Talk:Bicycle parking rack

Cycling Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge discussion[edit]

User:Bollarion created a new article today titled Bike racks that essentially duplicates this article that has existed since November 2006. The new article also ignores all the discussion that went into the naming of the bike rack disambiguation page and the three other related pages that use the same term, bike rack: bike stand, bicycle carrier, and luggage carrier . -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bike carrier page lacks information regarding bike rack finishes, mounts, and other information that has been presented in the article titled Bike racks. User:bollarion did not duplicate any of the information on the page that existed since November 2006, but merely offers more detail on the subject. The Bike racks page also makes references to the disambiguation page and the three other related pages, therefore does not ignore anything that User:AndrewDressel claims it to be. Would the User:AndrewDressel be more comfortable if this page was renamed to "Commercial bike racks" since the other related pages focus more on portable bike carriers rather than commercial bike racks? The bike carrier page does not offer enough information on bike racks for it to be the only article on the topic.

Bollarion (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. The above post by Bollarion mentions the bike carrier article twice, about devices on vehicles for carrying bikes, but that is not the merger proposed. Instead, the proposed merger is with bike stand. Perhaps it is just a typo. In any case:

That an article lacks information is a reason to add that information, not create a new, separate article.
The discussion to which I refer relates to the name of the articles, not their content.
Changing the name of the new article to "Commercial bike racks" would not address any of the issues. I don't see anything in the Bicycle stand article that is about "portable bike carriers rather than commercial bike racks." Perhaps there really is no typo in the posting above.
Again, a current lack of content is not a reason to create a new article, nor a reason not to merge two articles that cover the same topic.

See the first two reasons for a merger, given at the top of Wikipedia:Merging. Also, see the preference for singular nouns in article titles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd like to thank Bollarion for the well written and referenced article s/he has done. It's definitely a contribution to wikipedia, and I'd say a subject that is important to cyclists. As for the naming issue I have to agree with AndrewDressel overall. It's not appropriate to have 2 articles covering the same topic (even if the exact content is different) with minorly different names. They should be merged. Pluralising the article does not clarify the content, nor does "Commercial bike racks" help to differentiate from bike stand, bicycle carrier, and luggage carrier. While the present names are not ideal, they are better than the "bike racks" or "Commercial bike racks", so I'd like to merge to "Bicycle stand", but I'm open to talking about other names, if that's important to others. Andrew, where is the discussion you mention above, I'd be interested to take a look at it. Do you think there's room for improvement? --Keithonearth (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, thanks for joining in the discussion and for pointing out the good work of Bollarion. Perhaps if I had started with that, s/he would have been more open to the merger. I hope to do better next time. As for the discussion, it occured between me and Markus Kuhn back in late December 2007 right after he split the single "bike rack" article into three separate articles and gave them the current names. He argued that these were the official names according to some standards body. I had to provide references just to get "bike rack" added as a synonym in the lede of each of the new articles. It seemed silly to me at the time, but I had to concede that it was better than three articles with the same name. I can no longer find any particular discussion on a single page, sorry, but you can still see scraps of our disagreement in the edit histories. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are multiple devices and topics to be covered. Bicycle stand best describes a device for holding up a single bicycle for workshop repair and maintenance as the phrase seems to be most often used by sources in this way. Bicycle rack describes communal facilities for storing multiple bicycles though the phrase is commonly also used for a bicycle carrier on a vehicle. Perhaps we should separate the topics by function:

bicycle repair and maintenance
bicycle parking and storage
bicycle carriage
bicycle sales

seem to be the main activities for which some device is needed to support or secure the bicycle. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about the ambiguity of the terms seems valid to me Colonel Warden, but it does seem to be a different issue than the one under discussion. The fact that the subject matter of the Bike racks and Bicycle stand articles is the same. They Should be merged, irrespective of what the title of the article is called. If you would like to talk about renaming the article lets do that here. As I said above, I am open to talking about renaming the articles, but please don't obstruct the merge because the name is ambiguous.--Keithonearth (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Keith said. Also, bicycle work stands are already covered a little at Bicycle_tools#Stands, and they are never called bike stands there. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The new article bike racks has generally better words, better organization, poorer pictures, and the wrong name. We should put the new words, mostly, with the old photos under the old name bicycle stand. And then look for better photos in Commons. As for the old articles about storage, carriage, repairing, selling etc, those ought to remain separate as our buddy Colonel says and nobody dissents. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though there is plenty more cleanup to to. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew!--Keithonearth (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Variety[edit]

There are 3 different pictures of the serpentine type rack. I am going to swap two of them out with some of the images available on the commons for the sake of variety. I am leaving my reasoning here since this is a fairly major edit to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexandalf (talk • contribs) 09:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bicycle parking rack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A name needed[edit]

So what are we going to call the stand that keeps the bicycle off the floor in a bicycle repair shop? Peter Horn User talk 01:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reinthal: Perhaps you can help to solve this name problem. See Park Tool and Bicycle tools#Stands Peter Horn User talk 01:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immersion[edit]

What are the risk considered? (To build a bike rack stand) and How will you adress them? 136.158.70.37 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]