Talk:Rocker (subculture)/Archive 1

Message to Americans
Look, I appreciate our Empire waned many a year ago and your command of our language and culture may be in its prime - but if you don't speak English-English and were not around in the 1960s, please don't hack around blindly with this article, e.g. ; " pants " are something dogs do and women wear under their skirts.

This is one bit of culture we own the original franchise on!

Correction: Women wear pantIES. Men wear pants under their trousers.

Message to All
I'm irritated at how many times I've noticed this article re-written with absolute nonsense about what Rockers 'wore' or 'believed in' or what Rockers were 'influenced by'. IF YOU ARE NOT A ROCKER, EITHER MODERN DAY OR FROM THE HEYDAY IN ENGLAND, STOP INSERTING THINGS ABOUT US THAT ARE NOT TRUE AS IF YOU WERE ONE OF US!!!!! WE ARE NOT GREASERS (USA), ROCKABILLIES AND WE ARE NOT INTO HEAVY METAL, HARD ROCK, PSYCHADELIC ROCK, REGGAE OR SKA!! WE DON'T DRESS LIKE BUDDY HOLLY AND WE DON'T RIDE JAPANESE BIKES!! POSERS AND FOOLS, PLEASE LEAVE THIS ARTICLE ALONE!! There are at least 3 really good books about us Rockers that you posers and article hackers can read for yourself and see what we are all about, in fact there are direct quotes from one of those books in this actual Wikipedia/Rockers article. Lets have some HONEST and FACTUAL journalism here please.

THANKYOU, ROCKERS FROM LOS ANGELES.


 * Wikipedia is not journalism, and it is not, believe it or not, about being "True" or "Factual" or "Honest."  All that matters are reliable sources and verifiability.  That mans if you want to set the record straight, you need to get the news media, books, magazines and so on to publish the truth. Then it will appear in Wikipedia.  If the secondary sources are wrong, then Wikipedia will be wrong, and you'll have to live with that until you can get the secondary sources to make a correction themselves.--Dbratland (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Source of images
The images are all privately owned except those attributed elsewhere.

What?
I'm curious as to what this has to do with anything?

''The Rock star Nicky had a live concert in Sheffield Park. Someone in the background was shouting like a maniac.The name of the kid was Liam Batty. He sang "I Wanna Rock", "I just rang" and "Love Fist". Nicky was borni in Sheffield, Yorkshire and moved to London at the age of 22, when he moved out. He stayed with his mother for 22 years to make sure she would be ok when he left. At the age of 30 he began to be a rock star. We cannot show a photo of him, he doesn't like having his photo taken. He will only be photographed when he has his make-up on.''

Yeah, I'm going to revert the article back to how it was before.Lairor 08:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Title
Why is this at rockers instead of rocker? Macarenaman 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved it to Rocker (subculture) in order to conform with titles of similar articles about specific subcultures. I couldn't move it to Rocker because that is a disambiguation page. Spylab 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Much improvement needed
This article needs a lot of work. Some of the writing style and grammar is atrocious, it's disorganized and there's a lot of repetition. Also, there is not a single footnote, which takes into question the reliability. Spylab 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed most of the problems but there is still a great need for references. Spylab 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also it doesn't saying anything about "munchkins" - the Rocker term for their girlfriends that appears to have been borrowed from the Wizard of Oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.180.81 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lewend.jpg
Image:Lewend.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ton-up Boys
The Origins and characteristics section says Ton-up Boys were in the 1950s, and rockers didn't start until the 1960s, so if that's true, Ton-up Boys and rockers are not the same thing. Either the lead sentence or the Origins and characteristics are wrong, since they can't both be right. Which is it?Spylab (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Same people, same bikes, same clothes, same music ... the two terms were interchangeable and remain interchangeable to this day. Indeed, even coffee bar cowboy is coming back into use again albeit with a tinge of irony.

Which one of the books on the subject have you read? Let me know when you have read Stuart or Cohen and then we can discuss the finer points.

Thanks. --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant whether I have read any books on the topic. I have read this article, and it contradicts itself.

The lead says: "Rockers, Leatherboys or Ton-Up Boys as they were also known..." but a later sentence says: Although rocker-style youths existed in the 1950s, they were known as Ton-up boys because ton-up was English slang for driving at a speed of 100 mph (160 km/h) or over. It wasn't until the 1960s that they became known as rockers, immersed themselves in rock and roll music and fashions, and began to be known as much for their devotion to the music as they were for their motorcycles. They contradict each other. So which one is right, and which one is wrong?Spylab (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In real life, names for things change. The subjects or objects don't.

I tried twice on your talk page to engage you in discussion and answered you here.

Let's put the boot on the other foot.

Show me one reference that says Ton-up boys were, and are not, rockers, or vice-versa.

What would be helpful is if you can give us specific reference as to the dates when the terms were used.

Which one of the book on the subject are you basing your opinion? --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying to fix the contradiction in the article. I didn't write it. Correct the error.Spylab (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no error. The terms are interchangeable as I am about to show you. Is the problem not that you have not read any of the references?. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is that the lead sentence contradicts the other paragraph. The lead says they are the same thing, and the other paragraph says they are not the same thing.Spylab (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Spylab,

You are not offering any references at all.

The topic does now. It just uses different name for them. Without wishing to cause any offence, it is a really problem with your comprehension or interpretation ... so I changed the sentence to suit you.

Think "gays ... queers .. homosexuals". Now on to the queer pages and argue that gays are different from Homosexuals.

And so, "rockers ... ton-up boys ... coffee bar cowboys". The same beast.

Now what would be useful is if you could provide specific dates at which the different terms were first introduced ... but my guess is you cannot. They may not even exist.

I gave you a couple that took rockers back to '61 and then the late 50s. It is the best I can do. --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep totally missing the point. I'm not the one who claimed they they were different; the person who wrote the original version of the paragraph is the one who claimed that they were different. I merely pointed out the blatant contradiction in the original wording of the article.Spylab (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * LIke I said to you, I get your point. I asked you for references. I changed the sentence which was confusing you.


 * I am sorry but in all this, I have added 32 new references and I have not seen you add or refer to one.


 * I have tried to engage you in a discussion about your knowledge or experience and you have ignore me ... so what is this all about?


 * Please, what do you actually know about the subject and what sources have you read? Is this just is a wind up> --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that you improved the wording in the sentence in question shows that you understand that the previous version was confusing and contradictory. Thanks for correcting it.Spylab (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

style element
I am downplaying the style element deliberately. It is really something more to do with the heavily stylised Rocker revival movement Post-1980s and has been highly exaggerated by the media. The original rockers really were not that stylish, their fashion was not that codified, they were not that different from motorcycle enthusiasts of the, nor could they even afford the gear people were these days. The rockers were about the bikes.

There is a little about this in Stuart and Polhemus but basically nothing written academically about the revival movement yet and so I am not making any additions on this basis but the photographic record is there. --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No Contradiction, editor ignoring discussion
Now the lead section says this: Rockers, leatherboys or ton-up boys are members of a working class  subculture  that started in the United Kingdom during the 1950s and 1960s among motorcycle riding youths. Before 1964, young motorcyclists had not been grouped together and labeled as such. The first sentence contradicts itself, and it contradicts the second sentence. Either the subculture started in the 1950s or it started in the 1960s, so which is it? Each sentence has a footnote, but they are just books, and they don't include any quotes.Spylab (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. The movement started in the 50s and 60s. There is no other term for cross-decade denominations. No one can state the precise date. The two terms are commonly interchangeable in contemporary usage and retrospectively applied.


 * If you wish to a pedant ... define for us WHERE it started, e.g. like many youth movements it started in working class areas of major cities and then spread out.


 * WHERE did it start ... WHEN?


 * Therefore, started in the 50s and 60s. That is as narrow as we can state at present.


 * The topic reflects the available sources. Thank you --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Something only starts once; it cannot start both in the 1950s and the 1960s; it's a logical impossibility.Spylab (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I once had a bike that you would begin starting in the 7 o'clock hour and you'd still be working on starting it in the 8 o'clock hour. Sometimes on into the 9 o'clock hour if it was really cold... --Dbratland (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And there are examples of what a common English phrase this is here, here, here, here. --Dbratland (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your commonsense approach. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

retrowow.co.uk
Retrowow.co.uk is basically some guy's blog. It's just a non-experts's opinions, and it's used to support the sale of self-published books and knock-off retro phones. It's a spam site. It's also really badly written, confusing, and a stream-of-consciousness ramble. In addition, the link to http://www.retrowow.co.uk/retro_style/60s/mods_and_rockers.html does not say "The rockers in the 1960s were commonly referred to as greasers or grease as an insult by your rival mods." It doesn't say they were called greasers at all, and it doesn't say it was an insult, and it doesn't say the mods used the term. All it says is that the rockers had grease in their hair and ate at greasy restaurants. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Grease" sentence
There has been a lot of back-and-forth editing to one sentence in the lead section. British mods and skinheads commonly called rockers grease as an insult. This is the correct wording of the sentence. It says exactly what it means, and it means exactly what it says. If the problem is that there is no reference, then the sentence should be deleted altogether, not distorted to say something else. If it is deleted, then the next sentence should probably be deleted too, since it also has no reference.Spylab (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete a cited material from the Characteristics section? The distortion is the claim that they were commonly called greasers, that the mods specifically used the term, and that it was an insult. If that is so true, and so important to say, then why don't we have sources for it? Would you please restore the cited material and delete the uncited part? And wait until you have sources for anything else. This shouldn't be this difficult. It's a core function of Wikipedia: Verifiability.Make the article say what the sources say, nothing more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting that sentence from the Characteristics section. I didn't notice it because I was only looking at the lead section. I have tightend up that new sentence, added it to the lead section, and have deleted the older unreferenced sentence that people keep messing up.Spylab (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to give you references on this but I am going to say no more than we were called greasers and "the grease" as an insult. And the term greaser became a lot more common into the 70s. But I do want to question the bit about the "US term crossing over". I don't believe this is true. I don't believe it had US roots. It was just obvious given the muck of the bikes and working on them. Where did you get that idea?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridge Boy (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Estilo de vida del movimineto rockero
The film: Estilo de vida del movimineto rockero. It is a reposting of the rocker subculture in Ecuador and is a reliable and independent source, this according to the rules of Wikipedia and even serves as reference for the article. Wisehelp (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that these movements have anything to do with the subject of this article. The documentary it is at best a problematic source, not least because it is not in English and so falls under WP:NOENG. The use of YouTube as a link may be a copyright violation as per Verifiability and WP:ELNEVER. The added section on tribes has this and one other source that may be reliable, but I cannot work out what that source covers without reading it and this is made difficult as full details, such as page number or a link, have not been given.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No way José ... I left him a couple of links on his user page, Heavy metal subculture, and a section here: Social effects of rock music and here: Progressive rock, or perhaps just a new one here: Fan_(person). Or perhaps just stick to an Ecuadorian Wikipedia? Is Ecuadorian youth culture at all notable? May be he can start a page called "movimineto rockero" if it is?
 * He is basically talking about the American use of the word, as in a rock music fan, which may or may not deserve its own topic. There is no causal link between the British rockers movement and the American use. Same word but different roots. The British form emerged out of function and necessity, not design. In fact, there is a strong argument to suggest the British one was more influenced by Hollywood portrayals of Cowboys (e.g. The Wild One was not shown until the late 60s and not even widely shown then).
 * Does the Wikipedia do pages on individual types of "music fanatics" ? --Bridge Boy (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Include subculture outside the UK.
This discussion is for descidir if we include the rest of the subculture in the article or just leave it incomplete, with only the british group.

This article does not include the whole rocker subculture, only the English group of motorcyclists who were the precursors of the subculture. The subculture is centered on rock music, hence the name rocker. The subculture arrived in other countries in the 1970s, and there is no direct relationship with motorcycles, the rockers are a subculture with a presence in several countries, including Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Finland, United States, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Chile and others.

Some articles:

| Subcultures/urban tribes in Costa Rica.

[http://redaccionusac.blogspot.es/| Subcultures/urban tribes in Guatemala. ]

| Documentary about rockers in Quito (Ecuator).

| Rocker Style, a lifestyle.(Brazil) (I'm Brazilian)

| Rockers showed their unity in the streets and refused to those who discriminate.(Ecuador)

If you do not speak these languages ​​use google translate or automatic translator of google chrome, is not perfect, but it is very good.

To search in other languages​​: Rockero (Spanish), Roqueiro/Rockeiro (Portuguese), Rokkari (Finnish).

Please use: :✅ or : to responde and if you want, make a short description of why you agree or disagree to complete the article with the topic "Outside UK". Wisehelp (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You need better sources than this. If you can cite higher quality sources, then yes, add it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the sources were of a higher quality I am unconvinced that this is connected to the Rocker subculture which is the subject of this article.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 07:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The references about the supposed newer version of the word rocker are not up to standard. Without reliable references, it is just original research.Spylab (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I'm a rocker and some of my friends too. There are dozens and dozens of articles on rockers in Spanish and Portuguese, and some in other languages. The rocker subculture is just a biker subculture in the United Kingdom, Japan and Australia, and not in others countries. I did much research to know that. I think, the subculture is the same, but three in these countries is a subculture centered on motorcycles and classic rock and all others countries is focused on rock music in general and not focused on motorcycles. If it was another subculture, we'd have to rename the article to "rocker biker subculture" and make a new article to the name "rocker subculture" to the rockers of several and various countries. But for me rocker is rocker. is the same subculture. Wisehelp (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They're not the same. You just said so, because one is a motorcycle culture, and one is not. Just create a new article on Rockers in Brazil -- if you can actually cite the sources you allude to. If not, then let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

NO, This article already exists, but is in Portuguese (for rockers of Brazil and Portugual) And one in Spanish and one in Finnish. But our subculture is present in several countries not only in Brazil, I showed some articles as an example, to see that we are in several countries. Including Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Finland, United States, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Chile and others. The article in english only corresponds to the bikers, ok. but our subculture has a presence in several countries, so must have a article in english too, why not speak english only in the UK, but worldwide. There are several articles in Spanish referring to rocker bikers and non bikers as the same subculture because of this. Wisehelp (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you just cite the sources which you say tell us the two cultures are the same? Title, author, date, page. I'd be interested in finding out the explanation these sources give for why the two cultures are the same, even though one is motorcyclists and the other is not. There's no point in repeatedly alluding to sources. Cite them, please. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I can think of no more succinct explanation for why the two cultures are not the same than this. There's nothing wrong with non-motorcyclist "rockers"; write an article about them if you like. Words move from one language to another all the time, and often acquire new meanings in translation. It's a beautiful thing. Rocker has a new meaning in Spanish and Portuguese, if it refers to non-motorcyclists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dennis Bratland on this one — create Rockers in Brazil and create appropriate (if any) cross-links. I think his reasoning is clear enough. Brianhe (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, Brianhe read before posting ok. This article already exists, but is in Portuguese (for rockers of Brazil and Portugual) And one in Spanish and one in Finnish. Wisehelp (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The word rocker in Portuguese, Spanish and Finnish, refers to the rockers, it makes no difference to bikers or not bikers (most of the rockers is not bikers) Why the subculture is centered only in rock music in general and not just rock classic and motorcycles as in the UK. But we use the english name too, it is the same word. Wisehelp (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is the Portuguese Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia. They are parallel, but different encyclopedias. Having an article in one, does not stop there being one elsewhere. Because there is an article on one does there does not have to be an article on another.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 08:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

for the same reasons as Dennis Bratland and Brianhe. If there are good reliable sources to describe the people that Wisehelp is talking about, then by all means start a separate article, but from what I can see there are significant differences that mean the content doesn't belong here. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, really are two different subcultures, this is complicated because of the name, so I will include in the disambiguation with a short explanation, why our subculture is focused on rock music in general and is not a bikersubculture.

The internet has good sources: Documentary and News (journalistic sources are perfect for wikipedia) and some books to make a new article the problem would be the name of the article, for now I will only include in the disambiguation. Thanks.


 * The discussion is closed. Wisehelp (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion is not really closed, of course. But it the consensus is clear.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I reverted your addition to the disambiguation page - that is not its purpose. Disambiguation pages are for linking to articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a Portuguese, and, afaik, "rocker" does not have the meaning in Portuguese that Wisehelp says it have - with some rare exceptions, the word "rocker" in Portuguese is used specifically to refer to the british subculture of bikers (exactly what this article talk). In Portuguese (specially Brazilian Portuguese) there is indeed a word for "fan of rock music", but that word is "roqueiro", not "rocker"; if I understand, Wisehelp is assuming that "rocker" is a kind of "natural translation" of "roqueiro", but two words in two languages could be very similar but having different meanings (compare Carbuncle with Carbúnculo).--81.84.190.64 (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

rockers--where's the rock n roll?
this article should have more information on the relationship between rock MUSIC and the "rocker" subculture. certainly, a mention should be made of the thin lizzy track, "the rocker," which seems to be a quintessential expression of what the "rockers" actually were like. (sort of a three minute "quadrophenia" for rockers.) the "rocker" scene was wider and more diverse than the subculture that is depicted in the wikipedia article. in a general sense, of course, the term could be used to describe anyone who liked rock music. in its narrowest sense, the term was used to describe hardcore british bikers. the reality fell somewhere in between these two extremes, and this should be portrayed in the article. not everyone who was a rocker rode a motorcycle or hung out with people who did. yet it took more than an appreciation for rock music to be considered a rocker. as i understand it, a "rocker" was an individual who had a love for rock music or certain kinds of rock music (not merely little richard, chuck berry, and jerry lee lewis, but also the stones, who, kinks, and some of the "mod" groups as well) and incorporated at least some elements of the "biker" subculture into his or her lifestyle. so the difference between rockers and mods wasn't necessarily all that clear cut. the wikipedia article should reflect this. it's a shame that we can't resurrect phil lynott and/or malcolm mcclaren. they may not have been "rockers" per se, yet they certainly hung around with rockers and were articulate enough to give us information as to what the rockers (at least of the ladbroke grove/notting hill variety) were like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6017:51:CDA2:34BF:673E:5F5F (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

rock on
a key to the identity of rockers is the line from "the rocker" by thin lizzy that reads,"i get my records from the rock on stall [in Notting Hill]." malcolm mclaren also got his records from the rock on stall and ran an establishment called "too fast to live, too young to die," a clothing store which sold "rocker" style clothing. it appears that a "rocker" was someone with an appreciation for a certain type of rock n roll (not psychedelic, certainly not commercial/psychedelic, yet not exclusively reto-fifties either) who affected (an at least vaguely) "bikerish" visual style. so anybody who bought records from the rock on stall (or a similar establishment) and wore a leather jacket (or the type of clothes sold at a place like "too fast to live") might be considered a rocker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6017:51:CDA2:34BF:673E:5F5F (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Answer to both above comments.


 * WRONG type of rocker.


 * Malcolm McLaren had a teddy boy shop, not a rocker shop. --Backstreetlover (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Are "Rockers" and "Greasers" syonymous in the Uk?
In Johnny Stuart's "Rockers" book, he suggests that, in the UK, greasers emerged out of the rocker subculture in the late 1960s. This can be seen in changes of dress (increased use of nazi symbolism) and also a move towards these types of riders being described as "greasers" in contemporary culture. This also seems to be influenced by the hell's angels subculure in the USA, through mass - market pulp fiction and films available in the Uk.

I would suggest that the article either be subdivided internally, OR a new "Greasers (british subculcture) article be created.S ellinson (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hattie
Who is the "Hattie" mentioned in the caption of the second picture? There is no mention of this person elsewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.215.147 (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hattie is a compadre of some of the people who have contributed to the page. He is still involved in the culture - I have uploaded a recent image here, similar pose, just peeping-in from side of frame in conversation with others whom I have cropped-off to prevent online searchability of the image - I don't want to out anyone on Wikipedia. I don't have any more info; this is the only image I have, and it turned up as a result of long-term research I am doing into certain topics and Wikipedia in general, so was saved to my personal files. The Wikipedia image I'm guessing at 1965 or 66, and that Hattie was around 20/21, so is about 70 now. Please note I've also moved this section down to the bottom of the page into chronological order which is normal practice for Wikipedia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now identified Hattie IRL - his name gives no clues to the nickname, born 1949 so 66. Has a very nice bike, one of my all-time favourites, Honda ST1100.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)