Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

I contribute to Wikipedia on a number of topics, but when I make a post on motorcycling (and nowhere else), I find that my edit is invariably reverted by another editor who is clearly stalking me. Any response I make on a Talk page then receives a hailstorm of invective and blocking threats. Try as I might to act in good faith and to observe Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values, it becomes increasingly hard to stay civil. Of course, I could just pack up my bags and stop editing bike topics, but I feel I have something to offer and I don't see why I should be squeezed out. I am prepared both to take well-informed criticism on the chin and to comply with well-intentioned suggestions, but I don't like being "wiki-hounded". Any advice would be most welcome. Arrivisto (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that I have numerous motorcycle articles on my watchlist is not evidence of following you around. Any revert you have incurred is simply because you made substantial claims with no source support so it appeared to be just WP:OR. When challenged to provide reliable source support, (OR) was confirmed by your inability to provide any sources and also shown reliable sources that contradict your claims. You have been informed that you may potentially be blocked for this in a effort to solely just have you change this behavior. You then usually become very uncivil when told you are not recognized as a expert and can not do this and have made numerous personal attacks consequently such as this[1].

Recently editor Arrivisto was refusing to allow WP:NPOV to the Yamaha TRX850 article. With his insistence that reliable sourced content not be included in the article that was not offering high praise and replaced it with a quote like one already on the article about the bike having a cult status here[2]. This behavior was brought to the attention of a admin and he replied here with this [3]. And he stated this I will tell you that removing sourced content, to replace it with content that speaks more favorably on a topic you seem to be partial about, is simply not acceptable and removing one for personal (?) reasons can lead to a block. Editor Arrivisto response was to state he rejected the admins conclusion and proceeded with a rant on how he was right and everyone else was wrong again with no source support but simple his own opinions here[4].

His claim he was not partial but that he just "means that I am well informed" as he was not told that we knew that he was selling these bikes online on ebay and he himself was not contributing to any of this information until it was shown we knew about this. Selling these motorcycles on ebay[5] and talking them up there (“The TRX is "the best-kept secret in motorcycling"!”) with links to the Wiki article (See the Wikipedia page for more TRX information:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850) in a obvious ploy for financial gain would appear he is guilty of WP:COI. His response to this information was to make more personal attacks here[6] and let me hurry and sweep all this under the rug and delete the whole conversation off his talk page.

When I brought the conversation to the article talk page after his further insistence to exclude neutral content he proclaimed "No one but you is interested" and made further personal attacks. So would any one else like to chime in on this behavior? But I presume eventually it made need to go to a noticeboard but I am not looking to get him blocked, I simply wish for him to follow the rules the rest of use are beholden to. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Arrivisto: you might have noticed I'm not as active in this area as I used to be. It could be because I find interaction with the same person extremely unpleasant. Have decided to wait it out but if a formal action was initiated I'd probably throw in my two cents on the situation. This seems to go beyond what's covered in WP:DR. And by the way I think most admins would treat editing your talkpage immediately after being disinvited from doing just that, prima facie violation of WP:HARASS. - Bri (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Citing a reliable source is one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia.Orsoni (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As is Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Which means respecting a clearly stated injunction not to use one's talkpage. - Bri (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

On the TRX talkpage I have felt it necessary to post as follows: "It is important to understand that a talk page conversation is a sequence of posts made by editors. An editor may edit his own posts to repair a typo (and perhaps even the typos of another editor) but should do no more. It should be plain to all that it defeats the object and is misleading if, once a post has been answered by another editor, the first editor then retrospectively amends the content and meaning of the earlier post, as this gives the false impression that the second editor has responded to the amended post." It would be helpful if other editors would express their views on this matter. Arrivisto (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You asked for clarification and that is what was provided no meaning was changed. You also stated you were done with the conversation with this "but I feel that this matter has been done to death, and any more verbiage would be superfluous". So I find it hard to understand how this is a matter that needed to be brought here. So why are you shopping for what I presume to simply be for a proven bias editor to pile on. As you are ignoring all of your major violations brought to light here in favor of some trivial thing. What should have been a matter for here, would have been the content of that discussion, your unsupported claims that the Norton Commando 961, Triumph Thruxton were modern-day sportbikes, in your effort to prove that parallel-twins were still used for large displacement sportbikes.-72bikers (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I consider my last post post to be axiomatically clear, but let me explain further. A talk page post is a matter of record. If an editor makes a post but then thinks better of it, he/she may edit or delete it PROVIDED that the post has not been answered. (If a post has been deleted, it is not a good faith edit for another to "undelete" it). If a post has a simple typo, that may be corrected provided the meaning is not changed; but if the editor wishes to expand upon an earlier post that has received a response, then the appropriate action is a new post, and not an edit of the earlier post, which is tantamount to rewriting history. Arrivisto (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've requested an WP:Editnotice for List of long-distance motorcycle riders because of all the crufty autobio entries lately. You can review and comment here. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We could use better sourcing at Harley-Davidson VRSC. I added this more or less as a placeholder. Harley hasn't apparently made an official announcement, just left the model out of the line and various websites are speculating as to meaning; this leaves us in a bit of a unique position wrt reliable sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Motorcycling. As a prominent contributor to Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey all, I have been noticing the listed power/torque figures on a lot of motorcycles is not always represented properly. For example:

1) Listed power, there appears to be inconsistencies between bhp (crank) and whp (wheel). The confusion might stem because some people (including magazine editors) erroneously think that brake horse power is power measured at the brakes, which it's definitely not. Brake horsepower is measured at the crank of an engine, and most quoted figures from magazines do not give brake horse power numbers as the vast amount of third party dynos measure at the wheels - although you can get a good estimate based on the wheel horse power number.

I think that just because someone from a magazine says it's bhp does not mean we should also say it's bhp simply because it's an "official" source. Official doesn't imply technical correctness. Even worse if there is a source that gives a power and says it's whp or bhp but doesn't explictly say how it was measured.

2) Listed torque for rear wheel, this can be a bit misleading. Torque figures are quoted as (rear wheel) - this is not entirely correct, depending on how it's interpreted. The delivered torque at the rear wheel is not less than at the crank, it should be significantly higher. Dynos usually give a torque value for the crank as measured/as seen at the rear wheel. This is usually slightly less than the officially quoted crank torque because of the losses in the transmission. The way the data is presented seems to show that the torque at the rear wheel is less than at the crank.

Dyno torque readings are crankshaft torque figures but as measured at the wheels. Veritas Blue (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

These are pretty well known sources of confusion, at least as far as horsepower goes. We don't make a practice of saying anything is bhp unless the source says it's bhp. If they are giving us dyno tested hp, we call it that. The article horsepower covers this, and Motorcycle testing and measurement, and Dynamometer. WP:MC-MOS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions give us our basic practices. We generally delete any engine output or other performance claims on sight if they don't have a good citation. If all we have is a manufacturer's claimed bhp, we label it as (claimed). If two sources give us two different dyno measurements, we usually mention both and attribute each to its source.

I'm not really sure what you're asking for, especially with torque. Are we supposed to take a value published in a source and change it to some other value? Is there some debate between dyno torque and wheel torque that you're trying to settle? I'm unclear about how this is an issue, or what is going to change based on what you're saying.

If you'd like to expand or improve horsepower or torque or motorcycle testing and measurement with better sourced and verifiable explanations, by all means, do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Robert Sexé is a DYK candidate and could use some help with citations. I think they are currently looking for substantiation that he rode on Route 66 in America. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I created an article for Draft:Jason Anderson (motorcyclist) the current points leader for the 2018 Supercross championship. The article was flagged and moved to a draft space by EROS. I have since improved the article to the point that i believe it meets WP:RS and WP:ATH. I haven't received any "meaningful" responses from EROS since I posted to her talk page on 15 April 2018. Is there someone in this project who will review the article and move it back into active status, please? -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 18:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• See discussion at User talk:cdw1952#AfC submission, Jason Anderson (motorcyclist). EROS ^message 03:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Indirectly, via a news reporter... [7] This was difficult for me to phrase correctly when writing the article, maybe someone else could help? Also, I'm kind of involved now because of The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Bri: I've copy-edited her article to reflect the facts as supported by only one of the citations. I've removed the other one which did not mention when she joined and certainly not as an original member in 1940, when the Maids was founded but in 1946 per the source. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that we have article titles disambiguated with different qualifiers such as Adam Roberts (motorcycle racer) but Adolf Weil (motorcyclist). This seems to be causing some confusion: I've fixed a few links, e.g. here and here. Even riders without articles are a potential problem. For example, Steve Williams (motorcycle racer) and Steve Williams (motorcyclist) are both widely used redlinks. Would it be better to move the pages to one format, leaving redirects? We do need to take care in a few cases. For example, 1985 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season links to Chris Martin (motorcyclist), who is unlikely to be Chris Martin (motorcycle racer) (aged 41⁄2). Certes (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Instead of trying to predict the future, always use (motorcycling). It works for racers who become journalists, builders, whatever. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's another good option. The current article count is roughly (motorcycle racer) 100; (motorcyclist) 70; (motorcycling) 4. Other qualifiers are rare and mainly distinguish two riders with similar names. Unfortunately the most popular options are also the least inclusive: as you say, there are ways to be notable in motorcycling without racing. Certes (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is the policy anyway, WP:PARENDIS: "use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be redundant to title an article 'Queen (rock band)', as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term 'Queen'." There's no good reason to say (motorcycle racer) instead of (motorcycling) unless you have one racer and one journalist with the same name, and you have to tell them apart.

Keep in mind that redlinks like Chris Martin (motorcyclist) shouldn't even exist. He placed 12th in one season of MotoGP and was never heard from before or since. Only 1985 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season links to it. There will never be an article about this rider. Rather than worry about distinguishing it from Chris Martin (motorcycle racer), just delete the redlink, and any similar redlinks that don't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. If 1985 Chris Martin did qualify for a bio, you have to add their birth year, such as Chris Martin (footballer, born 1988) and Chris Martin (footballer, born 1990). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest (motorcyclist) then? I think that's slightly better than (motorcycling) because it's already widely used, describes what the subject is (he's not "a motorcycling"), and is analogous to terms such as (footballer). I'll wait for other responses, then we can either open a RM or just boldly go ahead.

I agree that Chris Martin shouldn't be a link, but it would probably take a subject expert (i.e. not me) to spot other cases where a one-hit wonder just happens to share their name with a notable rider. Certes (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Motorcyclist seems like the best disambiguator unless there were two people of the same name, one being a motorcycle racer and the other a known motorcyclist but not a racer. That is highly unlikely and perhaps it could happen within the same family. Motorcycling is really not the right description. ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Except when a racer retires and begins writing, or becomes a TV presenter, or a builder, or designer. Often their post-racing career overshadows their racing achievements. Then you have an odd and inappropriate disambiguator to fix. If you just say (motorcycling) it meets the requirement of WP:PARENDIS to add the minimum level of detail necessary without creating more problems. You start off with a John Smith who is notable for something other than motorcycling, say brain surgery, and your only goal is to add something that distinguishes your John Smith from the brain surgeon. John Smith (motorcycling) is the minimum. It says they are notable for something related to motorcycling, without overspecificying that they are notable as a rider which is the additional, unnecessary detail that (motorcyclist) adds. The policy says you're not supposed to do that except in cases where that level of detail is necessary.

Consider:

• William H. Davidson (motorcycle racer) — looks silly. A bike racer, and oh yeah, by the way, President of Harley-Davidson. Wha?
• Arthur Davidson (motorcycling) — does not look silly. Simple guideline, easy to follow, least chance of making a mess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that (motorcycle racer) isn't the best choice. I mentioned it because most existing articles use it. WP:PARENDIS encourages us to be brief, but not vague. We quite correctly have Mercury (planet) rather then Mercury (astronomy), and (footballer) rather than (sportsman). (motorcyclist) conveys extra precision over (motorcycling) at no cost. By all means leave the exceptions such as Arthur Davidson at their current titles, but most of these people are notable only for racing. Certes (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion "motorcyclist" works best for a number of different varieties, whether it be "speedway racer", "motorcycle racer" or "motorcycle journalist". For most of the non-motorcycling audience, I would predict that it matters not to them whether the subject is a racer or a journalist. To them, the most notable fact about the subject is that he or she is a motorcyclist.Orsoni (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"Motorcyclist" is almost broad enough, which is better than something narrow like "motorcycle racer". The problem with "motorcyclist" is the presumption that someone not known for their actual riding, such as a business executive, engineer, designer, a writer, or TV presenter, is that they might not actually ride. I don't have any evidence that L. J. K. Setright ever rode a motorcycle, and Takeo Fujisawa didn't even drive a car. Some riders who went from obscure racers to notable writers stopped riding well before their writing career began. Labeling someone who isn't known for their riding as a "motorcyclist" strikes an odd note. I wouldn't call Arthur Davidson a "motorcyclist" in an article title. That's the point of saying "(motorcycling)". It applies to virtually all motorcycling people at any stage of their career, whether they are riders, mechanics, engineers, designers, business executives, TV hosts, authors, racing team sponsors, or whatever. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal: move all articles called Some Name (motorcycle racer) to Some Name (motorcyclist).

Some of those new titles are existing redirects, but none have ever led anywhere other than the corresponding (motorcycle racer) article. Special cases:

• Daniel Sáez (motorcycle racer, born 1985) → Daniel Sáez (motorcyclist, born 1985)
• Daniel Sáez (motorcycle racer, born 1996) → Daniel Sáez (motorcyclist, born 1996)
• Mark Miller (TT motorcycle racer) → Mark Miller (TT motorcyclist) (note: Mark Miller (racer) raced cars and bikes)

Leave the following four alone, as they are notable for doing something bike related other than riding:

• Arthur Davidson (motorcycling)
• Dave Preston (motorcycling)
• David Robb (motorcycling)
• Mick Walker (motorcycling)

Does that work for everyone? Do we need a formal RM for this, or do we think there's enough consensus to go ahead? Certes (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As there seem to be no objections, I'll boldly ask for these pages to be moved. Certes (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Thank you for taking this up. I have been meaning to move some articles in the past but, haven't had the time.Orsoni (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The articles should be moving tomorrow. Details at WP:AWBTASKS#Motorcyclist page moves. I've unlinked the older Chris Martin, and will move Sáez and Miller manually once the bulk moves are done. Certes (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just asking; new article Motorcycle Women looks iffy. Maybe there are more sources out there? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Personal transporter#Requested move 7 June 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 13#Category:Motorcyclists organizations ☆ Bri (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ex-CEO of Harley, Vaughn Beals, has died in Gig Harbor, Washington. The article might make a good group project for improvement. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I started Draft:MotorGrrl with a few sources including The New York Times and Fox Business. I'll be cross-posting here and at WP:WikiProject Women in Red. Collaborators are welcome! ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Dainese could use a couple more passes to clean up come COI edits by a small swarm of publicists or marketers. Could check to see if the frequently cited press releases can be replaced by independent sources. I've gone through it a bit but it's not done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Horex are producing motorcycles again, after being bought by 3C Carbon couple of years ago. The article should be updated accordingly, as well as edited to fix its brevity. I'll do so once I find the time. I've also taken a photo of one of their more recent models, which I'm going to add. Yanko Malinov (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The article on Ted Sampley, organizer of the Rolling Thunder rally (possibly the world's largest rally), has undergone extensive expansion lately. Project members are invited to have a look, contribute, or just copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This portal is up for deletion as it has been abandoned. Has anyone the interest in maintaining this regularly in order to keep it? It needs quite a bit of work and a longer term commitment too. The Motorcycles portal is already gone per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox. ww2censor (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[8] Removed the phrase "on the dyno" from a motorcycle-related blurb on the main page; seemed too jargon-y for a general audience. Just wanted to make sure I didn't accidentally remove an important caveat or qualification or something. If it really should go back, I assume this means "as measured on a dynamometer"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s fine. On the dyno is jargony, though not egregiously so. It’s also redundant: anyone who knows what that phrase means already knows it was on a dyno by the qualification “at the rear wheel”, which tells us it was a dyno test result. The worst problem is “most powerful in its class”. Unless we are given an explicit definition of class, literally any vehicle can claim that. It’s a common marketing tactic to make up narrow classes that put your product on top. Part of the purpose of Types of motorcycles and Motorcycle testing and measurement is to give readers a primer on these pitfalls. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. That makes sense, and I'll remove that from the blurb too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Is anyone able to work out the model and perhaps year of this Douglas please: Douglas_motorcycle_engine,_Abergavenny_steam_rally_2012.jpg
Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but think it's a 1950/1951 80 plus, see https://douglasmcc.co.uk/gallery-post-war/ John B123 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks John. I have used your information to update the caption at Flat twin engine. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. John B123 (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have two questions about this Hells Canyon Rally page.

1) What do I have to do to turn this stub into an article?

2) I got a warning about the picture I posted. Unless I get permission, it'll get taken down in 7 days. I sent an email to the organization, but haven't heard from them yet. How do I keep the picture up if I don't hear from them?

Thanks - Slowmusketeer (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wally Green's granddaughter has posted at the Teahouse asking for somebody to correct the date of her grandfather's death. I have corrected the year from one of the references (it was right in the infobox); but neither that reference nor any other I have found gives the date of death. I haven't removed the date, but really I ought to unless there is a source. Has anybody here got a source - perhaps an obituary in a specialised magazine? (Note: I am not myself interested in Motorcycling: I am just helping fix a problem in Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have anything after 2004. The date quoted is from the intial upload, and the source included (but not as an inline citation box) is a WP:SPS. It's can be a problem when someone dies around the end of the year, as registration of death can be in January and may not be transcribed accurately, although this is from the beginning of the month. However, this search returns nothing for Walter Green (assuming London, as Islington IPs were used), nothing unusual in that, though, as there are gaps and errors in the transcribed records. I tried another search but records only go up to 1993. It probably wouldn't help matters, but the IP doesn't confirm the location of death. An old school m/c journalist died fairly recently, and he'd been relocated to a care facility (suffering from dimensia) elsewhere within England to be near relatives. I'd written the bio some years ago, still as a draft, but couldn't find any mention of his death in other than an SPS.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to clarify that the original upload birth detail was soon changed, so the birth appearing before the citation box [1] may also be suspect.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As an owner of Meriden twins since 1980 and occasional caretaker of a Hinckley triple I have a fair knowledge and reference library on these bikes. We currently have a good navbox for BSA (Template:BSA motorcycles) but no matching navbox for Triumph. I am quite competent at navbox editing and would be happy to create one or two for Triumph if there are no objections.

There is currently only one category for Triumph motorcycles where I think a division in to Meriden and Hinckley machines would be more logical and useful. Again I would be happy to create categories but would check here for the best titles of them before going live. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The navbox(s) would be a good idea. The new categories also seem a good idea. The current category is Category:Triumph Motorcycles Ltd motorcycles, which probably isn't the best name as Triumph Motorcycles Ltd is the article for Hinckley Triumphs. Whilst not consistent with Triumph Engineering or Triumph Motorcycles Ltd (neither of which I think are the best titles for the articles) I would suggest Category:Triumph Motorcycles as a parent category with say Category:Triumph Motorcycles (pre 1977), Category:Triumph Motorcycles (Meriden) and Category:Triumph Motorcycles (Hinckley) as sub-categories. --John B123 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not always easy but ideally we'd want categorization that is accessible to the uninitiated, without offending Triumph aficionados with gross inaccuracy, meaning that if the categories are overly precise and perfectly defined, someone could come along and think whole swaths of motorcycles don't exist, or aren't really Triumphs, because they're off in a different category. So if they see a category with nothing but post 1983 bikes we don't want them walking away thinking those are the only Triumphs. A short note at the top of the category page and friendly category names should work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff. I think Meriden/Hinckley would be the simplest split for the moment as I believe that is the common way they are known. I can produce navboxes first which will divide them and perhaps also show if there are any missing articles. I would include a 'see also' link in each navbox linking to the other company.

A related problem is the reuse of old names, I noticed yesterday that the Triumph Bonneville T120 article has a second infobox for the Hinckley bike and a brief mention in the lead but no text on it, I think both bikes deserve (are notable enough for) their own articles but would need to find a way to disambiguate them. I'll have a go at creating the navboxes in a sandbox in a bit, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying on this one earlier. The 1200 Hinckley model does warrant its own article, especially as a good part of the Bonneville Bobber article is "The Bobber's differences from the Bonneville T120 include:". Until an article is written, it might be better to have the 1200 infobox in Triumph Bonneville#New Bonneville (800, 900 & 1200) and a hatnote on the T120 article linking to the same place? --John B123 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The first navbox for Meriden bikes is almost ready to publish. One bike appears in both pre and post-war groups as it was produced before and after. There is one bike, Triumph Model H, that was produced at the Coventry factory, there are probably more. Because of this I have made the working title 'Triumph Motorcycles (Coventry/Meriden)'. The template name will be Template: Triumph motorcycles Meriden, it's not particularly important what this name is as it is purely coding to display the navbox though it is desirable to have it give a clue what might be in it. I've not added any redlinks to keep it simple for the moment. I'll do the Hinckley bikes next, sticking to engine size groups. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hinckley navbox also nearly ready, I had an idea that they used a lot of different engine sizes but not this many, must cause fun in the stores department supporting all of them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have misunderstood your categorisation. Having got my first bike in 1971, I remember the takeover of BSA/Triumph by Norton Villers to form NVT, the sit-in at Meriden and formation of the workers cooperative. After the collapse of NVT, the cooperative brought the marketing rights for Triumph and formed Triumph Motorcycles (Meriden) Ltd. The 1977-on 750cc twins were marketed as "Meriden Triumph" to distinguish them from the previous Triumphs. In my mind "Triumph motorcycles Meriden" refers to the 1977-83 750 twins only, not the early models, hence my previous comments.

From you subsequent posts, it has become clear you intended the "Meriden" category to include all pre-Hinckley models. As you point out, the bikes were originally made in Coventry, but also some models were made at Small Heath. (250cc TR25W Trophy (re-badged BSA Starfire) and its OIF derivatives T25T Trail Blazer and T25SS Trail Blazer SS; 500 cc BSA B50#Triumph TR5T Trophy Trail/Adventurer Trophy Trail/Adventurer (T100C engine in BSA B50 cycle parts); T150 Trident production was transferred to Small Heath at the time of the Meriden sit-in; all T160 Trident models were produced at Small Heath).

The navboxes look good. One small point, the 600 Daytona is included in the Meriden models (but links to the 500 Daytona). --John B123 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, think I've seen the Daytona mix up, there are quite a few articles that mix 'old' and 'new' bikes with the same name. With the navbox titles I was thinking purely geographically (as in Meriden, West Midlands and Hinckley) to cater for the various incarnations of the companies. That's the way I split them in my head and probably how other people do to. Another way to do it is by date range but that's not straight forward either. The Commons categories are more mixed up than the articles but I've had a go at sorting some this afternoon. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The linked Daytona 600 in the Meriden navbox is actually a Meriden twin mentioned at the bottom of the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ooops, I just hovered over the link rather than following it. As the hover preview is limited in size, it just showed the top of the page which is the 500 model. You might want to add the models I've linked to above to the infobox. --John B123 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a closely related short stroke version of the Triumph TR65 Thunderbird and from a different era so I think it would be sensible to move the details to the TR65 article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. I've added the TR5T Trophy Trail/Adventurer to the BSA B50 article. I was going to add it to the Triumph Tiger 100 article, but there is little detail on post-war models and adding it there may make it look that it was the most important T100 model. --John B123 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

After the BSA name was dropped in 1973, the pure off-road version of the B50, the B50MX , was rebranded as the Triumph TR5MX. It might be worth adding to the navbox. --John B123 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(EC)I'm sure we will be able to link to all the bikes eventually though redirects in navboxes don't appear in bold in the parent article. Category wise vehicles are usually categorised by their manufacturing companies, Triumph Engineering does summarise NVT operations and links to it and also the Meriden co-op. I could add Small Heath to the title but it might make it a bit long, dunno. Let's see how it looks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Triumph motorcycles (Coventry/Meriden/Small Heath) is definitely too unwieldy (and even more so if you add in the pre-WW1 production in Nuremberg.) I would suggest "Triumph Motorcycles 1902-83" and then an explanatory note in the "|above=" section of the navbox such as "Triumph brand motorcycles manufactured by Triumph Engineering, Norton Villiers Triumph and Triumph Motorcycles (Meriden) in Coventry, Meriden and Small Heath." --John B123 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that the name of the business (or, at least, one business name) in late 1974 was Norton Triumph Europe Limited, Andover, Hants (from December 1974 full magazine page colour advert for Commando and Trident). If that's not allowed for, someone could come along in the future and raise it. Was it just a sales-offshoot, and/or at what point was 'Villers' dropped from NVT?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: I think NVT was an umbrella company for a number of companies set up for the various different operations within the overall company. Norton Triumph Europe Limited was possibly the company set up to handle motorcycle sales. The 74 Commando advert near the bottom of this page, is from Norton Villiers Triumph Manufacturing Ltd, Wolverhampton. From memory, the motorcycles marketing was always Norton Triumph, which is logical as Villiers only made engines. --John B123 (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Jincheng Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Seems like a large corporation, but article is completely unreferenced. Language problem? Wikipedia systemic bias? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Would another member of the group mind reviewing this revert of a change I made challenging crowdsourced mileage data on the Hyosung GV650? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The heading of the VTwin page is incorrect. It states that V Twin, and called a V4. A V-Twin is a 2 cylinder V engine. Not a 4 cylinder V engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-twin_engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nine11c2 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right, it had been vandalized. It's right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Grand Prix motorcycle racing World Champions by year links to DAB pages BDO and TTM. These puzzles have been bugging me since January, so if anyone can solve them, it would be appreciated. Narky Blert (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted! BDO and TTM were the chassis manufacturers that Rolf Biland used that year. As we don't have articles for either of these I've removed the links to the DAB pages. --John B123 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me edit the Yamaha FZ6R wiki. I did some drafts and submitted, and it was revoked, etc. These people do not understand motorcycles and model info. I just want it to appear like the Yamaha FZ6 does or the Yamaha YZF-R6. Thanks. There are some drafts if you look at my contribution page (RideThe6 (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC));

I'm afraid I would have to agree with the reverting editor, the text reads like a manual and is against Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:NOTMANUAL). It seems to be redirected to the wrong article though, we have Yamaha FZ6 and Yamaha FZ8 and FAZER8. Is the bike you are describing more like one of these? The Diversion range is quite old now. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it this model or similar? It looks like the 'R' was US only, UK models were S and N. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We have about 23 citations linking to Real Classic co uk that need to be updated with a link to the Wayback Machine or similar archive using the |archive-url= parameter, as explained at Wikipedia:Link rot#Internet archives. It looks like the Real Classic domain is a porn site now, but fortunately I think all the articles we have cited are still there in the archive. After you look up a suitable archive link and add it to the citation, place {{dead link}} after the end of the citation template, after the closing brackets }} and before the </ref> tag. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi everybody!

I've read in the Project page that "Prices — WP:NOPRICES means that generally, MSRP or other prices are not mentioned.". While I get the reason not no include prices of motorcycles currently on sale (Wikipedia is neither a Sales catalogue, nor a price comparison service), I also think that for older models (e.g., more than 20 years old) the inclusion of their initial launch price may absolutely be of encyclopedic significance.

In addition, I believe that most people who intentionally browse a Wikipedia page about a particular motorcycle would be definitely curious and interested in knowing such a detail, which by contrast is actually quite difficult to find online.

It would therefore make sense if, once one of us has gone though this quest on its own and found a source reliable enough, this kind of info could be shared by adding it directly to the article, thus saving everyone else's time and effort.

For example, including the launch price of the first BMW R 80 G/S from 1980 in its specific Wikipedia page could allow us to compare it with the MSRP of a 2020 F 850 GS (info which, on the contrary, is easily and readily available directly on the manufacturer's website), and this may be very useful for a whole lot of comparisons and reasonings.

Let's just think about inflation calculations or resale value comparisons. The launch price of a BMW R 80 G/S in 1980 was $2,500 — which would be $7,897 in today's dollars. But a 2020 BMW F 850 GS now costs $13,545 (almost twice as much). Is it the CPI that's too generic / that underestimates the real inflation? Or is it that the 2020 model packs so much more technology besides a chassis, an engine, and two wheels, that you can't just compare the two models as if they were simply the same motorcycle but from two different years?

Resale value: used 1981 models in good shape are currently for sale for upwards of $20,000 — more than a brand new one! That probably means this model is very sought after and thus of particular encyclopedic significance... And so on.

What do you think?

OpenAccessIsTheWay (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey all! I have been working on my first "real" article, but I bit off WAY more than I could chew and (initially) failed spectacularly - crash n burn! I have been working hard to get the page to the stage where it's good enough to publish, and I think I'm getting closer, but I am struggling to find good English language references. I am working on an article on Spidi (the motorcycle gear company), but I'm mainly finding stuff from their own website or retailers in English, which is not useful. It was suggested that perhaps the folks from this wikiproject might know some good sources, or have seen something "in their travels", so I thought I would ask. It's a long shot, I know, but have any of you seen anything around? =) The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spidi if you are interested. Feel free to give suggestions/leave comments if you wish. Thanks! Anfornum (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand the Motorcycle sports section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This might be a good start Marijuana sponsorship comes to motorsports, Revzilla, 2018. We need more information on regulations especially. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Also The question becomes, how does [intake] translate to impairment?” Gaudino says. “That’s a factor that’s never been studied. Everybody’s different. It’s even more different than alcohol. That level is different in every person, depending on how many cannabinoid receptors you have in your system. What might knock one person on his ass, another might do five or 10 times that and you wouldn’t even know he was stoned.” Which explains why some championship dirt and pavement riders have admitted, off the record, to racing while high—and they didn’t go slow. from Motorcyclist, May 2018. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

We ought to update the Harley-Davidson Sportster article especially as the MoCo have unveiled it recently. I did add some preliminary fluff on the lead section but perhaps someone who is far more knowledgeable could add up to it. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The article subject slider clutch is presently a redirect to the article slipper clutch. A colleague wikipedian has informed me that this is wrong since these are two different types of clutches that function with completely different, opposite purposes: the slipper clutch is functional for acceleration purpose, the slider clutch is for deceleration purpose. Is there a member of the WikiProject Motorcycling who could shine some light on this? Thanks. --VanBuren (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe I have heard 'slider clutch' so I am intrigued. As some know, I have experience of two and four wheels over a 58-year period, and only two years ago I learned that what I have always known as plain bearings (can be metal-spray applied, or shell bearings where they are independently replaceable) are known as slipper bearings in Australia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A slider clutch is a form of centrifugal clutch usually used in drag racing. It is designed to engage only at high revs, often starting at 5,000 rpm, taking the human element out of clutch starts. There is a variant called a lock clutch, which additionally mechanically locks the clutch at a certain rpm, usually the bottom of the power band, to prevent any slippage at higher revs. A slipper clutch, as the article says, is to prevent over-revving or wheel hop when changing down. --John B123 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It's even more confusing because a clutch slider (not a slider clutch) is a groove in the basket of a multiplate clutch that guides the plates moving back and forth. And there are examples of using 'slipper clutch' to refer not to a back-torque limiting clutch as on a motorcycle but an automatic clutch for drag racing. This is one of those cases where readers need to be cautioned that the termionology is going to be used to mean different things in different fields.

I'd merge slipper clutch back into clutch, and redirect slider clutch there, then work on reorganizing clutch. For example, multiplate clutches are described under the dry clutch heading, as if multiplate was a type of dry clutch, rather than saying the number of plates is a separate aspect of any wet or dry clutch. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What about an infobox expansion? --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a note to let editors know that a user has proposed "WikiProject MotoGP". You can visit the proposal and discussion here. (Proposer was not me, I am just a guy alerting editors to the proposal.) Elijahandskip (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've had some removed in this change - the reason was given here - it's not helpful for me to understand. Could I have any clarification? I've now been doing it for several years and this sort of thing makes me doubt myself. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops I meant breaking .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: All previous championships are named as "number-cc" without the space between the two. I think it was a mistake back then adding spaces on the articles here in wiki, where in fact MotoGP themselves use the no-space format. If you search for yourself here, pick any section and you will find every past result having the no-space format. The official results guide doesn't have the space as well. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is all just the preferred style stated in MOS:NBSP and MOS:UNITSYMBOLS, right?

Does Wikipedia mimic the style of MotoGP or follow our own syle? That's made pretty clear at MOS:TMRULES: use: Macy's, Skate, Yellow Tail, Seven, Alien 3, Toys "R" Us. avoid: macy^★s, skate., [ yellow tail ], Se7en, Alien³, Toys Я Us.

The guideline allows exceptions, but only if we can cite a clear and compelling reason why we have to conform to MotoGP's style when we don't do the same for nintendo or REALTOR®. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That's about what I surmised and expected - thanks, Dennis for linking together comprehensively.

I had a similar situation within the last few months, with the same editor quoting some guideline/policy (I didn't check the wording) - except in reverse - where the complaint was that I had wrongly used the < center > attribute to relocate an image to fill excessive wsp; I don't actually recall where/what, as it was too trivial to bother with (that was on desktop - I am unaware if there would've been any adverse impact on the mobile site). Ultimately it's of little consequence to me - it's Wikipedia that's disadvantaged, with lack of uniformity in the recent example.

I need to query something else from the last few days that I'm unsure on, but you'll see it on the article Talk.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I would not recommend anyone choose the MOS as a hill to die on. The MOS   thing is "only" a guideline, not a policy, and there is officially a lot of room for variation. Unless this is in preparation for a Good Article or Featured Article review, where the MOS might as well be law, I'd never revert more than once. There's plenty of more important things to fix than MOS deviations on merely average quality articles. And sooner or later a WikiGnome or a bot will come along and change 500cc to 500 cc, because that's the standard, per above, so there's no reason personally involve oneself in drama over it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear colleagues in this project! John B123 left this[9] message on my talkpage.

I am a collegue of de:Portal:Auto und Motorrad and have written some motorbike related articles like

• de:Moto Guzzi Ercole
• de:Zündapp KS 600
• de:Zündapp K 800.

The article de:Faltkraftrad is a class-related article which i translated for en:WP. I am very disappointed that John dismantled the article without attention to the very well contained supporting documents and patent evidence. Under these circumstances, I refuse any improvement of this article. I sincerely hope that there are other colleagues here who can dedicate themselves to this Draft:Folding motorcycle class article and have enough colegial sense to work together to create this encyclopedia.

Best Ｔｏｍ (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ: per WP:VERIFY, the article was tagged with {{unreferenced}} on 26 December. As no improvements had been made to the article on 29 January the article was moved to draftspace. I don't see what the problem is here? --John B123 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Best John! The rulebook you quoted is irrelevant in this case. Evidence was and is given. It is simply uncollegial to ignore that. Ｔｏｍ (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ: The requirements of the English WP are entirely relevant and need to be complied with. The only irrelevant things here are what happens on the German WP and how many articled you have written. --John B123 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please note the project-wide rule: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. EOD. Ｔｏｍ (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

So, @Ｔｏｍ:, where is the attack??? Not EOD.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the KTM RC250GP bike the same as the one called as "KTM RC4"? Because a large majority (practically all of them) of the independent sources that I can find uses RC250GP as the bike's name, while KTM's website is the only one that uses the RC4 as the bike's name. If they're actually different, then what exactly is KTM's Moto3 bike called? ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging RicardoCasanova91.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)