Talk:Types of motorcycles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Roadsters

Some time ago I argued that the word "roadster" did not just mean a 1940's type open sports-car, but also covered the "standard" motorcycle; but each time I used the word in the latter sense on a wikipage, it got deleted. I maintain that it has been normal usage for some time to call a standard bike a "roadster": see http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/bikereviews/searchresults/Bike-Reviews/Norton/Norton-Commando-961-SE-2009-current/ "As a straightforward, old style roadster, the Norton Commando 961 SE is ...". See http://www.andover-norton.co.uk/NCRoadster.htm A roadster can even have a nosefairing (BMW R90S)or a half-fairing (TRX850.

And while the term "standard" motorcycle may seem sensible, I have yet to hear anyone speak the term. I accept that "naked" is a valid new usage, if slightly absurd (a bike is a bike, then bike with fairing is a bike with fairing, then a bike without fairing is a "naked"). Aaaargh!

I propose to continue to use the word roadster for any road bike with standard bars and pegs. Arrivisto (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree strongly with the use of roadster. We need to reach consensus - existing consensus has already built around the use of "naked", etc., but consensus can change so let's see what others think. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:MZ_Skorpion#Sport_tourer_or_roadster. Roadster can also mean "street legal", [1], or it can refer to a "blacked out" version of the Triumph Rocket III cruiser (not a standard) [2]. And then you have the Can Am Spyder [3] "roadster". And then sometimes it's used to refer to a standard. If you ask me, "roadster" just means "it's a cool bike and our marketing department would like you to buy it."

If one could easily locate a half dozen or more good sources that tell us roadster means standard, I'd have no problem with it. I can tell you that none of the sources describing different motorcycle types cited so far in this article ever mention the word.

Also, with regard to naked, I think the term is poorly defined. I tried to show that some sources use it as a synonym for standard, while other sources use it to imply higher performance than a standard, but less than a sport bike. Some sources hint that a streetfighter is higher performance than a naked, others say the opposite, or that they are nominally equal.

There's a class of terms like sport bike, tourer, dual sport, or cruiser which are well defined and widely understood, and a second class like naked, streetfighter, bobber, power cruiser, and (it remains to be demonstrated) roadster, which are thrown around casually, but which have inconsistent and contradictory definitions. If we do mention roadster, it should be very brief, so as not to give it undue weight, and we should state that there is no agreement among experts on what a roadster motorcycle is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"We should state that there is no agreement among experts on what a roadster motorcycle is: Au contraire! MCN 21 December page 2 " "A (Triumph) 1050 triple-engined sports roadster is a mouth-watering prospect...." (says MCN Senior editor John Weslake). QED! Arrivisto (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the word "roadster" doesn't exist. People use the word. The problem is that the word doesn't mean much.

The following sources, among others, are used to support the usual list of bike types (cruiser, sportbike, standard, etc.):

• Chilton's Motorcycle Handbook
• Motorcycling for Dummies
• The Perfect Motorcycle: How to Choose, Find and Buy the Perfect New Or Used Bike,
• The Complete Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles
• The Complete Motorcycle Book: A Consumer's Guide
• The MAIDS report
• Streetbikes: Everything You Need to Know

Please explain to me why not one of these sources includes "roadster" on that list. Not one source even says "a roadster is..." or "the definition of a roadster is...". John Weslake has not given us any information as to what he thinks the definition of roadster is. He's just tossing the word in there because it's a colorful adjective.

I mean seriously. You slightly restyle the rear end fairing of a Norton Commando and that transforms it into a completely different class of motorcycle? You remove the chrome and black out a bike and that transforms it into a completely different type? It's silly.

As long as you have nobody asserting a definition for the motorcycle type, it's just marketing lingo. Let it go for now and try again when you've got a strong source to cite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nobody is saying the word "roadster" doesn't exist. People use the word. The problem is that the word doesn't mean much." Once again, au contraire. The term "roadster" (in a motorbike context) may not yet be in dictionaries; but once it can be shown to have current usage with a broadly agreed meaning, then it is an established addition to language. What is its meaning? My understanding is that it means:

A conventional solo motorbike with an exposed engine. It may have a nose or bikini fairing, but is not fully faired. The handlebars and footpegs may be standard, or may be (respectively) rather lower or more rear-set; but normally not be as radical as a 'cafe racer'. Unlike a "naked", which is a an unclothed version of a fully-faired bike, a roadster never had any clothes to begin with".

The proposed 'Enigma' bike described (above) in MCN as a "sports roadster" meet this definition; and its usage in MCN shows that it is current.

(P.S. I would never dream of using any book that calls its reader a "dummy" or a "complete idiot"!) Arrivisto (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a naked bike that never came without a fairing? Is a 1969 Honda CB750 a "roadster"? Is the Ducati Monster a roadster? How come absolutely everyone calls the Monster either a standard or naked bike? Why isn't a Triumph Street Triple a roadster? In fact, lots of standards, naked bikes, and streetfighters meet that defintion. The truth is, the marketing department thinks "standard" is a boring term, hence their love of new words for the same thing: naked, streetfighter, roadster, crossover, adventure bike, and even supermoto. Standard, standard, standard, standard, by any other name, still a standard.

The Complete Idiot's Guides and For Dummies books are widely respected as sources for non-esoteric, basic facts. One of their key features is that they don't get stuck in the weeds bickering over obscure terminology. They focus on what is essential, as an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should do.

There are so many more important things to work on than advocating for a novel class of motorcycle. You have not won any support from a single editor, meaning you are not gaining consensus. If you don't have consensus, you're dead in the water at Wikipedia. There are many more important things to work on; there is lots of good work to do on this list Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Importance rankings, for example. Maybe some day in the future roadster will have enough sources to cite. Right now the sources are insufficient to win any consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Standard, standard, standard, standard, by any other name, still a standard." Mere repetition of a word does not add credence. Some wiki-editors do use the word "standard", but I have never heard it used, nor have I seen it in the motorcycle press.

"There are so many more important things to work on than advocating for (sic) a novel class of motorcycle." I'm not advocating a novel class . I'm simply stating that there is more than one word to describe a "standard motorcycle".

"You have not won any support from a single editor, meaning you are not gaining consensus. If you don't have consensus, you're dead in the water at Wikipedia". (A most unpleasant turn of phrase, if I may say so). I have cited a clear and undeniable use of the term "roadster" by a senior editor in the latest MCN. A theory that is supported by sound evidence becomes a fact (unless and until it is disproved), according to Popper. - Arrivisto (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is that you cite a source which gives a definition of a roadster motorcycle. It's the same basic requirement for everything on Wikipedia: verifiability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting use of "roadster": "The Gold Wing appeared in 1976 as an ungainly 1000-cc roadster." The Honda Gold Wing is a roadster? This is what I'm saying: people use the word to refer to just about anything. I will admit that apparently Triumph has made the decision that they will no longer call their streetfighters (Speed Triple and Street Triple) streetfighters, and instead they call them roadsters[4]. Except that the Rocket III also comes as a roadster [5], which baffles me. Though they still call the Speed Triple "The original factory streetfighter" and so on. The point being, if we can find quality sources that tell us why Triumph's marketing made this change in language, it would be both encyclopedic and interesting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the MCN report of the launch of the Yamaha MT-09, Michael Neeves introduces the bike as" ... a middlewieght roadster that costs £6799 as is powered by Yamaha's new 115bhp 850cc 3-cylinder motor". In the report, the Yamaha product manager, Shun Miyazawa is asked "how much influence was the Triumph Street triple?"; and he replies, "we regarded the Street Triple as a stripped-down Daytona 675 - it's a real street fighter. The whole concept of the MT-09 was a 'roadster motard' ". Such multinational use of the term 'roadster' suggests that its meaning is well-understood and that it is here to stay. Arrivisto (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, Triumph also calls the Rocket III a roadster. They use the word to describe at least two radically different models. So Triumph doesn't give us any coherent information to cite. Triumph contradicts themselves. I honestly have no idea what Triumph is thinking; I'm guessing they say different things depending on what their advertising and marketing team feels one day to the next.

For the recognized types, we have reputable sources who don't merely use the word as an adjective. We have sources that explicitly define the term. They say, "a standard has an upright riding position, little body work, etc. A cruiser has a leaned-back riding position, raked forks, etc." You're attempting to draw conclusions from statements like "model X is a roadster", "model Y is a roadster". You're using your own imagination to deduce what qualities models X and Y have that made the writer call them roadsters. That violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR.

Find a source that defines roadster. That says, "A roadster is a bike that has qualities A, B and C." Then we will cite that source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(i) THe editor of MCN and the man behind the MT-09, both men versed in motorcycling, use the term roadster in the established sense that has been described already, above. Here's another quote from the same issue (page 13): "The MT-09 is a roadster for all occasions. It's fun." (ii) No-one ever uses the term "standard". (iii) Quote: "You're attempting to draw conclusions..."; You're using your own imagination..."; "Then WE will cite that source..." This kind of talk is not appropriate in Wikipedia. (iv) The MCN quotations are indeed a source, both current and authoritative, so a little less knee-jerk bombast is in order. Arrivisto (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"The MT-09 is a motorcycle for all occasions. It's fun." See? There's nothing wrong with the word "motorcycle". IMO. Akseli9 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yamaha does not call the MT-09 a roadster. They call it a sport bike [6]. Motorcycle.com uses "standard motorcycle" [7]. Rider uses "standard" [8]. Cycle World recognizes the standard type too [9]. Motorcyclist uses the "standard motorcycle" category [10]. Hey, look! They also have "other types...roadster". What is a roadster? Why, only the Can-Am Spyder is a roadster [11]. It makes no sense. MT-09? Rocket III? Can-Am Spyter? All roadsters? What is a roadster? I still have no idea what "roadster" means. Please define the term and cite your source for the definition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just been reading (with difficulty, most of the scanned pages except for the very bottom parts) of a 1968 article entitled "NICKEL PLATED ROADSTER" on ebay item 380699004367. The author is Tony Murphy. The would-be ebay seller has used the term 'cafe racer' in the title advert, although this does not appear anywhere in the (visible) article. He does use the correct designation "Street Metisse" and "very thinly disguised racer", + "...it is a custom dandy". The periodical itself is undefined - if you know this mag or author, please report it here. The correct term is 'roadster', as is trialster and trailster, for example. Naked is also a correct 1960s term, or maybe earlier, so it follows that suddenly it does not become 'wrong' just due to the advent of easy and mass-communication. Here is a dated source - please use your knowledge and library sources to verify it more. ThanQ, 62.253.80.4 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The ebay link is here - I had to check but it should be viable for a couple of months 62.253.80.4 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the word exists and people use it to describe bikes. Nobody says it's wrong. The problem is it's meaningless. It's incoherent. It's used to describe almost any kind of bike. Honda Gold Wings, Triumph Rocket IIIs, Triumph streetfighters, Yamaha standards, and old cafe bikes. The OED says "roadster" has been around since 1744 to describe a kind of ship, and a kind of horse since 1860, and, since 1875, a bicycle "suitable for roads". But what does that tell us a roadster motorcycle is? "Suitable for roads"? Any kind of street bike? Cruiser, bagger, cafe, sport bike, naked, touring, supermoto? All are suitable for roads?

What is the definition of a roadster motorcycle? What is the definition? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The simple point of all this rather heated chat this is whether or not the term "roadster" is a recognised Type of Motorcycle. (i) Akseli9 misquotes MCN as saying "The MT-09 is a motorcycle for all occasions. It's fun." The actual headline headline was "The MT-09 is a ROADSTER for all occasions. It's fun." ; (ii) DB writes: "Yamaha does not call the MT-09 a roadster. " In fact, as reported above, Yamaha product manager, Shun Miyazawa calls the MT-09 a 'roadster motard'; (iii) I contend that the term "roadster" is neither meaningless nor incoherent, and is at least as precise as "cruiser, bagger, cafe, sport bike, naked, touring, supermoto". It does not matter that the scope of the term may be broad; after all "sport bike" covers a huge range of bikes. "Roadster" (in the bike senses) may not yet appear in a dictionary, but probably "bagger" and "naked" don't either. Since there is ample evidence that there is a generally understood meaning of the term "roadster", it seems pointless to deny the usefulness of the expression. By contrast, in 45 years of motorcycling (outside this blog!) I have neither seen nor heard anyone refer to a bike as a standard. Arrivisto (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read my reply to you on my talk page. I was not misquoting. I agree with you the term "roadster" is representative and should have an existence in an encyclopedia, but I don't see that it can refer to a type of bike like "motocross" or "trial" does. I'll be happy to learn if you would like to explain it to me Akseli9 (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

All the evidence I've seen says it's "just another nice name we give to our motorcycles", as Akseli9 says. There is not ample evidence that there is a generally understood meaning. The evidence shows that it can refer to three wheelers, heaving touring bikes, small standards, and large cruisers. It can't be a type if it can be used to describe a great many different and contradictory types.

Again, what is the definition of roadster. If we had the definition, we could write, "a roadster is a __________". But we don't so we don't have anything to put in the blank. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arrivisto. Here is a good page about the different types of motorcycles according to French standards. You'll be happy to see that roadsters are indeed considered a type of bike. Hi Dennis Bratland. You'll be interested in reading (or google-translating) the definition of what is a roadster in the French categorization of motorcycles. http://www.toutsurlamoto.com/lescategories.html Akseli9 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. Yes, in French, they have different words for everything. It's a different language. You're suggesting we translate the definition from French to English, but arbitrarily not translate the word "roadster"? Why? And why are we ignoring the usage, in English, of roadster to refer to the Gold Wing, Can-Am Spyder, and Rocket III?

The other types listed here have numerous sources, in English, that don't just mention the word, but explicitly give us the definition. That's why those types were chosen. The quality and quantity of the sources. If you have to scrape and scour for sources so badly that you have to even go looking for something outside English, that in of itself shows that the term is not well defined or widely recognized. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not suggesting anything. Just trying to add perspective in the discussion. My view is that the term "roadster" should be, one way or another, represented in an encyclopedic article about motorcycles. My view about an encyclopedia, is that it should tell/collect/inform about reality, about the real world. I can remember the times in France, when this type of bike was still called "basique" (and some among them were the "classiques"). In this time, we didn't use the term "roadster" (it was used only for certain types of cars). It's this thread that made me notice last wednesday in my French motorcycle shops, that it is now(adays) the term "roadster" which has replaced the term "basique" in the French vocabulary for types of bikes (in the showrooms, in the way vendors and customers talk, etc). If I were to suggest something, it would be something in the vein of "the term Standard Motorcycle tends to be more and more often replaced by the marketing term Roadster in nowadays motorcycle world", and if it's not so true on the English and American markets, which after all are almost as representative and at least as influenced by marketing techniques, as the French, the Italian or the German markets, something in the vein of "the term Roadster tends to be used more and more often when talking about Standard Motorcycles". Akseli9 (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You would need to find a third party expert who has the opinion that "standard" is being replaced by "roadster". I'd also want to ask, again, why you ignore the examples of non-standards that are called roadsters. Wikipedia is not about "the real world". It's only a collection of facts that are verifiable. There are many things that are true that cannot be included in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for a complete discussion. Policies can always change, however. The place to discuss it is Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I found a source that defines roadster as equivalent to naked bike, so I added it. I'd like to find some comment on Triumph rechristening all its streetfighters to roadsters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

References

How come this not merely a list linking to other, better articles?

Here is what List of Motorcycles would look like: comments welcome on this talk page.

I was about to tinker with the sport bike section in this article as per discussion above--when I realized (looking at the header) there is a whole Wikipedia article devoted to nothing but sport bikes. The sport bike section here is completely redundant. Looking further I discovered stand-alone articles on almost every type of motorcycle here described. So I have to ask--why does this article exist? Why is it not simply a list, linking to the other, more detailed articles?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Summary style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes but ‪Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists would allow ‪Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes‬ like redundancies. Doubtless lots of editors who contributed to this page are fond of it. I do not mean to step on their toes. But I will try recreating this page in my sandbox as a simple list, and see what people think.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First, it's not a list. Having multiple topics does not a list make. Second, it's not a redundant article: it's an umbrella article that summarizes the contents of several child articles. Summaries are supposed to repeat information that is summarized. It's no different than Motorcycle engine or Internal combustion engine or Motorcycle sport. The top article covers the topic broadly, the ones below it repeat all of that and then go into further detail. There are thousands of such articles on Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is what List of Motorcycles looks like, linking each type to the more detailed pages. Citations omitted: that comes later, if the format is approved. This eliminates a lot of redundant material. Again--I know editors who have contributed to this page are fond of it. But consider contributing instead to the detailed pages, to avoid duplicated effort.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The central point of this article is to discuss how and why motorcycle types are created and how they relate to each other. It is not a list. Making a new list of types of motorcycles is not really helpful, since we basically cover that ground at Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling#Types of motorcycles. Regardless of whether we want to call this a list or whether we want a list, "deleting redundant material" here contradicts the goals of Wikipedia and the way Wikipedia is supposed to be structured. If you look at examples at Wikipedia:Featured articles, considered the best articles in the encyclopedia, you find many examples. Welding has sections on Arc welding, Oxy-fuel welding and cutting, Resistance welding and so on, which are full of redundant content. They're supposed to be redundant. They summarize what's in the {{main}} article. That's what summary means. Diamond has a {{main}} article for most of its sections, which are therefore redundant. Ming Dynasty, same thing. Summary, or redundancy.

Besides the undesirable goal of deleting content in the name of eliminating redundancy, moving this article into a table format does two things: it draws pointless boxes around the paragraphs, and it eliminates the table of contents so the only way to find the section you want is by scrolling; it removes the ability to click to get to the section you want by clicking the section name in the TOC. How is that good? Less functionality and convenience. By the same token, there are hundreds of articles that link to the sections, [[Types of motorcycles#Standard]], [[Types of motorcycles#Sport bike]], etc. So if you convert it to a table, you blow up all those links. And for what purpose?

A useful thing to work on would be to create an article on Standard motorcycles. That one is missing, primarily due to insuffienct sources. If you can do some research and put together enough sources, it would be very helpful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Simplify, simplify,' said Thoreau. Or to put it in Wikipedia editorial policy terms: "avoid redudancy." The cited page is an eye-opener: a third (!) article with redundant information. Editors try to edit one, without realizing there are two or three others with identical info requiring identical treatment (exhibit A is what prompted this section). Now, I do understand the consternation. Converting this page to a list would be a substantial change. I will of course wait to hear a consensus. But--it looks to me like a change for the better. For one thing, lists in their simplicity and stark objectivity do not get edit warred over the way this page has been. I pause to thank the editor above for his heartfelt defense of the status quo. I'll wait a while for consensus. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ps I need to add that the previous editor rightly points out we need a standalone article on standard, or classic motorcycles, before this page is converted to a list. Looking at the other types, it seems like we need a standalone article for dirtbike, and cruiser as well. As far as I can tell all the other types like sport, touring, and so forth have already got stand alone articles. Whether or not there are standalone articles seems pretty hit-or-miss. I would say finish the standalone articles first, then convert this page to a list and link to those.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Both previous editors make salient points. The proposed "List of Motorcycles" looks very competent, although perhaps it needs an introductory paragraph. It's true that a significant disadvantage of a List is that a "Contents" box is unavailable. Although the "dirt bike" category is sound , it should include trials and trail, and I think that a special dirt bike page is unnecessary, as each dirt bike type has (or should have) its own page. Perhaps the "Others" category should include quad bikes? There doesn't seem to be a mention of sidecar outfits. I'm undecided about whether we should have a List or stick to the status quo (although the existing page is (arguably!) not without its faults! Let's see how this proposal fares. Arrivisto (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the pros and cons of the formatting and the loss of TOC intra-article navigation, and whether you call it an "article" or a "list", what is the justification for the deletion of the introductory section?

The only other thing I have to say about the "redundancy" argument is that it doesn't stand a snowball's chance. Any time you make a proposal that so strongly flies in the face of a practice that is used on numerous Featured Articles, and across all types of content, you're not going to get anywhere with it. Even if you and I agreed to delete the "redundancy", in a month or two months, some other random Wikipedian will come along and say "What?! That looks odd!" and will put the article back into a shape that conforms more to Wikipedia's accepted practices.

The guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains why there are so many "redundant" ways to navigate a topic: yes we do have categories, and lists, and navboxes, and now the new Outlines. Redundant? Yes. There is wide consensus that that is a good thing.

As far as edit warring, it comes down to disputes over Identifying reliable sources, which are common on any article. There is an open proposal to resolve the first of the sourcing disputes awaiting a reply.

Again, what is the rationale for wanting to delete the introductory section? It's well sourced, and it summarizes the article content, per MOS:INTRO. Even in a list format, there still needs to be an intro that summarizes the content. You can't get around that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention yet another "redundant" navigation tool: Portals. See Why do we have outlines in addition to...? and WikiProject Outlines/Rationale for more prior discussion on the redundancy issue. For the record, {{Types of motorcycles}} is the "redundant" navigation tool at issue here. For motorcycles, we have all of these things: an article, an outline, and a navbox, but not (yet) a motorcycling portal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

An Index could be created too. Wikipedia really does have a plethora of navigation aids, which I think is a good thing. — Brianhe (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Perhaps then we now can declare a partial consensus, that is, on having an introductory section if--I stress if--the page converts to a list. Most lists have an introductory section, and need one. I think we also have consensus that we need to first write the missing articles, on standard/classic motorcycles, and on dirt bikes. Only at that point would this page become completely redundant. Certainly there is still no consensus on whether the page ought to be converted to a list.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. What is the point of condensing a quite good article into a list? To save server space? Every version of the article (and every other article that hasn't been deleted) is archived, so changing the article to save on server space is actually counter-productive. To make it easier to navigate? An article is easier to navigate than a list. To clear out redundancy? Having a summary article covering subdivisions of a topic is actually recommended by Wikipedia's guidelines! Therfore, I end with the question I begin with: What's the point? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

DECISION. Well, it's been a few days now. An editor who is a major and regular contributor to this page, and another editor with whom that contributor has worked in the past, object to converting the page to a list. In the course of the discussion I think there emerged a general consensus joined even by the proponent that it would be a mistake to do so, before there are adequate stand-alone pages describing types like the standard/classic, and dirt bikes. As to the weight to be given to the arguments, while nobody owns a page (WP:OWN), it is my personal view that both common sense and common courtesy would suggest deference to the views of editors who are heavily involved with it. Accordingly, unless there is objection, I will posit the consensus on converting this page to a list as not now, and maybe not ever.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote on history of types

From Cycle World's VFR feature "If you think it's strange Honda's first V-Four wasn't a sportbike, don't: The sportbike as we now know it hadn't really been invented yet. And nomenclature like 'standard' and 'naked bike' hadn't either, because that's what all motorcycles were. In the early '80s, the Great Schism between cruiser and sportbike was just beginning, but cruisers were called 'customs' then..." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Farm bikes

I need some advice - should farm bikes (or agricultural motorcycles) be categorised under off-road bikes or utility bikes. They are in common use in both New Zealand and Australia (not sure about the rest of the planet). They are specifically designed for off-road use on farmland (some in rugged hill country) but can also be street-legal. Examples are Yamaha AG100, Honda CT series#CT125/CT185/CT200 Farm Bikes, and Kawasaki KV100 NealeFamily (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Article says they can be street legal, so they're not only off road, so belong under utility. I wouldn't give something in such a small niche more than a sentence in this article, which is supposed to be an overview of all motorcycles, not a tour of the weird and wild edge cases, per WP:UNDUE. But that doesn't mean all the details can't be put over in a separate article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - a sentence is fine once I have completed some further research. I have come across an article (not in Wiki) claiming that the first specialised farm bike on the market was New Zealand made so I am trying to confirm that as well. It pre-dates the Japanese bikes because Suzuki used the NZ bike as a prototype for their ones in the late 1960's. NealeFamily (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If the stuff about widespread use in Africa can be backed up with something quantifiable then I'd be wrong about them being a small niche and that would justify more attention. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Power Cruisers

I've removed the references to actual power figures from the article for two reasons. 1. The figures were rather outdated, the source was from 2006 and there have been a number of bikes introduced in that category that have (far) higher power levels. 2. This is always subject to change, power levels will increase (as will the power levels of regular cruisers), so the amount of power is not really relevant, it's the fact that these bikes have noticeably more power than regular cruisers that makes them power cruisers. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm leery of removing sourced material that's less than a decade old. In an encyclopedia, data like this doesn't need to be up-to-the-minute to be useful. Is it really necessary to completely remove it? Can't we keep the information, note the date in the reference, and look for a more recent citation? Alternatively, we could list a few bikes that are considered power cruisers by various sources (e.g. Diavel here from November 2015), along with their horsepower rating. – Brianhe.public (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm in keeping the source, I just consider it to be out of date, in this particular situation. I think a ten year rule is not really necessary, if a source is accurate it can be one hundred years old. Some topics move quickly, I would consider a source regarding social networking to be out of date in as little as six months, whereas a source related to 12th Century history has a life span of 100s of years. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear consensus is against removing the Stermer quote. It's a high-quality book from an expert whose subject matter is actually the same as this article: to compare the different types of bikes comprehensibly. This collection of websites, http://www.autoevolution.com/news/muscle-bike-trio-ducati-diavel-yamaha-vmax-and-triumph-rocket-iii-45409.html , http://www.motorcyclenews.com/bike-reviews/harley-davidson/v-rod/ , and http://www.cycleworld.com/2010/06/14/comparison-vmax-vs-3max/ don't do much to define the term. The Autoevolution blog post seems to be saying that muscle bikes and power cruisers are the same, and looks like a lot of the research was done here on Wikipedia. The claim that power cruisers are hard to ride contradicts what most other sources have said. I added the date context to the Streetbikes: Everything You Need to Know citation so that it's clear that the horsepower comparison is of that time period. I think it's fine to update this to more current sources but we need to look for sources that are about types of motorcycles. When you're just making your own observations about how the terms are used, it's original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a great source, but not so relevant a decade later. For the benefit of the article, more up to date sources reflecting the change in power are required. There is no need to totally disregard the initial source, but the claims it makes about power levels are shown to be outdated and factually inaccurate by more recent sources. Why put something in the article, that is shown to be incorrect by other reliable sources? The power levels of current power cruisers is hardly a controversial topic, it's well documented and cited. Despite power levels being very clearly stated on a number of reliable sources, we should just say "more power than regular cruisers. I will add a few sources and try to avoid anything blog-like which clearly states that certain bikes are power cruisers, and the power of those bikes. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is simply to make a comparison, to show relative power. Now readers have no idea what "significantly higher levels of power" are. You've deleted a the summary of what a normal cruiser's typical power is. So you've gone from specific to vague, and added an unhelpful list of links. People read these articles to get a basic grasp of a subject and taking away information and giving them a list of links they just as easily could have Googled themselves is wasting their time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Naked

Just to confirm Mechanical Keyboarder that "Standard is often a synonym for naked, a term that was originally used in reference to 1950s road racing bikes." is sourced, not opinion. There was an assertion from a long-term editor that the term naked occurred after the 1980s plastic wraps were removed. Not so, so I added hard refs.

What are you objecting to as opinon? That standard is often a synonym for naked or the latter part of the sentence?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Trial motorcycle.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Life time dirt bikes

Dirt racing Michael Oppenheim (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)