Talk:Suzuki GT550

March 2009
Mmmm....two more "editorial comments/banners" have appeared. Well, I'll give them the same "90 day" grace period that I'm giving the first one. After that....they're gone, regardless.H2RICK (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that someone "feels" that my writing style doesn't measure up to Wikipedia's "standards" for "encyclopedia-type" prose. Sooooo....I'll leave the banner up at the top for at least 90 days to give everyone a fair shot at comments/edits/etc. If there are no edits by the end of that period, the banner will come down.H2RICK (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK...I've resubmitted the article with references to keep everyone happy. This article is SOLELY my creation without ANY copyrighted materials included....unless you consider the Specifications numbers lifted directly from various published Suzuki data sheets to be copyright material... but that would be silly, wouldn't it ??!!?? H2RICK (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

August 2017
I'm pulling the tag on the specifications section and the others. Of course this is a fanboy article. It would hard to write it from a more neutral point of view, unless there was some recall or something. Rhadow (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The same standards apply to every article. So what if this one happens to be about a motorcycle? We have lots of other articles about motorcycles that are neutral and encyclopedic. And even if there were a valid reason why writing a decent article about the Suzuki GT550 were harder than any other topic, how is that an excuse? So what if it's hard to do? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dennis Bratland -- I looked again, and fo the life of me I don't see anything jumping out at me that screams not decent, neutral or encyclopedic. The specifications are what they are. I know that the motorcycle infobox is not supposed to include power or acceleration; the manufacturer is not authoritative. Aside from that, I just don't see the problem. Sorry.

You are a motorcycle enthusiast. What do you suggest we do to get this article off the backlog? Rhadow (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The specifications are what they are." We cannot copy paste copyrighted content into Wikipedia. You can't go to the specs page of a vehicle and highlight, CTRL-C, CTRL-V and click save. We have this problem on many slapdash motorcycle articles, and you can spot it a mile away. The phrasing and arrangement of the specs is clearly taken directly from a website or manufacturer publication. In this case I think it's from an offline Suzuki service manual. Many magazines and newspapers print press release specs verbatim but they are claiming Fair Use while Suzuki continues to assert copyright. The information itself is not copyrighted, but it musts be reformatted, not merely a close paraphrase.
 * "I know that the motorcycle infobox is not supposed to include power or acceleration" Have you looked at Template:Infobox motorcycle? Power, top speed and torque are right there. We often mention 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times in the body. The key requirement is a direct footnote to good source.
 * "the manufacturer is not authoritative". There is no such thing as "authoritative". Sources are what they are. We note manufacturer performance claims as "claimed", because they are self-published, biased sources, per WP:BIASED. It's important and relevant information, but the reader needs to know who is claiming it.
 * The most obvious fancruft is the frequent use of passive voice weasel words to allude to opinions found on forums and fansites: This is almost all some random guy on the internet posting opinions on forums. It gets copied over to Wikipedia and gains a sheen of authority.
 * "The backlog"? What backlog? I don't know anything about any backlog. Why is this backlog my problem? Since when does any backlog influence whether maintenance tags are kept or removed?The Motorcycling Project suggests giving priority to articles at the To Do List, or Requested Articles or Popular Pages or 'important' bikes. This focuses our efforts on content that matters most. There are at least two thousand low-importance stubs with collections of stats and fancruft about obscure bike models that somebody once created. They are a problem, and they get tagged for cleanup, but they are a low priority because they are time consuming and get little traffic. I'd just delete them but even that takes time and effort. So they get tagged and they wait. I expect they will wait for several years at this rate. In what way is that the problem?
 * My suggestion for this article is the same as for any topic: find sources, read them, and write based on that. You don't have to be a motorcycle expert if you know how to write faithfully to your sources. The key to working in WikiProject Motorcycling is to know that motorcycles are not special. We edit based on the same principles as articles about Pokemon or Greek art. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's much better now. If you want to remove the banners and just tag some problem areas with inline tags Original research inline, by whom etc that's probably fine. I'm referring to things like "Suzuki Recycle Injection System (SRIS) was an attempt by the manufacturer to reduce visible emissions from a two stroke motorcycle." This paragraph cites the Suzuki GT750 Service Manual 7/72, but I know the Suzuki didn't print anything like "this is just an attempt to deal with emissions." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2018
I reversed the deletion regarding visible emissions because of a section in the GT750 service manual #SR-3100 page 43 explaining what the SRIS was intended to do. I quote verbatim from that manual: "After lubricating the inside of the engine oil is drained into the crankcase. There a new system SRIS (Suzuki Recycle Injection System) is adopted for recirculation of that oil. The new system has resolved a problem of smoky exhaust gases emission into atmosphere. This is usually due to incomplete combustion of oil in the crank chamber which leak suddenly into the combustion chamber during quick engine acceleration. We have now completed a two-cycle engine free from smoky exhaust gases." This is 100% accurate as to erratic syntax, missing words, et al. As far as I'm concerned, my explanation is certainly more accessible and clearer than the original from the service manual..... and it infringes NOBODY'S copyright. Feel free to flame away. H2RICK (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)