Talk:Kawasaki W650

July 2007
This thing needs a serious rewrite. As it is, it sounds like one bloke talking to another over a pint at the pub. Respectfully, SamBlob 00:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Meguro K1/K2 and Kawasaki W1/W2/W3 paragraphs and given them a separate Kawasaki W series page. I've tried to improve some of the remaining text that actually pertains to the W650. Motacilla (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What does "In 2008, due to the new emissions law, kawasaki was forced to put both W650 & W400 to the end." mean? That it's now discontinued? That is terribly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.35.138 (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Had is neutral. Featured is editorializing
I have routinely replaced "featured" with "had" in almost any motorcycle article, and I disagree with this edit saying an OHV pushrod engine was a "feature", along with the existing text saying the "W650 features a shaft-driven bevel-gear overhead camshaft." Feature should be replaced with had. The reasons why are covered in WP:Editorializing.There is virtually no technical characteristic that is unequivocally a "feature". When you put in a higher performance valve train, you might be trading off lower reliability, or complexity and higher maintenance cost. It might mean parts are harder to source. If nothing else, the bike will cost more. Better performance at higher cost is not a feature, it is a trade off. Some new technologies are very troublesome when first introduced, only to become industry standards in a few years. Calling them "features" when riders are cursing their existence is the job of the bike's marketing department, not Wikipedia editors.In short, please stick with "had" or "used" (not utilized!) or another neutral term. Let the reader decide if they think the bike is better with this or that "feature". Opinions on whether a device is an improvement should be attributed to an authoritative source -- and such opinions are a welcome improvement to an article, but make clear they come from the mouth of the expert, not the article editor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kawasaki W650. 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/20130505085600/http://www.mctrader.com.au/news-and-reviews/article/articleid/77433.aspx to http://www.mctrader.com.au/news-and-reviews/article/articleid/77433.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122050841/http://www.scs-tokyo.co.jp/kawasaki/w400.htm to http://www.scs-tokyo.co.jp/kawasaki/w400.htm

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) 11:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kawasaki W650. 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/20070610031153/http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/roadtests/kawasaki_w650/ to http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/roadtests/kawasaki_w650/

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) 13:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)