Talk:Triumph Daytona 675/Archive 1

The info in the "History and Development" section comes from a UK publiciation called BIKE Magazine - October 2005. Sorry, not sure how to add this as a citation for each point in there, but if someone can, that would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.54.35 (talk).

To Roguegeek: why would you chop out information to put LESS useful information in its place. You also chopped out a reference for no reason also (thus making it appear unreferenced) I've added back in the SI kilogram/litres amounts and the US ONLY measurements are in brackets for those too challenged to figure it out. Additionally this is an ENGLISH bike, so pounds/US gallons etc are out of place there for that reason also. When you do major edits: do not label them as "minor wiki link changes". NathanLee 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You should read this and also take a look at policies under the style guide. The link you also placed back in was removed due to a link with the domain of www.triumph.co.uk/ already existing in the section as per WP:EL. Let's try and be constructive instead of insulting next time and remember to assume good faith. Roguegeek (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that was unwarranted.. But back to the article. I think your edit was not constructive and undid constructive additions, reverting for no reason other than to remove metric/SI measurements and to chop out a referenced article on the pb test (to even out the article with something other than just the good information.. Not that there's been much negative press on such a great bike, but the pb one did get a bit of attention. I know it's a great bike: I own one and they're fantastic.) I'm also a big believer in putting accurate descriptions in the change log, which if it was a revert and chop out of the pb article: it should say that. On the 3D model do you think a link to a 3D model is unique enough to warrant an extra link to the triumph site? I figured that would be worth having as a link as it provides a pretty unique view of the bike. I don't see anything in [EL]that forbids having more than one link to a particular domain. What part of it are you referring to that permits only one link to a given domain? NathanLee 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture(s)
Although the picture does indeed show a 675, one thing that concerns me is that the bike is not stock. It has an aftermarket frame slider on it.. It's also kind of cropping out the bike a bit. I've uploaded another one with a side view. Will alter the pic to point to that one, see what people think if it is a more appropriate one? Might be good to have one of each of the colour schemes in the article also? Although maybe that's overkill..? NathanLee 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

infobox
Anyone else think there's too much stuff in the infobox? Seems like its repeating alot of the stuff in the Specification section. Bumper12 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ideally it'd be in one place.. But there seem to be a bunch of bike articles like this.. Hrmm.. Maybe the infobox needs a cull? NathanLee 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Units/language/figures
One thing I have noticed is US measurements creeping in. As the bike is UK based: should be kilograms for weight etc.. Also with the figures that aren't from the manufacturer: I think we should have both listed.. E.g. claimed vs independently measured. NathanLee 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering what the WP:MOS says about units of measurement. It makes sense to change it, but unclear if the rationale to change is correct. As far as manufacture claimed and tested figures go, secondary sources should always be used over primary sources as per No original research, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." I have requested help on clarification of this policy, but until then, we should take that policy at face value where secondary sources override primary. Roguegeek (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. It's a bit tricky with motorbikes because the manufacturers ALWAYS seem to give us bullshit figures for some reason. I've yet to see any manufacturer release figures that agree with the motorbike magazines/reviewers. I think probably the best option is to just label the "claimed by manufacturer" like a lot of bike mags do. NathanLee 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's definitely what I try and do. I'll throw up manufacturer specs and make sure to label them "manufacturer claimed" until I can find a secondary source that can replace the manufacturer info. Roguegeek (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of pics
Anyone have any thoughts on whether a gallery would be a good addition. I'd like something to show the various colour options as well as differences in the decals etc. That way the previous picture (the red one) could be incorporated back in too. NathanLee 13:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

New Category for British Motorcycles
As part of the Motorcycling WikiProject I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes. To make things easier to sort out I have created a category for British motorcycles. Please will you add to any British motorcycle pages you find or create. It will also help to keep things organised if you use the Template:Infobox Motorcycle or add it where it is missing. I've linked the Category to the Commons British Motorcycles so you could help with matching pics to articles or adding the missing images to the Commons - take your camera next time you go to a rally! Thanks Tony (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)