Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 3

I could use some help
If anyone cares to take a look over Quasar (motorcycle), I'd really appreciate it. I wrote it waaay back when before I knew about wikifying and inline references and so on, and to make a long story short I'm nowhere near as good at overhauling articles as writing them to begin with. I just don't really know where to start with it, if someone took the time to do it it could be a nice article. -_ lucid 15:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just did a bit of a tidy up. Could definitely do with some more references for the history section. --Cheesy Mike 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Twinshock
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Twinshock is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go Pickle 01:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Twinshock → Suspension (motorcycle)
I have now proposed to merge the content of Twinshock into Suspension (motorcycle). You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I need some help
I need some help in adding some material to Travis Pastrana, but I am unfamiliar with this project's manual of style can someone please read my comment on Talk:Travis Pastrana and add it, thanks! 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Off road riders are my thing, i'll give you a hand ;P Pickle 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle clubs
Motorcycle club is currently up for peer review. Additionally, myself and War are kicking around the idea of starting up Wikiproject:Motorcycle clubs or at least a subpage here at WikiProject Motorcycling to codify some standards about how these articles should be organized and so forth. Given that there are only about 40 motorcycle club articles, I'm not sure the adminstrative overhead justifies a project all its own. I need some ideas. Help! Mmoyer 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A new project for such a small number of possible articles is definitely overkill especially when you consider there are several groups of topics within this project that already have many more articles than you suggest and they don't have their own project. If you proposed it at WikiProject Council's Proposals you will likely be told it will be more appropriate as a task force within the existing WikiProject. Check out the Task forces guide before deciding how to go forward. ww2censor 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Having read the Task forces guide for the first time and looked at the scope of some of the existing task forces, even a 40 article task force would be overkill. Why do you think you cannot work within the existing project? Cheers ww2censor 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fairing vs Full fairing
The full fairing article looks to me like it really should be a section of the main article fairing. In addition, the latter article doesn't mention motorcycles, even though it is linked as the "main" article from a section of Motorcycle! I'd like to merge the two articles into fairing. Any thoughts on this? Brianhe 05:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was about to propose the same thing when I discovered your comments. I completely agree. At this point, these could all be in one nice article. -AndrewDressel 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I quite agree. I noticed this duplication before when I wrote Fairing (disambiguation), but I let it slip my mind. Now that it's been brought back to the front of my mind, I quite agree that all three articles should be merged together at Fairing. I realize that Motorcycle fairing is quite new, but I don't believe it ought to be a separate article. If it is kept as one, Full fairing should be merged there. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * Absolutely no merge. To merge motorcycles and aircraft and aerospace is very bad idea. Fairings in these industries are totally different things, albeit with common function. It is like merging Hamster wheel and Steering wheel into Wheel. Wikipedia is not paper and different things if sufficiently notable completely deserve separate articles. `'Míkka 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how they are totally different things. Besides common function, they achieve it in common ways, and are often constructed with common materials. -AndrewDressel 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with merger. I think there should be multiple articles supported by the disambiguation page: --Cheesy Mike 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fairing should become the disambiguation page.
 * Aircraft fairing should be created with the aircraft section from Fairing
 * Bicycle fairing should be created by moving Full fairing
 * Motorcycle fairing should contain all motorcycle-related content - so motorcycle content should be removed from Full fairing.


 * Separate article pages per Cheesy Mike's suggestion, This is much better if there is no consensus on merging. That way the disambig page will lead readers to the correct place. The unfortunate thing is that we all use the same single word but Wikipedia cannot deal with that. So separate, appropriately named, articles is the way to go. ww2censor 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This technical term describes a kind of vehicle. It has nothing to do with airplanes. It sounds like merging windmill with wind. Full fairing information adds zero value to the fairing page. Like hamster wheel and steering wheel. A kind of bike is not a kind of fairing. Apples and oranges IMHO.(84.104.135.195 (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Well, if that is so, please supply us with some sources per WP:V. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I support Cheesy Mike's proposal for 4 articles. Brianhe (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this split, certainly more logical than the current Fairing and Full Fairing, might as well have half fairing and handlebar fairing as a logical developments down that route. Fairing is also used in nautical circles as well, see Mighty Antar (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Cheesy Mike's proposal for four articles and a disambiguation page. Perhaps even the spacecraft section should be separate as well. I always consider the best way to serve Wikipedia readers in these sorts of matters. People looking for information on fairings will not be seeking info on all types of fairings, but one specific application - aircraft, motorcycle, rocket, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I gave the reorg a try today. I think I have it mostly right. We'll see if the bicycle or aircraft folks complain. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done Andrew. Looks good. Did you check the "What links here" links? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that was a good move, I take part in both projects (Motorcycles/Aviation) and can't see a problem. I might mention what is going on in the other project, cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Superb, I fixed one link to a Ducati on the bicycle redirect, but couldn't find any other issues. I think Andrew deserves a box of Cornish fairings for his hard work. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Userbox, if you're interested
The following userbox can be used by anyone who is interested:

Gr0ff 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

About 400 images copied to Commons from nl.wikipedia
Hoi guys. I thought you would like me informing you of a recent move of about 400 classic motor cycles related images to Commons. They have not been exactly categorised as yet, but you can find them as the uploads of commons:User:SieBot in this list. I hope you can find a way to put them to good use. If you want to thank an original uploader: nl:User:Piero. Cheers! Siebrand 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about Hildebrand & Wolfmuller Stub
In browsing for some source material, I noted that the final bit of the Hildebrand & Wolfmuller stub [] indicates that Wolfmuller was the inventor and Hildebrand was the financier. However, Hought and Setright in their A History of the World's Motorcycles (New York: Harper & Row, 1966, pp 13-14) write that the Hildebrand brothers were the true innovators, and that they shared credit with their assistant Alois Wolfmuller. I don't feel qualified to edit it, since I'm only an undergrad history major and I haven't done any original research in this area, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of someone hopefully better-informed than myself. Thanks, and keep up the great work! -j.m., Hanover IN 192.200.128.45 04:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection against vandalism
WP:Protect policy allows blocking by anon users (semi-protection) in case of persistent vandalism. This sounds like a great thing for Motorcycle. A day rarely goes by when it doesn't get some mindless child's twiddling and I'm tired of dealing with it. Anybody else think so? -- Brianhe 07:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if it cuts down on the idiots then go for it. Not really a hell of a lot of new content that needs to be pushed into a standard topic article that we need to let anonymous IPs edit it. NathanLee 16:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW I'd prefer an indefinite block, but they don't seem to grant these very often. We might have to settle for medium duration blocks that get renewed. Brianhe 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The vandalism is really not that bad that it needs protection. on average it seems like it gets one or two vandals every few days, but there are enough people who watch Motorcycle to keep it in check and reverted, but if you can convince an admin to semi-protect it would be good however I doubt you will get it for more than a few days at most. Cheers ww2censor 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI - this morning I requested and was granted semi-protection for Moto Guzzi. If you look at the article edit history, or are familiar with the page in recent days, there has been an edit war with spam links and spam images being repeatedly introduced. Semi protection now means that IP only edits, or edits from users registered within the past 4 days, are forbidden. --Cheesy Mike 18:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Proper way to put in specifications for motorcycles
Hey guys, just wondering what's the preferred way to put in the specs for motorcycles. Because I've come across pages with same info (sort of) duplicated from the infobox and into a table in a specification section (which is a pain in the arse doing both). Any examples of good bike model pages that I should look at? It's a bit tricky to cater for multiple year/ranges for models that the spec changes I think.. NathanLee 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to show the spec of the current retail model in the infobox then, if relevant, describe incremental model changes since launch in the body of the article. Then again, where there is a major revision I also like a table showing side-by-side comparison e.g. Suzuki Hayabusa. --Cheesy Mike 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like Mike's proposal. The infobox should be concise in any event. - Brianhe 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
Well it took me a while but I found the motorcycle project. Fantastic stuff in here, I have created a few articles and helped in the Aviation project but it seems much friendlier in here. The Suzuki Hayabusa is a good example article, I hope to write one on the RD500LC which is missing (amongst others) from the Yamaha list. Stay right side up. Nimbus227 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle club needs GA review
This article has been nominated for GA review for a couple of weeks. Can someone jump in and do the review? Cheers! Mmoyer 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles
I added sections for Good Articles and Good Article Nominees. This project has zero featured articles, 1 good article, and 1 GA nominee, yet there are hundreds of articles in the project. How about a concerted focus on improving these articles and getting more to GA? Someone could start by doing the review on Motorcycle club (hint, hint). Mmoyer 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of motocross world champions
I added a List of motocross World Championship results to go along with the similar List of Grand Prix motorcycle racing World Champions. I need help filling in some results from the 1990s. Thanks.Orsoni (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Motorcycle_racing
The portal seems abandoned. I updated and added some info, my interest is road racing so that was all I knew to add, the portal still remains in bad shape. Could someone add a link to the portal in the Motorcycling and Motorcycle racing templates. Hopefully this will help more people to become aware of the portal and contribute to it. Chris Ssk (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This portal has been listed for more than a year, with no edits, as still under construction, so unless you are willing to adopt the portal, bring it out of the construction stage and put it online by updating it, I see no advantage in linking to anything else at this time. It needs quite a bit of work to make it current and fresh. Let us know when there is something current that will be updated and we will happily link. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Related to this portal, it looks distinctly like the WikiProject Grand Prix motorcycle racing also seems to be dormant. ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated the portal and it no longer has any redlinks so it can be moved from the under construction category, however it only contains info about motorcycle circuit racing. if the portal can be renamed to only cover motorcycle circuit racing I will be happy to adopt it otherwise I will need help. Chris Ssk (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a portal link to the Motorcycle racing template but not to the other one because this is a rather focused portal and does not cover all of motorcycling. If it was a motorcycling portal it would be fine. Hope you don't mind. The portal link needs a little tweaking because I don't like the 3 lines of text, it should be 2 lines. Your renaming suggestion would only make this even narrower so I would not support that. If anything it should be expanded rather than narrowed. Maybe some other editors will step up and add some other motorcycling sport interest to cover more ground, such as, Supermoto, Motocross, Enduro, Trials, etc. Each section should probably have an archive and a suggestion link. I will see if I can add some more sections for you. Rather than a "Selected article" I would suggest having a "selected biography" as well as a "selected motorcycle" (could be specific bike or manufacturer) or possibly "bike of the month". Cheers and thanks for taking this on. ww2censor (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will try and do the changes you suggested Chris Ssk (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kawasaki
Kawasaki links in motorcycle articles point to Kawasaki Heavy Industries but that is not right because KHI has no info on Kawasaki motorcycles. Kawasaki motorcycles is the article on motorcycles but its just a stub with no info. I think a Kawasaki Motors article needs to be created that will cover all aspects of Kawasaki Motors (motorcycles, ATVs, watercrafts etc...) similar to how Yamaha Motor Company covers all that for YamahaChris Ssk (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kawasaki Heavy IS the main parent company. They DO build the bikes. BTW, they have also merged with Suzuki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.187.173 (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Similar" parameter in Infobox Motorcycle
The Template:Infobox Motorcycle has a parameter "similar" which is used in many bike articles e.g. BMW R1200RT, Suzuki Hayabusa. I believe that the parameter is useful because it allows the article reader to find out about other bikes similar to the article subject. The parameter was recently deleted with the reason given as consistency with the automotive infobox. However, I believe that there should be discussion and consensus within the motorcycle wikiproject on whether this parameter is removed. For the moment, until consensus on what to do is reached, I have restored the parameter. My vote is to keep the parameter. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks useful to me, though not always used by editors. I vote to keep. ww2censor (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an old discussion that the Automobiles WikiProject group have already discussed time and time again. Here's was the final discussion on this topic and the outcome. I highly suggest you look through that discussion for detailed reasoning. To summarize, getting rid of it was to avoid the massive amount of edit wars that were happening due to not having a solid definition of what "similar" actually was. It was overwhelmingly approved to delete this field. In fact, it was approved even before I created Template:Infobox Motorcycle and shouldn't have included it in the first place. I'm still in agreement with this decision to get rid of it. To quote another editor from that discussion, the field is, at best, subjective. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I haven't seen the same edit wars on any motorcycle articles and to date I haven't seen a "similar bike" claim that I have disputed. Maybe it's because we bikers are much nicer people and less pedantic than the car-anoraks.--Cheesy Mike (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha. That may be true. If we keep it, I'd like to see definition brought to it in the documentation I've started for the template under the "meaning" section. I actually need help defining all of the different parameters in the documentation. Roguegeek (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge issues
I have just found these three articles that are be similar to each other below


 * Stunt riding
 * Squid (motorcycle)
 * Stunters

Trouble is how do I merge them together, can anybody provide a suggestion or shall I leave it as it is. Willirennen (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MERGE has the answers you're looking for. Is this thing working? (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the squid article belongs with the other two, however I think you are right to merge the stunt articles. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cheesy Mike. ww2censor (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I now personally think Stunt riding should be moved to motorcycle stunt as stunt riding can mean stunts horses or bicycles, can anybody agree on that. Willirennen (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best to name the new merged article should be names Motorcycle stunt riding though the current Stunt riding does not mention any of the alternate types that you mention. tvm ww2censor (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New article 'Long Way' series
Opinions welcomed on Talk:'Long Way' series whether this new article is valid/makes sense, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I don't see why not, I would love the idea of a navigational template (see WP:NAV) to link to all other articles linked to the series, so that it would be easier for people to navigate their way through a series of pages, which will list not just the three shows, also Charlie and Ewan, plus the bikes, vehicle and crew members. Willirennen (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me - do it ! -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Model year vs calendar year
A couple of us are having a bit of a disagreement over Suzuki Hayabusa which I think needs wider discussion and possible consensus here. It relates to whether a year on its own should refer to an actual calendar year or a model year.

My argument is that if you say 2007 you mean the calendar year 2007. If you say model year 2008 then you mean a vehicle launched in the 2008 model year, which according to US law means a vehicle launched any time from 1 January 2007, but more typically means something launched after 1 July 2007 - as is the custom in the USA. However, Wikipedia is an international, not a US site and model year is not as commonly used in other countries (for example in the UK). So to best cater for an international English audience, should be OK to talk about a model year as long as the words "model year" are used, but if a single year is used then it should be interpreted by the reader as a calendar year.

So in the case of the Hayabusa article, a level 2 heading "2007" or table heading "2007" should refer to something that happened in the calendar year of 2007, whereas if the article is talking about the 2008 model year then it should clearly state "2008 model year".

What do others think? It would be nice to agree then use the same language/approach in all WikiProject Motorcycling articles. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The newest Hayabusa was reviled in June of 2007 for the 2008 model year. This was an early release 2008 motorcycle. There is no set "law" as to what a model year is and there's nothing about model year that makes it specific to the US. Working in the automotive industry for a decade now, I've seen vehicles released as far back as 11 months before the actual calendar year for all regions, so the whole argument on this being something very US specific is pretty mute in my mind.
 * Going with Cheesy mike's rationale, we would basically have to change all automotive and motorcycle article headings that are year specific to when the calendar year a vehicle was released. That's a lot of articles that contradict this rationale. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Suzuki and Yamaha both use letters after the model to denote the year which seems to be calendar based, Suzuki K5 is 2005 I believe. Presumably if the model is launched in any month of that year it would still carry the same code. I have seen the code letters and their explanation on the Internet. I would go for the manufacturer's definition of the model year if it is available. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct - the K7 GSX-R1000 was launched in February 2007. The K8, presumably will be launched sometime early in calendar year 2008. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen K8 GSX-R1000 on showroom floors here since early December 2007. The rationale applied here would say this is not possible, but that's obviously not the case. Roguegeek (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So the confusion on that means K6/K7/K8 isn't a definitive indicator of calendar year or model year, just a model designator. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Found the original discussion on this topic that's been exhausted time and time again. Basically, it says model year is the way to go.

Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus reached in that discussion, only discussion. Nor do I see anything in WikiProject Automobiles/Standards, which is where you would expect to see a definitive answer. All the more reason to discuss here and reach consensus --Cheesy Mike (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look in Vehicle Identification Number and borrowed this from the article: Note that the year code can be the calendar year in which a vehicle is built, or a model or type year allocated by the manufacturer. Perhaps we need a separate Model year article, I am not personally worried either way which is used but it is a bit of a 'grey area' which would be nice to clarify with facts. I remember it used to cause problems when ordering parts when I worked in the trade, we always asked the customer for the VIN number to avoid confusion. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That model year article is pretty scattered. Here's an example statement using calendar year rationale that shows the basic and obvious problem I am trying to display:
 * The 2007 Suzuki Hayabusa has a manufacturer estimated 194 hp.
 * This statement is confusing because two different versions of the Hayabusa were manufactured in 2007. Model year designation solves this problem. Roguegeek (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Given how confusing it would be to the many, many people who don't routinely use "model year", I'd definitely recommend using it only for American market products, and even then specifying MY2007 rather than just saying 2007. There's plenty of foreign folks like to read articles on US-based products/services. And I'd agree wholeheartedly with User:Cheesy mike; I see absolutely no consensus in the linked-to discussion at WP:CARS, and certainly no consensus to go with model years, especially for Japanese-originated stuff like the Hayabusa (which I'm pretty sure was "revealed", not reviled...) --DeLarge (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So what about saying The 2008 model year Suzuki Hayabusa has a manufacturer estimated 194 hp. - nothing confusing about saying it this way though. Using the words "model year" adds clarity. If a bike has a model designator such as a GSX-R1000 K3 or GSX-R 600 K7 then that also helps distinguish between models in a way that a year alone won't do. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I can safely state that in the UK we don't attach any great significance to a model year and the motorcycle press don't announce or classify bikes with a model year either. The question I would usually hear in the dealership I worked in would be: 'what is the difference between a K5 and a K6?' I guess this comes from the confusion (that is the apparent reason for this discussion) of manufacturers launching next years' model in the autumn (fall) of the year before. Our major annual bike show is in November, new models are often unveiled there. We just gave up trying to work it all out (well I did anyway)! Nimbus227 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keith Code up for deletion
The Keith Code article I started as a stub has been nominated for deletion as non-notable biography. Since it's part of this WikiProject, I thought I'd announce it here so people can help establish notability. Brianhe (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article is safe now, thanks to those who contributed to it. Brianhe (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)