I have just reverted a no doubt well-meaning contribution which linked to a book by Randall Dale Chipkar claiming that motorcycles cause cancer. It may be just me, but I'm highly suspicious of someone who has published a book and at the same time has also patented a product (EMF shielded bike seat) that will stop the very thing that the book is talking about. If others feel that the subject is worthy of inclusion on this page then please re-instate it, but I'd certainly like to see some discussion. For reference take a look at the author's website and the original citation (a blog post) used for the addition to this article. --TimTay (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and other self-published material are not accepted sources of info for articles (WP:SPS. I support removing this claim from the article. Brianhe (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this book a bit strange. I'd imagine that if a motorcycle-related terminal injury or death occurs it would be from a skid, highside, or whatever. Not EMF radiation. However, I tried to add it to 'Motorcycle' just to let people know what's going on. Nickgomez (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the lead photo has been deleted we need a replacement. Anyone got any good ideas? There do not seem to be any really good but generic images around the commons. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick Motorrad-67, but with respect the problem I see is that, firstly, being a lead image the bikes should ideally to be facing left into the article and they are all rather specific rather then generic looking, except the group shot which is not a great quality image. Of those I would choose Image:Gss-600.jpg. Any other suggestions folks? ww2censor (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went ahead and added Image:Gss-600.jpg as the lead image. I got tired (tyred?) of looking and waiting for a generic looking image. Of the four proposed above, I also prefer this one. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that image. To me it says motorcycling - others may disagree, but it gets my vote so far. M-72 (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the image too. It would be perfect for the lead in motorcycling. (So I made it so.) And it's generic enough, but only because you can barely see the bike. I think the lead really should show the subject clearly. My 2¢. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ittpeak600.jpg edited would be really good. Leave out the left 1/3rd, centralise on the bike, and I think we have a winner. It would still be generic enough. Is that possible Jeff? M-72 (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Licence is a noun, license is a verb. Revert back to correct spelling.." -TimTay
Is there a source for this claim? When I look up license in American Heritage Dictionary, it lists both noun and transitive verb. When I look up licence, it says "n. & v. Chiefly British".
The wikipedia article about [[Driver's license]s also suggests that it is an American vs British issue and not noun vs verb: "A driver's license (U.S.), driving licence (UK, Ireland, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Malta), driver's licence or driver licence (Canada, Australia†, New Zealand), or operator's licence". -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have been more specific. This article is not written in American English, which is why licence is used. Outside the US, in general, license is a verb and licence is a noun. --TimTay (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. That's why I love Wikipedia. I would have never learned this from the American Heritage Dictionary, obviously. I tried OED, but I need to sign up for that one. I guess I should.
On a related topic, I wish there was a way in Wikipedia to indicate the flavor of English used in an article. It can be problamatic to depend on each editor to hunt through the article looking for key words, such as tire vs tyre, for a clue. A short line at the top, as is done with redirects and disambiguation, might save a lot of editing and warring. Sometimes, I even resort to putting a comment at the top of the talk page after I create an article stating that "it is written in American English for when it becomes an issue." Any better ideas? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree! --TimTay (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recall seeing a template that shows the type of English preference to be used on a page, but can't find it right now. Will look later. ww2censor (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this as ww2censor made the posting above. I'll include it anyway in case he can't find the template he thinks he remembers seeing. Okay, let's brainstorm a little about what the template should say and where it should appear. Ideally, it would be unobtrusive, but catch the eye of editors. Italics or small font, as with disambiguation and redirect, would be good, but I don't know which would be best. It should definitely have a link to the policy page. A neat feature might be a link to a page like this listing the difference acceptable spellings; tyre vs. tire, color vs. colour, etc.; to help editors avoid changing words which are already spelled (ha!) correctly for that article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the template go on the talk page or on the article page itself? Brianhe (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. It's got two flavors, standard or small. Something like tiny might be good for the article page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This page is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Shouldn't that be "two flavours"? ;-) Putting them on the talk page seems sensible. Personally I think it looks awful on the main page, but that is just one person's opinion. Checking "what links here" for the British-English banner template it seems that it is only used on talk pages. --TimTay (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, of course it should. I'm mixed on its appearance on the article page, too. I tried to make it as small as I could. Ideally, it would only show up for people about to edit. Maybe a comment, the invisible kind, I guess they would have to be inserted below every heading, would do the trick and not look so ugly. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent): Normally it goes at the top of the talk page. One could of course also put a, commented out, notice on the main page, but that will only be read when an editor clicks on the top "edit this page button and not when a section "edit" button is used. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of that comment is redundant because Andrew has now added a commented out notice to each section. ww2censor (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motorcycle wiki at Cyclechaos.com. For those that are active with motorcycle related articles in wikipedia, it might be useful and/or complementary. Lots of pics btw. Htra0497 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how long this article will be beaten to death by anal Wikipedians trying to redo everything in their personal image. Of course, this could be wondered with every article in Wikipedia, edited anonymously over and over and over. It's a joke. I gave up months ago. There is no point to it. I hope you all are enjoying yourselves. I doubt that "get a life" means anything to you. Motorrad-67 (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evb-wiki has asked for (→Fuel economy: fact cite request) on one of the photos. I can find plenty of evidence to counter the captions claims, but only from Blogs - perhaps not the best source of facts. But it raises the further issue of general fuel economy. Currently fuel milages are listed but with no real qualifiers. For example "in-town" and highway milages vary greatly from country to country due to differing speed limits and traffic conditions. Even the measurements may not be universal. For example Australia uses the litre/100 km method not km/l. Comments? M-72 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that it's actually quite common for the motorcycle press in metric countries to use km/L. However you are right in that riding/driving conditions vary dramatically. For official figures, measurement standards vary as well. Further reading from LA Times' throttle jockey, Susan Carpenter: here (Makes great points about a rider/s body type) -- Htra0497 (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs additional references as it is. To maintain and improve the article, information added to it should include references. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motorcycles are extremely noisy especially because most people who have them alter them to make them 150 decicels when they start them up, revving in residential areas. This article needs a section on motorcycle noise. William Ortiz (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"NSU and Moto-Guzzi were in the vanguard of this development both producing very radical designs well ahead of their time."
It might be legitimate to say that Motoguzzi were "ahead of their time" when you take into consideration their wind tunnel but the NSU in the picture was simply part of the trend of producing streamlined bikes in the 1950s which almost every racing manufacturer was involved in. It seems a bit stupid not to include Norton or MV Agusta who were certainly in a better position to drive forward development given the fact that they were the ones in the top flyte of motorsports, unlike NSU. It just seems like a desperate attempt to show how the Germans "kept up" at the expense of other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.25.221 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this article is quite pathetic. It makes very little reference to British marques and there are no photos of British bikes despite the fact that up until the 50s and 60s the British motorcycle industry was probably the world's most dynamic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.214.94 (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested that this page be merged from Madass where I will delete and create a new section entitled Madass here, then Madass will no longer will be a stub and this page will be a little longer to! So it will be Win-Win. Let me know if you aprove or reject!
Etineskid (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is an artical about the vehicle. It has no section for any specific make or model of motorcycle, nor should it. Second, I object to adding anything to this article that is not supported by reliable sources. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Evb-wiki is correct, this is a general article about motorcycles not about specific motorcycles, so sorry, but NO. ww2censor (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely NO. This isn't a "list of motorcycles", it's an article about motorcycles in general. And the article to merge isn't a "type of motorcycle" to be mentioned in a general article, it's just one specific model. Tedder (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No for the reasons cited above -- stub articles are OK. But thanks for asking. Brianhe (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the consensus, I am removing the merge templates from the pages. ww2censor (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
