Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:54, 28 July 2009

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1836 articles are assigned to this project, of which 333, or 18.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Piaggio X8

I added the link to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Piaggio_x8_250cc on the page Piaggio. --TheWikiFox (TalkWithMe) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I just tweaked the article and changed its name to Piaggio X8 as I think it would be better to have an article about the range rather than a single model. --TimTay (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

b.t.w. You can do a wikilink using ] two sets of square brackets rather than just one. That way you don't need to insert all the http stuff. Shout if you need any help using Misplaced Pages, we are always happy to help a fellow biker! --TimTay (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts to moto clubs

An anonymous user is reverting notable motorcycle clubs on the listed on the Motorcycle_club page. I've reverted them several times, but I'm not going to any more because of the 3RR. I've asked the anonymous user to post his reasons on the talk page, but he hasn't. Can someone neutral help me out? here's the most recent revert. Tedder (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

External links need to be cleaned up in many articles.

I have just cleaned up all the BMW motorcycle related articles which were full of external links to personal websites, wikis and forums - all of which are discouraged in the policy given in WP:EL. I would appreciate others in this project keeping their eyes open for similar problems in other motorcycle articles.--TimTay (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to clean up articles as I run across them, too. tedder (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I also ask that you take a look at some of the BMW articles as I seem to be in an edit war with another editor who persists in keeping the personal website links. Articles in question include BMW R 1200 RT, BMW R75/5, BMW R60/2, BMW R51/3. These all fall foul of WP:LINKSTOAVOID which states personal sites should not be included. The sites in question, e.g. this one (and many others by the same author), are all interesting, but are hardly encyclopaedic as they are not by a recognised expert/source and are therefore WP:OR. --TimTay (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied, and I'll help monitor the links and the discussion. I do agree, they aren't notable. tedder (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Help requested on Honda VFR related articles

On articles Honda VFR750R, Honda VF and VFR, Honda VFR400 and Honda VFR800, I am running foul of a Portuguese anonymous/IP contributor who keeps adding the Portuguese VFR club website to the VFR articles and also keeps reverting my removal of the long list of inappropriate links on these pages. I don't want to run the risk of 3RR so I would appreciate members of this project keeping an eye on the pages and removing these links if they are re-added. --TimTay (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. The IP vandal has been banned for 31 hours (using 2 different IP addresses). As a short term measure I have requested temporary semi-protection for the four articles above so that IP-only editors cannot edit the article. Hopefully page protection for a couple of days will mean this person will get bored and move on.--TimTay (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All quiet for a few days because of the semi-protection, but now it has expired the IP vandal is back adding the same Portuguese VFR club links. Be vigilant! --TimTay (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged all four articles for references that are lacking even though the articles seem pretty decent, but verifiable sources are needed preferably with inline citations. ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's happening again. New IP, same MO. I requested page protection from user:thingg. Here's the IP to watch. tedder (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Just reported for vandalism. Hopefully this user will get banned (yet again) the will most likely come back again (yet again). In the meantime I have requested that the website be blacklisted - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#clubevfrportugal.com --TimTay (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks, timtay. Blacklist is a good idea. Otherwise we'll keep playing Whac-A-Mole. tedder (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist now done by admins, clubevfrportugal.com cannot now be added to any wikipedia article. --TimTay (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

100 bikes in Category:British motorcycles

I've finally achieved my target for 2008 to get 100 articles listed in the special Category:British motorcycles. Please have a look and se if there are any you can expand - or add more? I've also sorted out all the red links on Template:British_motorcycle_manufacturers and researched the current manufacturers as best as I can. The people behind the bikes also bring it all to life - I've created the Category:British motorcycle pioneers so please see if you can add or expand any of those as well? Thanks Thruxton (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done! I am busy in the aircraft project at the moment and I'm not getting out on the T140 much either. Super effort. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, some friends and I used to sit around and try to name as many motorcycle manufacturers as possible and we could name somewhere between 70-100 (worldwide), but 100+ British manufacturers is great. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And another added to the category - Métisse Motorcycles. Click the external links to see the Steve McQueen tribute bike. I defy anyone to show me a better looking British bike :-) --TimTay (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Matchless G12 on main page

One of the project pages, Matchless G12 is featured on Misplaced Pages's main page. Congratulations to editors/project member Thruxton. Brianhe (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thruxton is clocking up the motorcycling DYKs, well done. Next thing we need is a motorcycling FA. ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Refresh for 2009

Its time for a refresh so I've borrowed some ideas from other WikiProjects and would welcome any thoughts on how we can really get a bit more attention and increase the active membership. I've also started two Special Interest Groups - any thoughts on more? Thanks Thruxton (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thruxton, one thing that looks nasty is the toc box is jammed into the top left of welcome/scope/intro box. Please try to fix that. Otherwise some good wok. I have a few ideas too and will see if I can do them later. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the toc overlap by forcing a reduction in the box width. ww2censor (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I was wondering if it is worth sending a short message to all the listed members - what do you think? Also, do you know how to move the To Do list to a new page? I tried it but just got the generic Wiki To Do list so reverted for now. Cheers Thruxton (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it into a hidable/showable format in the main page but it is and will remain on its own separate page at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Motorcycling/to do. Hope that suites you because it save space and refines the overall look of the page, just like the membership list modification I made. ww2censor (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Navbox templates?

I am quite active in the aircraft project, we have in the last year added many navboxes to the articles to link related articles. I don't think there are many (if any) of these in use in the Motorcycle project and I would be willing to create some here if that is felt to be a move forward for this project, I think it would be, other language wikis are using them for bikes. How it works is that we have one navbox that goes at the bottom of every article which covers the project generally, this is {{aviation lists}}, above that goes a manufacturer's group like {{Boeing model numbers}} and sometimes other boxes for related article groups. You can see how it works at the bottom of the Boeing 747 article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They are used, but more would be very welcome. Three good examples, all different - Template:BMW motorcycles, Template:British motorcycle manufacturers and Template:Honda motorcycles. I find the latter rather ugly and clumsy as it nests two navboxes in the same template - I would rather they were separate. However, the Honda timeline navbox contained within it is excellent. I do think about doing the same for BMW motorcycles. I would say that some of the major manufacturers, that feature a large number of articles, would benefit from a navbox e.g. Triumph, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki. In contrast a manufacturer like Harley Davidson is unlikely to need a navbox of its own as there are very few articles about individual bikes. --TimTay (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, the BMW one is good (not that the other two are particularly bad!) although I agree that they should be separate boxes. We discovered early on the importance of standardising the layout although that is not as important as the template naming convention, if they were all the same like {{BMW motorcycles}} and then {{Yamaha motorcycles}} (I thought that was going to be redlink!) it makes it a lot easier (instinctive) for editors to add them. We had to change quite a few to get them all into line. The manufacturer groups are relatively easy to do, a priority though would be to create a general motorcycling one which would take a little bit of imagination. Looking again at your post 'British manufacturers' is ok and would be an extra box in a Triumph or Beezer article for instance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On the Harley, we ignore the guidelines and put the redlinks in the manufacturer's navboxes to show that the articles are missing, no one has complained or spotted it yet, works very well and the links get filled fairly quickly. The Yamaha template is actually a timeline, I would move it personally. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering how we could make it easier for people to navigate around the British bikes in particular, so a clever navbox that brought together manufacturers with the lists linking to all the models would be great. Happy to help if we can get a prototype together. Cheers Thruxton (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We could use the lists in Category:Lists of motorcycles to help. A Triumph navbox would be quite big on its own if both Meriden and Hinckley bikes were included. NVT perhaps? In the av project we often started with smaller templates which were joined together later. Might have a bit more time this weekend, its a fair size job! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

motorcycle tires category

What, we don't have a category for motorcycle tires? I was adding Maxxis to our project and was surprised. Of course, I could easily be missing something. tedder (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Norton rotary edits

I checked back onto the Norton Rotary Motorcycle page and noticed that my edit on the history of the Norton Rotary had been edited back to information that was incorrect.

My edit came from published sources (some of the edit remained) and personal correspondence with Joe Seifert to verify that what I had written was true.

We can argue about what "slow sales" implies but we cannot argue that the Rotary was a victim of lack of sales and interest. Please see the www.nortonmotors.co.uk site for more information.

Tell me what I did wrong here and why the edit was reversed.

Charles - uhhh... Charles.O.Wilson (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the diff/edit? tedder (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You edited the Norton article in October 2007. There have been many edits (100+) since then so without going through each one it is hard to determine when it was changed and by whom. If you can provide suitable references for any information within the article then change the article and add the reference.--TimTay (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Boot merge

There are a bunch of motorcycle boot related articles (engineer boots, harness boots, motocross boots, motorcycle cop boots, racing boots, touring boots). I'd prefer to merge them. Both opinions about the marge are AGAINST my merge. I'm okay with that, but it's been ~8 months since I originally broached the subject. For the few of you that are active with WPMOTO (TimTay, ww2censor), do you agree with me for the merge, or would you disagree that they should be merged? I'm more than happy to delete the merge proposal if there's no consensus (or if the consensus is AGAINST), but I have a feeling it was overlooked by most people. Again, here's the discussion page: Talk:Motorcycle_boot#Merger_proposal tedder (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this before. Definitely merge. --TimTay (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle trials links are spammed up

The article Motorcycle trials needs some major cleanup in the external links. The links are excessive at over half of the article length (Misplaced Pages is not a directory). Unfortunately, there is not a dmoz topic for this yet so it's too soon to just replace everything with the {{dmoz}} link and leave {{NoMoreLinks}} for the spammers. Does somebody want to take on moving a few links to dmoz for this purpose? -- Brianhe (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted all the individual club links and the training companies. I also removed a forum from the publications section. That makes a huge difference already. Individual clubs can be found from the publications or the national bodies or google so I have no qualms about deleting so much. --TimTay (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of motorcycle clubs is a mess

List of motorcycle clubs is a mess. Various editors have tried to clean it up but it still contains a huge number of red links. I personally don't like red links, but I do appreciate that they serve as a link to try to encourage people to create the article. It would be good for some of this project's members to discuss and reach consensus on the article's talk page about exactly what should and shouldn't be put in the list. --TimTay (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you. We may need to come up with an interpretation of the general notability guidelines and the notability:club guidelines before we just start deleting stuff. It's spilling over to other pages, such as here.

Lane splitting and filtering forward

A couple of editors seem to be involved in an edit war in the Lane splitting article. It would be good if some of the good people from this group could pay a little attention to the article. Also, I have proposed that lane splitting and filtering forward be merged as they are essentially the same thing. Others in this project may have strong feelings for or against, so it would be good to get some more opinions on the talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of farkles into accessories.

I have just proposed that motorcycle farkle be merged into motorcycle accessories. I really don't see why both articles are needed when one could amply cover both - which after all are exactly the same thing. Would appreciate comments for or against from members of this project at Talk:Motorcycle accessories#Farkles should be merged here. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by edits of motorcycle top speed on Ninja 250

Are there many other bike articles where, like the Ninja 250, various random folks will jump in and edit the top speed to be 110 mph (or 170 kph as the case may be). Because their speedometer said that when rode their bike -- possibly their first motorcycle, and maybe their first vehicle of any kind -- and so they make their very first WP edit to announce that in fact the bike's top speed is not 95 mph but is really 110! I myself have seen 110mph indicated on my very own 2003 Ninja 250, but that doesn't mean I was really going that fast, or that I should say it on WP.

Sometimes they go to Talk and ask, which is great: Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 250R#Top Speed, Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 250R#Incorrect stats?.

But often they are bold: (lol) and so on.

These are not too difficult to revert as they pop up, but my question is, if this happens with other bikes besides the EX250, what is the most efficient means to head them off? I'm thinking along the lines of a friendly message that introduces WP:V and WP:OR to users who want to make their first WP edit based on their personal riding experience. And perhaps also mentions speedometer error and whatnot. But mostly that WP needs to have a sources for data. I don't think it happens enough to protect the article; I'm only thinking of a helpful info note before they save their edit.

On Hero Honda Splendor I attempted to use <!-- comments --> to slip a little note to those who want to change the AKA field of the Infobox to say "World's largest selling motorcycle." I don't know if it will work or not. One disadvantage is I can't use hyperlinks in comments.

If this doesn't happen very often with other motorcycles, then it isn't worth worrying about. So does it happen much, or is it only the Ninja 250? Thanks for your time.--Dbratland (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that on music pages too. There's really only one way to fix it- you must have a reliable source for the top speed. What I mean is- put a <ref> with the source for the top speed. If someone claims a higher top speed because they've done it, it's WP:OR. The real trick is to get that ref in the first place. This says the 'jette's top speed is 96. That's probably best until something else comes along. tedder (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's another question I guess. See, I used Motorcycle Consumer News, and put the <ref> up at the top of the Infobox, for example here. But that seemed too weird to some people, so currently the Infobox uses stats primarily from that source, but doesn't cite it in the Template:Infobox_Motorcycle at the top of the aricle. I think nobody likes seeing the superscript up at the top of the infobox like that, yet it's ugly and redundant to have a superscript after every single field in the infobox. Unless every field's stat comes from a different source, which is rare.

Later, I moved the <ref> down below in the table EX-250-J Specifications/Performance, and it has stuck for the moment.

So (in general) where should one place the sources for the stats? Template:Infobox_Motorcycle doesn't seem to say, and Ninja 250 also has some non-standard tables for the various versions of that bike.

Are you saying just make top speed a special case and stick an extra <ref> tag next to it?--Dbratland (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, MCN, that ad-filled rag :-)

I have been reffing right next to the template data on school and music articles. Yes, some templates have a footnotes field, but if the data is RIGHT THERE, it's hard to miss (and much easier to catch on antivandalism patrols). Here's what I mean. The only thing that makes this format weird is the performance table. I'm not sure what the answer is, except it's at least somewhat redundant to the infobox, and perhaps not necessary. tedder (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I should learn more about how vandalism patrols work; obviously there is more going on than just people like me and User:AniRaptor2001 keeping an eye on one page.--Dbratland (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, antivandal patrols are useful for people like me who can't create real content :-) tedder (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

List of findings in the Hurt Report nominated for speedy deletion

See Talk:List of findings in the Hurt Report--Dbratland (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move Ducati Motor Holding → Ducati

• Ducati Motor Holding → Ducati — (Discuss) --Dbratland (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some other opinions from members of this project would be useful at the above discussion. If you do, then please also read Talk:Ford_Motor_Company#Requested_move in which the same person who requested the Ducati rename requested and failed to get Ford Motor Company renamed. What is notable is that the exact same arguments were used (and failed). --Biker Biker (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Flagicons in infoboxs

Many motorcyclists' articles are using flagicons to indicate nationality in the infobox in order to avoid flag problems. Flagicons fail MOS:FLAG if used to indicate nationality or country of birth in infoboxes in order to avoid flag problems and their use to indicate place of birth or death are expressly forbidden per WP:FLAGBIO for reasons described in that section of the Manual of Style. This can be especially difficult for people born in the constitualt countries of the United Kingdom because someone born in Scotland is actually a National of the UK and not Scotland. Northern Irish people are difficult too because you may not even know which nationality they are; many are entitled to be both Irish or British, so adding a flag only causes more problems than it solves and the Northern Ireland flag is being used when a UK flag would be correct, but and Irish flag might be correct too. I don't want to get into any nationalistic issues and that is the very reason why flagicons should not be used in the first place. Many editors are not aware of this so if you see such use please remove them as I have been doing, in occasional bursts, for some time. Most non-motorcyclists are free of the flagicons but many remain so any removals you can do will only improve things. Thanks folks. ww2censor (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree for exactly the same reasons. I would also argue that flagicons should never be used in any infobox - even for the nationality of companies. They are simply unnecessary. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree in that the above is incorrect. Flags are permitted in the MOS to denote sporting nationality, i.e. the country under whose flag the subject competes. This is a non-negotiable, verifiable fact, e.g. John Surtees competed as a British rider, the British flag was flown on the podium etc. Thus all of the above flag problems and nationalistic issues are irrelevant. Other flags in infoboxes, e.g. for the nationality of companies or non-competing team members are a different matter. Ww2censor, I would urge you to discuss your edits to Formula One driver articles at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Formula One, where the points you raise will no doubt be discussed in a most lively fashion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On my talkpage I have countered Bretonbanquet's arguments though my reply mainly refers to the flagicons on Formula One racing drivers' articles rather than to motorcyclists or companies. Most flagicons are used either as decoration or to show nationalistic pride, neither of which are promoted uses and they are not shown properly to indicate "Sports nationality" in the F1 templates. It may well be a fact that a Union flag was flown for John Surtees but I sincerely suspect when he drove for the Ferrari team or MV Agusta that he was regarded by those manufacturers as representing Italy. In my mind there is way to much WP:FLAGCRUFT all around this wiki but it is well entrenched and fighting it is way too debilitating. ww2censor (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have similarly contributed to the argument at Ww2censor's talkpage, but I disagree with the idea that sporting nationality is not properly indicated, as there is a clear wikilink in most F1 cases to an explanatory article. The F1 wikiproject has worked hard to remove flagcruft throughout its articles, and a large number of flags have been deleted. The flags in th infoboxes do conform. The idea that Surtees represented Italy is, as I outlined on the talkpage in question, ludicrous. However Italian his team may have been, or how the manufacturers of his vehicles viewed it, according to the FIA he represented the UK whenever he took to the track. It's really that simple. Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture section mentions of movie cameos

I undid an edit to MV Agusta F4 which mentioned one of the bikes showing up in Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, but then noticed that Brianhe kept and fixed up a similar edit for the same movie, re: the Ducati 848. Which is all no big deal; I can see how you could go either way.

But looking over Misplaced Pages:"In popular culture" articles, it seems it shouldn't be hard to have some criteria for whether or not to mention that a particular bike appeared in a film. It says, "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a passing reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject of that reference themselves responds to it in a public fashion — such as a celebrity, or a government official from a city, publicly expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference."

To me the MV Agusta sounds like a very minor character with only passing mention, and barely makes a blip in secondary media. I would guess the only reason they appeared in Transformers is that there is a family resemblance between the F4 and the 848 -- Massimo Tamburini designs -- and they look cool. But couldn't they have just as easily used any exotic looking sport bike?

So beyond what WP:IPC says, I'd draw the line at:

• Either the vehicle is a verifiable cultural icon (such as the Harley-Davidson Easy Rider Chopper or the Dodge Charger The General Lee, the Ponticac Trans Am in Smokey and the Bandit)
• Or that we have specific reasons for why that particular motorcycle was chosen to be in a film.

This would exclude the Ninja 500 in True Lies and the ZZR250 in Kill Bill because as far as we know the only reasons those bikes show up is that they look the part, more or less, and are cheap, and easy for actors to ride. The Kawasaki Kz1000 police motorcycles that often show up in films like Terminator 2 or Lethal Weapon 3 aren't notable either; they just needed a police bike and they found one. In contrast, the Harleys in Electra Glide in Blue are notable; the particular model is actually a focus of the plot and you couldn't just stick any old bike in there without changing what it meant. I would say they could have used just about any economy car for the Mini in The Bourne Identity (2002 film) but that the same model was notable and worth mentioning in The Italian Job (both versions), because the small size of he the cars was integral to the plot. The the Plymouth Valiant in Duel_(1971_film) would just barely qualify.

IMHO.

When in doubt, I would fall back on WP:V. Is there a mainstream newspaper, magazine, journal, or book that says the bike in the movie matters? Did the film makers even care enough about that model to mention it in the film credits or the commentary? If not, delete.--Dbratland (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --Dbratland (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than scattered mention of the Transformers movie on the bike pages, it might make more sense to give an in-depth discussion of the topic on the page RetroSBK, an article which could use some help. This article would be a good place to start.--Dbratland (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the interest if brevity I should have just said we should follow WP:WPACT. --Dbratland (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Help watch the Chopper article

Can folks in this project help me keep an eye on Chopper (motorcycle)? It seems to attract low-grade advertising, lately by Hank Bagrowski Customs, ChoppersAustralia.com, among others. -- Brianhe (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...and have s go at cleanup and add some decent refs if you have them? Thruxton (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between Category:Motorcycle clubs and Category:Motorcyclists organizations?

Can we write a rule that tells us what determines which category you go into? I understand that List of outlaw motorcycle clubs and List of motorcycle clubs are exclusive, and Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs is a subset, but some clubs are also organizations, right? Is that a good thing?--Dbratland (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedway photographs

An archive of Speedway photos - 1974-78 - is being uploaded to Wiki Common by Lawson Speedway. These will be available to illustrate entries on riders from that era (see Ivan Mauger, Peter Collins, Gordon Kennett to date) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawson Speedway (talk • contribs) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! (pics here)] --Biker Biker (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mother's Motors"

Is the defunct motorbike store Mother's Motors of any verifiable significance, and if so are there any reliable sources for it? Its article, quaintly written in the historical present tense, cites three sources but I think these could all be termed elusive, unreliable or both. A fairly typical sentence:

1968, February: Dick Raymond, Stewart Brand and Timothy Leary of the Portola Institute in Menlo Park, visit Mother's Motor's to see what Charles Wehrenberg means by "all you need is access to tools.".

which mixes trivia and name-dropping.

See its talk page too.

I'm crossposting this to the California project. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any. I'll support in an AfD, for what it's worth. tedder (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the whole thing is fake.--Dbratland (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nominated for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mother's Motors --Dbratland (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages request

Popular pages tracking request was submitted for WikiProject Motorcycling.--Dbratland (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Request key is l8mf988 --Dbratland (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This project doesn't seem to use the standard assessment category system as most projects. This is currently required as those categories are used by the bot to get the list of pages in the project. If you want to have a popular pages list generated, I would suggest modifying the talk page template if necessary to use the assessment categories, then asking for a bot at WP:BOTREQ to populate the assessment field based on what other projects use. Mr.Z-man 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Current project tagged articles are about 2,750 but when the template was started it was not considered that assessments would be added to individual articles by the template. Should we decide we now want to add assessments we will need to devise the assessment criteria to be applied. The quality assessments are pretty well decided by general principles but the importance class ratings would need clear guidance for assessors. A good example can be seen at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Importance assessment. ww2censor (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WW2C, even if it's hard, it seems assessment and importance is the right thing to do. Even if the template was modified and zero articles had assessment, I believe Z's pop pages bot could then run, and we could start adding importance and assessment as we go. The good thing about that is importance and popularity are somewhat related, and the other important articles are easy to pick out (Honda, Harley-Davidson, etc). Right? tedder (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if we can modify the current template or if we need a new one. Most projects use the form "WikiProject ProjectName" as opposed to just the project name as we have. If it is easy enough I will get someone to do it but in the meantime we should try to devise a classification system for people's guidance. Tedder, I doubt just having the assessment code in the template will allow the popularity bot to compile a result. I'll get back here later with any info I get. ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note for Z to reply about the assessments/importance. I have little experience with templates, but (a) we can use Template:WPBannerMeta to build a new one, and (b) we could put it in the proper place (Template:WikiProject Motorcycling) and simply redirect the existing one there, right? tedder (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a post with someone involved with the Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team who has assisted me before but on looking around it seems there are some non-standard template names that have assessment code. It is better to avoid redirecting templates if possible so let's see what replies we get. Later! ww2censor (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment (even if they're all categorized as unassessed) is required, importance is optional (for the bot). Mr.Z-man 05:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of motorcycling?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist    23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)