km since my last fill, and I don't imagine I have some kind of giant-tanked version of the 500r.

Maybe other numbers are off, too. I don't know and can't be bothered to check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.122.113 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

591 Horsepower!!!?!?
Someone seems to have forgotten a decimal point under engine specifications, or this is the world's most powerful superbike... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.208.117 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ninja500r.info spam?
Please either explain why ninja500r.info doesn't violate WP:ELNO, or else stop adding it to the article. Thanks. --Dbratland (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a personal page. Facebook, myspace, John's BBQ recipes, etc are personal pages. So it doesn't violate WP:ELNO #11. "Paltry handful of user submitted photos"? Name another Ninja 500 site that has more user submitted photos. "Not recongnized by ANYONE as being reliable"? Are you kidding me? I guess you asked everyone that rides a ninja 500 this question? "Banalities"? It's called a point of view. This is what makes it unique. So it doesn't violate WP:ELNO #1. Which in turn doesn't violate WP:ELNO #4 as you so eloquently stated. #4 states "Links mainly intended to promote a website". Do a search for "ninja 500" in any search engine. It's in the top 4 of every one except Google which I believe is in 11th position. It's not "MAINLY" intended to promote a website. It's "mainly" additional info and photos. You have repeatedly stated the addition of ninja500r.info was spam but failed to explain why. Instead you merely tried to belittle the site. Perhaps because it's NOT SPAM and you are only trying to cover your tracks. Do you have some agenda? You FAILED to even notice the link to an obvious violation of WP:ELNO #10 by stating the forum link was "lurking at the bottom of the page". The top and bottom of any webpage are key spots because people tend to notice them easily. But I guess not for someone with an agenda. Wiki is not (and should not be) about one editor trying to flex his muscles everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.29.87 (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop dwelling on the other link. I'm not responsible for every single flaw on Wikipedia.  I did not "fail" at anything.  I deleted the link to ex-500.com immediately when I became aware of it.  It's gone now so forget about it.  You might want to read WP:Other stuff exists to help understand this.  You should also refrain from any further personal attacks on me. I am one ordinary editor, and I have no special powers whatsoever.  At least three separate Wikipedia administrators examined this editing and agreed you should stop adding the link; they disagreed with each other on some technical points, and one felt a longer block was appropriate.  But the point is, this is not just me saying it, and if you keep making this about me, I think you could find yourself permanently banned.  Those administrators looked at your web page too and found it inappropriate.Please read WP:Reliable sources.  If you can point out any reliable sources who recognize the page ninja500.info as being authoritative, or even useful, please do so.  I searched Google for "Ninja 500" and ninja500.info showed up pretty far down the list -- although you'll note that search engine rankings are not a criterion for WP:External links anyway, so what's the point?Another suggestion:  please forget about linking to ninja500.info.  That page as a snowball's chance of ever being linked to from Wikipedia.  A good use of your time would be to do research about the Ninja 500 in books, magazines, newspapers, and other reliable sources of published information, and to use what you find to edit Kawasaki Ninja 500R and make it a better article.  Holden VE Commodore is a very good example to follow, and Kawasaki Ninja 250R and Suzuki Hayabusa are halfway decent articles as well. --Dbratland (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Detail
This article has way too much needless detail. Technical data is fine, but it even gives the specs of the battery and stop lights, and the parts number of every model produced. Plus additional information from random reviews. This is an encyclopedia article, not a parts manual - if I don't hear any convincing arguments for that (and I find the time ;), I'll start cutting that down. We can just link to sites that have the information.

On another note, the introduction seems to be mostly the personal opinion of the editor who wrote it... Averell (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree most of those specs should go. The latest version of Template:Infobox Motorcycle has the data fields which have broad consensus from the motorcycling project. Adding detail beyond those fields is probably not helpful.Reviews, however, should be at the heart of the article. Not a random selection of reviews, but an aggregation of what different reviewers agree upon. This bike was made for 20 years, so there should be many reviews to work with.In any case, anything you do to make the article more like Holden VE Commodore, Maserati MC12, or Talbot Tagora is undoubtedly an improvement. BMW GS and Suzuki Hayabusa are also halfway decent guides.Thanks for helping! The Ninja 500 is a somewhat important motorcycle, needing better treatment here. --Dbratland (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've just had to use a historical version of this page to find information I was looking for, I feel that the pruning of this article has been excessive. Surely too much information is better than too little provided it is presented neatly. 109.104.109.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC).


 * I see this was removed as it was an obvious copy. 109.104.109.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

EX-500.com
Someone please explain why there should not be a link to ex-500.com. It is the owner/support site for the bike and contains information at a much greater depth and level of detail than this page. As such it provides value for those looking for additional info on the subject of this page. On the other hand ninja500r.info is simply a copy of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.72.183 (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:FANSITE explains in detail. --Dbratland (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

500R 05 kawasaki
Can 2 carbs off of a 98’ r6 be used on a 500R NiNja 162.247.201.121 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)