Talk:Motorcycle accessories

Farkles should be merged here
Motorcycle farkle should be merged into this article as a farkle is just a word used for certain types of accessory. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a poorly sourced neologism. If proper sourcing can be provided, merge. Otherwise, it should be deleted. I'll wait a couple of day before I take it to AfD. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Although I'm not even sure AfD is needed. If the merger is accepted by people in this discussion then the text could be merged in using an opening sentence in Motorcycle accessories article something like "Motorcycle accessories (sometimes known as farkles) are features and accessories selected by a motorcycle owner. All the other uncited stuff in the farkle article could be dropped during the merger. Otherwise there is little or no content of value in the farkles article. Or we could just go AfD and be done with it... --Biker Biker (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For me what's important is that it isn't unique to motorcycling to have some slang terms, and it isn't unique to have people spending money on gadgets or kitsch. Stereophiles or 4x4 fans have the same kinds things, but so what? Yes, the curious need a place to look up what an unfamiliar word means, but don't to treat it as a subject of learning and discourse. I'm thinking of things like Biker's bell and so forth here as well.--Dbratland (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge but prefer delete. I'm not sure I can see how Motorcycle accessories becomes a better article by having farkle merged into it, but I suppose one could try.  An alternative would be to make a List of motorcycle slang page and throw all these things in there, but isn't that Wiktionary's job?  Or perhaps a new article on the subject of motorcycle bumper stickers, decoration, questionable gadgets, and artwork.  Primarily focused on the good, i.e. 'The Art of the Motorcycle'  rather than the bad (farkles).  I'm confident some day this topic will be written about some day on WP; no need for Motorcycle farkle to hang around waiting.


 * Support the merge. I think we'd have no problem "defending" Motorcycle accessories against an AfD; not as sure about "farkles". (ec) tedder (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know I only proposed this yesterday but it looks like we have consensus already from some respected motorcycle contributors so I acted. Motorcycle farkle now redirects to this article and I have added a very short mention of farkles in the opening paragraph. I hope that meets with everyone's agreement. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Accessories
The FIRST group of accessories should always be Safety Helmets. Flatshooter (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything in this article is something you attach to your motorcycle; accessories for the bike, not what the rider wears. Helmets are covered under Motorcycle personal protective equipment, Motorcycle safety, and of course Motorcycle helmet.  And even if helmets belonged in this article, putting them at the top, presumably to preach their importance, would violate the policy against advocacy.  --Dbratland (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Obeying the law is not advocacy. The most important accessory is a helmet.  Why didn't you remark on this earlier when it was mentioned?


 * This is a jumbled up mess. I intend to organize it. I've removed the helmet at the top.


 * If it's YOUR intention that this page is to be for bolt on accessories say so.  That isn't what the title says.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatshooter (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's already an article for personal protective equipment. And what law? In every nation there's a law requiring helmets? Again, there's an article for that. tedder (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fairings should be removed
The fairings found on Sport, Sport Touring and Touring motorcycles are standard fair today. They are seldom, if ever added to modern motorcycles. It's not an option or accessory on the Gold Wing that it's pictured on.Flatshooter (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is not just about the most current models. Fairings such as Vetter's hold a place in history and should be kept for that reason. tedder (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Power Commander Should be added
Power commander should be added. If it is not there already hidden away.--Inayity (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Kind of looks like a sales catalog now
I'm not sure the current version is an improvement over the previous version. There's a bunch of new photos but no new cited content. It looks a lot like "here's all the stuff you can buy!" Why not focus on verifiable facts and not use the encyclopedia to enumerate everything that's being sold out there? Is this encyclopedic if no good sources exist?I also think showing examples of various kinds of sliders in one photo instead of four is much better. What's the point of all these photos of plastic knobs that you can put on your bike? What facts exactly are we communicating? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It does have a large amount of text & images devoted to various placements of sliders now. Trim and/or move detail to a new article? — Brianhe (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Brian and me, I went ahead and deleted the unsourced statements and deleted the excessive photos which are not supported by the cited text. I don't see an encyclopedic need to enumerate every single possible slider. The basic concept is there: It's a plastic knob that hits the ground before your expensive bike parts. There's a bunch of different kinds; people put them all over the bike. We do not need whole sub-sections explaining that you can put a plastic knob on your bar ends, and another whole section saying as well you can put a plastic knob on your axels, and another whole section saying you can put some covers on your tank. Etc. Etc.I suggest before any more content or photos are added, there should be sources first. Find a source which gives expert factual statements about the sliders, and then add only sourced content based on that. Then, if the sources support it, consider adding a photo. And remember Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not see this discussion, I assumed images were deleted for other reasons. While Wiki is not a sales catalogue the purpose of wikipedia is to be informative. I am sure we can find that images do help the reader understand the topic. Sometimes these topics actually suffer from a shortage of images. Had I not known about Bikes I would actually not understand a string of text. I do not think, after reviewing Sales Cat, that it applies to illustrating the variety of crash protection on offer. --Inayity (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a quality source that says that crash protection has anything at all to offer? The best I can come up with is a few experts who shrug and say "it couldn't hurt" as long as you can afford to add such bling to your bike. If we had genuine facts as to which, if any, sliders or other protectors have measurable value, that might amount to something. It's obvious from any motorcycle accessories retail site that they have people working overtime thinking up new places to stick knobs of Derlin or billet aluminum or carbon fiber with the promise that it will "save money". I don't know for a fact it's all snake oil, but I do know that Wikipedia requires quality sources before you call it "information" and add it to the encyclopedia.I also don't know of any readers who need help understanding the topic. What is so hard to understand about sliders? Why do you need four or six pictures? Countersteering is a hard concept; sliders are not.All I can say is at least it's not those absurd brake reservoir cozies.What I'm saying really is this: if you want to be informative, then find good sources first. If you've got a quality source, I don't have much reason to object. Add some cited text about bar end sliders or tank covers, and then consider adding a photo. Personally I think one photo showing three kinds of sliders is very elegant and efficient -- that's why I took the photo. Too many photos creates bad layout problems on Wikipedia pages. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I should take some of that back: The Motorcycle Track Day Handbook, already cited, does say that sliders can save you money and recommends them for track days, so we can say that, and it says that bar end sliders exist. My mistake. But there isn't a lot more we can say -- such as going on about all the different kinds of materials and variant forms. That's sales catalog stuff. And why do we need to anyway? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree with the edit, but just dont think Catalog rationale is valid. On a side note I have no idea what Brake reservoirs do ( I would like to know). I did read frame sliders protect against some low side crashes also. They definitely 100% protect the bike from drops (personal testimony). I also agree with well ref stuff because you read so much nonsense from forums and YouTube it would be good to keep information accurate and from RS. --Inayity (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Top-box, top case, trunk?
Which of the above is the most common and idiomatic one? MI vote for 'top case' but I am not a native speaker. It is in my native language but it could be a 'false friend'.--Cancun771 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Motorcycle accessories. 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/20090609022744/http://www.watsonian-squire.com/history.htm to http://www.watsonian-squire.com/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823225106/http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf to http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf

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) 13:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)