Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/BMW Motorcycles

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconMotorcycling NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling 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.
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
To-do list:



Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Japanese?

Why does this page talk about bringing owners of Japanese motorcycles together? Is that a leftover typo from the template used to create this group? Ebikeguy (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. I used the Japanese one as a template and must have missed something. Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Let's be 100% clear about the use of external links in articles, whether they are listed at the end in the "External links" section, or used as references.

  • External links - There are a number of criteria listed at WP:ELNO which state why a link should not be used. The single most important of these is the first, which states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
  • References - We must comply with WP:RS. Most internet sites run by enthusiastic amateurs, or even formal clubs, are not reliable resources. This also includes blogs and forums.

Happy to discuss further, but fundamentally this group has to comply with Wikipedia policy. It has no waiver, and no extra rights inferred upon it as a special interest group. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, Phil Hawksley's site which I posted was quoting official BMW resources, not just make them up and writing them down off the top of his head. There has got to be some leeway to be dictated by common sense. For example, what if your official BMW site were to be biased to its successes? Would you then be quoting biased sources just to comply with the regulations? Any good article does not just quote from one primary source, no matter how reliable it is supposed to be. DAFMM (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think that Phil's site was a reliable source and used it myself as a reference in many articles - some of which are still there. However, other editors convinced me otherwise. Phil is a nice guy, but he is someone who runs a BMW repair business and is a member of the BMW Club GB. He isn't a published author, he isn't (to me) a recognised expert, he is just an enthusiastic amateur. What do others think of Phil's site - www.bmbikes.co.uk --Biker Biker (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen this when I just posted on your talk page. He does appear to be using BMW Motorrad sources, like the one which you deemed acceptable for use. I know of other people in the vintage world, and specialists recognised by the VMCC who have recommended the site to me. DAFMM (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/ is in the same class of sites like http://suzukicycles.org/ but nowhere near as bad as sites like www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/. It's great that they collected this information, but they only vaguely say where they got it. If these sites gave you sufficient information about their source publications to find and verify it, you'd have a starting point, at least. But mostly you have to take their word for it that they got it from BMW's official publications. Which means that it is of limited help to a Wikipedia editor -- I've still got to go track down the original publication if I want to cite it here.

Note that banal statistics like wheelbase or bore × stroke are almost always uncontroversial, and unlikely to be challenged. So a citation isn't absolutely required anyway; you can just put it in the article if you got it from someplace you trust. (But no copy-pastes of tables! It must be reformatted.)

With power, torque, speed and fuel consumption, manufacturer claims are pretty useless. Kevin Ash recently reported that BMW got caught red handed inflating their numbers, and that's par for the motorcycle industry. Some flack who works for MV Agusta has been repeatedly putting in their marketing department's fanciful 312km/h for one of their bike's top speed in List of fastest production motorcycles lately. And doesn't F4 R303 sound cooler anyway? In most cases we should leave performance stats blank unless an independent source is available. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting about the manufacturer specifications and it certainly doesn't surprise me. You'd just quote them as the manufacturer's published claims, possibly with a note that true values could vary. DAFMM (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a good example of why we need more than just the BMW Motorrad page on our 'Resources' page. DAFMM (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically I put the manufacturer's history site there, not the main sales site. But I agree there could be other links, just as long as they meet WP:ELNO if they are to be added as relevant links to articles, or WP:RS if they are to be used as references. None of the links that I removed complied with those policies. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's our first target?

So we have a few people now, what's the first order of business? Should we target some of the existing articles and improve them, or should we write something new? My suggestion is that we start with History of BMW motorcycles. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good starting point. Any people with a specific interest in one type of bike would also be encouraged to create a new article on that in order to begin our comprehensive coverage of every model (in the next few days I'm going to do one on the R2 series as a basis). I am also going to promote the group over Wikipedia in the forthcoming days in order to make everyone who is interested in this area aware so we can get as much help as possible. Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have done the BMW R2 article. I made a few style changes, remove the unreliable references, then put a couple of better ones back in. You made a good start. Nice job. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My next big one is an article on the R25. However, I am undecided as to whether to add to the R27 article by adding the R24 and R25 histories or do them individually. Although they were all fifties 250 singles, they followed one another and did have significant changes between each other. They then had small changes made (eg. the R25/1, R25/2 etc..) during their respective productions runs. What do you think? DAFMM (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One issue which was raised during the proposal was that of the R1200GS article and whether it should be merged with the R1200R and R1200RT articles. I am not an expert on these models, but would someone be up for combining these pages into one R1200 article which covers all variants? Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think R1200R needs to be expanded, but the R1200GS and R1200RT have enough content to stand alone - and should remain separate. b.t.w. Please get in the habit of using the correct links to articles, e.g. BMW R1200RT not R1200RT. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't realise. And I agree with them being kept separate. DAFMM (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'History of BMW motorcycles'

I know it sounds pedantic but isn't it a bit silly having a major page like that without correct grammar (the non-capital 'm' of 'motorcycles')? Thoughts..... DAFMM (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't BMW Motorrad the proper noun? BMW motorcycles is the common noun, and so it's not capitalized, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). The page could be moved to History of BMW Motorrad, which is consistent with BMW Motorrad. On the other hand, keeping it where it is is more consistent with pages like Kawasaki motorcycles. So either would be fine, but if it ain't broke don't fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dennis on both points. Happy to see the page moved if the name "BMW Motorrad" has been used consistently through its history and isn't just a recent brand / marketing affectation. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'BMW Motorrad' which is the problem (in German, any noun uses a capital first letter). It's just as a title, 'BMW motorcycles' needs two capitals. But then if all the other articles are using that trend it's probably not worth bothering about. DAFMM (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying BMW motorcycles is a proper noun? How so? Only the first word of an article title is capitalized unless it's a proper noun. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether it's a proper noun or not, if it is in a title. For example, 'The Very Happy Fish'; here, the definitve article, the adjective nor the noun (which is not a proper noun) would normally need a capital, but in tis case (let's say it's the title of a book) does need a capital. DAFMM (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not Wikipedia's naming convention. It makes all the difference if it's a proper noun. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). The first sentence is, in bold, "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun." Elsewhere the style is different, but that's how it's done on Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry DAFMM but motorcycles just in not a proper noun. ww2censor (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether it's a proper noun or not! It's not style, it's grammar, but if that's Wikipedia's convention then I suppose it's best sticking to it. DAFMM (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp and http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/rules-for-capitalization-in-titles.html for some reference. DAFMM (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what two style guides say. But there are other style guides, and none is supreme. Wikipedia has chosen to follow the The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third edition). It's mentioned the WP MOS article above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'll have to have a look at Fowler's. I was pretty sure it was more strict but with it being the 'Modern Englsh Usage' edition it wouldn't surprise me. DAFMM (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doeesn't always follow everything in Fowler's. Or the Chicago Manual. Just go by the WP:MOS and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). If something there looks wrong, suggest a change at the talk page for the policy or the guideline. At the article or project level, you have to just do what the policies and guidelines say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BMW S1000RR

BMW S1000RR gets a lot of drive-by edits claiming it's the fastest production motorcycle. If you know where the soures for these claims are, and whether they mean with or without the speed limiter disabled, can you cite them? I think it's helpful to explain that source X modified the bike by doing Y and recorded Z speed. It's not the same as recording a new fastest top speed for a stock bike, as in List of fastest production motorcycles, but it's interesting as long as it's taken with a grain of salt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airhead (motorcycle) merge discussion

A discussion on whether to merge Airhead (motorcycle) into History of BMW motorcycles has been started at Talk:History of BMW motorcycles#Merge proposal: Airhead (motorcycle) into History of BMW motorcycles. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for the group's attention

The BMW K75 article currently has only one source. Until a few days ago, it had a source that was published before the K75 was launched; this was the result of an over-enthusiastic editor who copied the K100 infobox to the article and changed the info but not the citations. This has since been changed, where applicable, to another source, but it remains the only source for the article.

The K1 article is better sourced, but it needs copy editing.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one 1986 K75 review from Cycle World that might be useful. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll see what I can do with it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge BMW K75 into BMW K100

I have proposed a merger of the BMW K75 article into the BMW K100 article. The discussion is at Talk:BMW K100#Merge proposal: BMW K75 into BMW K100. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding?

Looks like there hasn't been any activity on here in quite some time. I notice there is no /7 page, and no page for the R100 as well (the R100S has a page with some inaccurate information... I'm going to morph that into a general R100 page unless anyone has objections). Macboots (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]