Template talk:Infobox motorcycle

Similar parameter
I have restored the "Similar" parameter until consensus can be reached at Wikiproject Motorcycling. (Discussion) --Cheesy Mike (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that the similar parameter has been removed again, citing WP:OR. I disagree strongly. If you look at any motorcycle magazine review you will see similar bikes suggested in bike reviews. e.g. This month's RIDE magazine in the UK has a review of the Triumph TT600 & Daytona. It suggests three different bikes under the heading "Consider the alternatives". That is not OR. That is something suggested by a professional motorcycle journalist that can be cited. --TimTay (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * However, any use of the similar parameter without providing a citation for the list of similar bikes *is* original research and should be tagged appropriately with   or similar. So the parameter itself isn't OR, but the use of the parameter without citation can be OR. --TimTay (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that you don't need to use the fact tag. You can simply remove the info as per WP:VERIFY. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, discussion time yet again on this. All automotive templates such as infobox automobile have had the "similar" field removed for more than a year now and this was all done with a full discussion and consensus reached. This template is behind the times. The field is misused in almost every article is it used in and there are no sources to support what motorcycles are added to it. Editors tend to think this is a "competitor" field as well, which it is not, and add a buyer's guide feel, which is shouldn't. I'm supporting the removal of this field for several reasons:
 * WP:RS - There is not a single article I can find that has a reliable source showing the motorcycles stated are, in fact, similar.
 * There are at least Kawasaki ER-5 (now this info is removed) and Benelli Tre 1130 K--UrSuS (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the "similar" field would make the infobox more compliant with WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:CSB and it would make it consistent with all other vehicle infoboxes. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OR - Since no sources can be found, it means people are doing their own research into determining what motorcycles show in this field. This is strictly prohibited here on Wikipedia.
 * WP:CSB - There is absolutely nothing objective about the "similar" field and no sources we point to out side of the editors themselves, yet we agree what belongs in that field. I, in fact, haven't seen an article where I didn't agree with the motorcycles added to the field. Editors who contribute have this systematic bias.
 * Well put. No arguments from me. --TimTay (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Simplification
When I originally created this template, I kind of threw every variable and the kitchen sink into it. I started with the infobox automobile template, but threw in every spec that, say, Honda listed in their spec guides. 2 1/2 years later and after coming to a much better understanding of what an infobox should really do, I'd like to propose some simplification to it. There are two things I'd like to do here. Remove fields that are too detailed for an infobox and remove fields that are not consistently used throughout motorcycle-related articles. The following is my proposed simplification:

I'm not looking to come to a fast decision on any of this. Just throwing out the idea to see what editors are thinking. Maybe you don't like what was left in or left out which is, obviously, fine. What about the idea, in general, for simplification? Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I much prefer bike articles which have detailed infoboxes. I have used the parameters a number of times to expand or create articles. I would prefer to keep them.--TimTay (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with TimTay.
 * See also my comments in the previous thread: Template talk:Infobox Motorcycle/Archive 1, from May.
 * My main concern, still, is the loss of information. (good/useful/valid/encyclopedic/hard-to-find/relevant/factual information...)
 * (Also, having overhauled The Infoboxwatch this summer, I can assure you that the infobox project/guidelines are still quite rudimentary. Plus we always have the leeway to do whatever is best for the articles.) See the recently-promoted-to-featured-status SS Ohioan (1914) for an example of a large and useful infobox. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well alright. At least there's a definite consensus one way. roguegeek (talk·cont) 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

New fields: Frame, acceleration, etc...
An objection to adding a Frame: field to this infobox?

How about ¼ mile/0–60 mph (97 km/h):

Also, is it possible to fit some kind of sub-template into Engine: to structure data such as this:

Engine: 149.1 cc single, CV carburetor 4-stroke, air cooled, OHC. 57.3 mm ∅ x 57.8 stroke, CDI

Could it be collapsible?

Or is that all too much and should we just add Frame?--Dbratland (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Frame could possibly go in, but acceleration should definitely not. It's completely subjective and situational. Items in the infobox should be entirely objective and universal to all articles the infobox would appear in. In fact, top_speed, fuel_consumption, turning_radius, and climbing_ability should all be deleted because these are either subjective/situational or not generally relevant. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree with you (I said so in the topic below this one). Of all the ones you mention, though, I would leave "top speed", since although probably not 100% precise, I think its significance in defining a motorcycle prevails. --uKER (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignition
I added an "Ignition type" to the infobox and it got reverted for allegedly having broken the template. I'd like to know how it did so. I used the template and checked it in several articles that use it and saw no problems whatsoever. --uKER (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, if you go back and look at the revision, you will see that the variable is clearly visible, which is shouldn't be. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. I didn't catch that. I just checked it looked right in the pages. So what would be the proper way to do it? --uKER (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Frame really needs to be in there too. It makes a profound difference if a bike has a tubular steel trellis or an alloy box or an underbone. --Dbratland (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or no frame as in the latter BMW R series. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I got around what I was doing wrong and fixed the table. While at it I added the frame type (also linked to the corresponding article). I did not add however the "acceleration" field since IMHO it's not an entirely factual and exact figure like the others, just like the "fuel consumption" field which I would delete if it was up to me. The field I'd be missing the most right now would be a "Fuel system" field to reflect whether a bike uses carburetor(s) or fuel injection, and a "Compression ratio" field. --uKER (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Template cleanup
I'd like to call for discussion of some fields I consider irrelevant. The ones that had caught my attention are: --uKER (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * rake trail: Too nitpicky to be worth adding to the template.
 * wet weight: Redundant given the dry weight and fuel capacity.
 * climbing ability: Irrelevant.


 * Rake/trail & climbing ability - agree. Wet weight disagree - some manufacturers quote different figures depending which (if any) methodology/guidance is used for the calculation. BMW, for example, use EC published guidance which is 90% of fuel capacity as difference between wet & dry (where the dry weight includes all other fluids such as oil, fork oil, battery etc., while others treat dry as no fuel or oil - literally dry. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then about the wet weight, given the ambiguity in the measurement methodology, is the figure really valuable? --uKER (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Trouble is there is also ambiguity in dry weight too. As I say some quote with oil & battery, some without. Keep both but encourage numbers to be sourced directly from manufacturer published figures. If manufacturer doesn't quote one then don't use it in the infobox. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to chime in on a quick comment. Reliable secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources. Wikipedia's policy has always been that articles are built on secondary sources because they are at least one step removed from an event or subject and they rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. So encouraged numbers should come from secondary sources, not manufactured published figures which are considered primary sources. Just an FYI. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Ok, climbing ability is something you only find in factory owner's manuals printed in the 60s.  It can go. But rake/trail is critical.  It is one of the fundamental statistics that determines they kind of motorcycle you are talking about, because along with wheelbase it determines the geometry of the bike.  We can't lose rake/trail.  Wet weight is also vital.  If you look on the web sites of the Japanese big 4, they all switched in 2009 from dry to wet weight, which means for newer bikes you don't know the dry weight without guesswork.  BMW has already been mentioned.  During the 90's Cycle World published wet weights using a fuel tank 75% full, not 90%.  And then you have water -- the differences are larger between wet/dry for watercooled vs air cooled bikes.  Comparing the dry weights of an air cooled and a water cooled bike is comparing apples and oranges.  Batteries come in different sizes.  And so on.  Are either wet or dry weight useful? Given how much ambiguity both numbers have.  Yes and no:  it is critical to cite a source for these numbers, as much as you would for engine output or top speed or acceleration.  The best we can do is give the reader a cross section of numbers from different sources, and let them consider the biases themselves.  One useful goal might be to collect info on how each publication tests and include that either on their page or on a table in Motorcycle testing and measurement.  --Dbratland (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would keep rake trail and wet weight, but do away with climbing ability. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, shall we remove "climbing ability" then? Also, is everyone OK with adding "fuel system" to indicate carburetor(s) Vs injection? Also fitting could be a "Restrictions" field in which we could specify speed (ECU) or RPM (CDI) restrictions if any. --uKER (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably, but my next question would be what are our options for neatly collapsing parts of the infobox so it doesn't get too large? It's already pretty long.  (And can it page sideways so that you can show different versions or model years?)  --Dbratland (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I share your concern. The most straightforward one would probably be having a collapsible "Engine" section which could then fit the current "Engine" field, together with "Bore/stroke", "Compression ratio" and potentially "Fuel system" and "Restrictions". However, I don't know how to implement that. Can anyone point me to a template that does something similar to what we'd be looking for? --uKER (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed "climbing ability". Collapsing the box would be good, as would "fuelsystem" and other things. tedder (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Collapsing the box can cause accessibility problems; it's doable, but it shouldn't be done unless there's reason to believe that articles are being significantly impacted by the box being too long. Even then, it would be better to remove less useful fields first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Turning radius vs. turning circle
This infobox has an entry for "turning radius". I am not sure that I have ever found a source that gives a "turning radius". However, I have seen "turning circle" given in sources several times. I assume that "turning circle" is the minimum diameter in which a bike can turn around.

If I find a source for "turning circle" should I halve the value before I enter it in "turning radius"? Which has more value, the "turning radius" or the "turning circle"?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Turning circle is the phrase I have heard (with relation to cars). However, I wonder why the parameter is even needed as I can't recall a single motorcycle article that actually uses it. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Me either. Delete it, says I. --Dbratland (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Turning radius" is the same thing as "turning circle" (according to our article). I'll add that to the docpage.


 * Turning radius is given in these articles: Honda CT110, Honda CT series, Honda Gyro, Honda PC50, Kawasaki Ninja ZX-2R, Roadog, Honda Motocompo, Kawasaki Kz1000, Velocette Viper, Ducati Multistrada 1200, Ner-a-Car, Yamaha AT1, Honda CBF125, Suzuki GT750, and possibly others (I searched manually). Usually in the infobox, sometimes in the article body.


 * I don't believe removing this parameter is warranted, or at the least it needs further discussion.
 * HTH. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying use of the "Related" parameter
I would like to clarify how the "Related" parameter in the infobox should be used. Right now it is used for a variety of purposes. Here's my strawman for discussion of how it should be used: Just as important is what it should not be used for: I'm guessing that the last one is going to be the controversial one, but if you take a look at articles like Kawasaki Ninja 250R the parameter is used to list all bikes which bear the Ninja name even though they are (in my opinion) completely different. e.g. The Ninja 250R sport bike is nothing like the Ninja 650, which is a commuter bike. Anyone have any comments or better ideas? --Biker Biker (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bikes which use the same engine and/or frame and are marketed at around the same time e.g. The BMW F800GS, F800S and F800ST; or the Honda Goldwing and the Valkyrie.
 * Bikes which are manufactured in a single plant but marketed by two different manufacturers e.g. original BMW F650 and Aprilia Pegaso, or Suzuki DL1000 V-Strom and Kawasaki KLV1000
 * Bikes which precede or succeed the model - there are already "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields in the infobox for this.
 * Bikes which share the same name but have different capacity e.g. GSX-R600, GSX-R750, GSX-R1000
 * I agree that limiting it to bikes of the same manufacturer and displacement class would keep the list from growing out of control. I didn't know about the same-plant-different-manufacturers situation.  Is this likely to have many cases, especially with scooters? — Brianhe (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the field should be blanked on sight unless the article contains some kind of statement as to what the relationship is: same engine, same frame, same color, whatever. --Dbratland (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good point. As for my example of the GSX-R above, that is probably a bad one as all three bikes really are very closely related in terms of look and purpose. The same could also be said of the Honda 125 Varadero and its bigger brother, the V-Strom 650 and 1000, and certainly true for some families of scooter. What I'd really like to exclude is the Ninja example that I quoted where the primary relationship was simply the name. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to just say "See also Suzuki GSX-R series" or "See also Kawasaki Ninja" at an appropriate place in the article, rather than expand the related field too much. Ducati often likes to say the Monster or Multistrada "shares the same DNA" as the Desmosedici MotoGP bike, but if it can't be said in concrete terms, it's best not mentioned. I've seen articles on scooters made by an offshore Yamaha partner that claimed they were somehow related to the R1. At the very least, cite specifically which independent authority thinks the EX250 is related to the ZX-10R (or whatever) and quote or paraphrase what they said. If a manufacturer has a line of bikes that are related only by design aesthetics and marketing family, that situation can be described objectively too, but I wouldn't use the related field. --Dbratland (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to capture the above discussion succinctly in the template documentation. — Brianhe (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oil capacity: Not applicable to dry sump engines?
"oil_capacity: Only applies to 2-stroke bikes with a separate oil tank."

If I remember correctly, dry-sump 4-stroke motorcycles have separate oil tanks too; the '36 H-D EL Knucklehead and the '69 Honda CB750 come to mind. Should these have oil capacities listed as well? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the point was that since 2-strokes consume the oil, the capacity was a more relevant factor in determining range. With a 4-stroke, it isn't high on the list of statistics you need to know to grasp what a bike is all about. But just having it there means somebody will fill it in if they have the value. It's not really of much consequence whether we keep it or not. The burning issue is how you format an article that covers two or three or more generations with multiple infoboxes. They stack up on the right and don't line up with the text. I want to invent a new kind of infobox with a horizontal scroll bar, or, better yet, forward/backward paging buttons. That would finally fix the clutter problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Model year
I don't believe that the model year parameter adds any value to articles. At best it is only of use for US-manufactured motorcycles, at worst it has the potential to cause confusion for global motorcycles sold in markets outside the USA, and has the potential to be misused when people fail to differentiate between calendar and model years. Given that the "production" parameter exists already I think the model year is redundant. If people deem it an important thing to mention then it can always be used within the body of the article, subject to proper explanation, e.g. use of the model year wikilink and of course proper references. As such I have boldly removed the parameter from the template and its documentation. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Add parameters: final drive, fuel delivery, electrical
I believe it would be useful to break out some of these details into their own parameters. Some can be crammed into existing fields, including final drive and fuel system, while others, such as electrical system (12v or 6v, AC or DC) cannot. These form substantial categorical differences in both the academic engineering and the owner-user's experience of the bikes. Keitsist (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have requested 'Final drive' again, below. 82.132.243.144 (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Inch units for engines
I propose that displacement, bore and stroke be listed with metric units only for all engines with these exceptions: Right now the usage documentation requires a conversion template for all, which doesn't make sense. — Brianhe (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Inch-pattern Harley (i.e. not imports or Street)
 * Historic English or American motors
 * It seems using Convert in all cases has the benefit of consistency. There's no need to explain special cases to new editors. To me personally it's of no interest at all what the cubic inch displacement of a Ducati or Suzuki is, but maybe some readers appreciate seeing the conversion there? I would guess they would be Americans over 50. Perhaps; I don't have a clue. If several others like the idea I'll go along. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

 * label32   = Final drive
 * data32    =

Danielvd (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

MSRP List Price etc
Would like to add MSRP. One approach would be to add "MSRP (year) = $XX (US/Can/Aus/whatever)". Any recommendations? How is it done for other templates? Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Policy is against that. Specifically, WP:NOTCATALOG says "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention". The WP:MC-MOS and WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions restrictiosn on prices (and colors, trim levels, options, recalls and similar details) are based on this policy. There are only a handful of motorcycle articles that mention prices, generally in a paragraph that describes in detail why that particular price was significant. When you create a field in the infobox for the price, then it suggests that we routinely include prices, and that is definitely not the case. Often new editors begin by filling in infobox fields on many articles before the start adding any other content. That makes it especially important to not create the false impression that prices are required. Manual of Style/Infoboxes and Help:Infobox also explain that "less is more" when it comes to infoboxes, and in general, few fields are better than more. What fields you do include, they should be things you really want to see, not things you generally want to avoid.  Other templates, like Template:Infobox automobile and Template:Infobox product don't have an MSRP field either. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016
Category:Automotive infobox templates

59.101.78.131 (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Brianhe (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Final drive
I suggest 'Final drive' (belt/chain/shaft) be added to this template, immediately below (and distinct from) transmission.

See also: and. 82.132.243.144 (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we add website link?
Hi Guys,

Can we add a new parameter, website link?

A model of a motorcycle might have different website also.

Should we have a parameter Motorcycle Model Website or Model Page or something like that?

Shrishti21 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We usually have that at the bottom of the article in the External links section, using the Official website template. Why do we need the link more than once? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding inline external links is contrary to guidelines, see WP:ELPOINTS. External links should only be in the External links section, as Dennis said. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Hi. Why you reverted my edit? I just fixed double spaces of "sp" and "footnote" parameters and inappropriate equal sign " = " place of "range" parameter. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only meant to revert these changes that refer to new fields that have not been added to the template being documented. My bad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)