Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling

This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moto_Guzzi_NTX has been moved in an unjustifiably careless and erroneous way. The article presents all the minimum and basic standards to be present in the main namespace. If anyone can move to draft on principal namespace it to where it was before it was deleted, thanks. If any of you who have such review functions can help me. 37.159.116.13 (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article is largely unsourced. Please see WP:VERIFY John B123 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is not totally true, the mechanical sources are on External links. We moving on draft all 125,599 article for lack of punctual notes or for low source? No. And where does it say that an entry with few sources should be removed from the main namespace? What are the service alerts for then? Do you move all entries with "few" (and not zero) sources? Isn't what written in the entry clearly false or original research, on the contrary, are they plausible things and isn't the good faith of the writer presumed? If there is the clean up tag {{refimprove|date=April 2023}}. So why don't you get a bot to move the entries? We cannot do more than that, we are talking about a motorcycle from 25 years ago the sources are difficult and not very widespread, all in paper see Google books [23]. It seems to me that I am asking too much. therefore I ask that it be moved and if it is considered irrelevant open a procedure deletion. Currently the article objectively complies with Wikipedia's minimum quality standards. 37.159.59.111 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Again, please read WP:VERIFY, where you see that inline citations are required. The External Links section is not a references section. I note that the article was previously tagged with {{refimprove}} but this was removed without any attempt to resolve the issue. Please also see WP:DRAFTIFY for the rational to send new articles to draft. You have submitted the article for AfC review, please allow the volunteers who carry this out time to review the article. --John B123 (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I read WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:VERIFY, but it doesn't say anywhere that you necessarily have to move items in the draft because there are few sources.

The moving say not validate motive and that "it's not ready" is a tautological and self-referential motivation for its own sake. If the entry has remained there for silent assent for days and there are also other users who have passed through it [24] (the same user who moved who had already passed on the entry), why didn't they move it? Because evidently it was not to be moved and a tacit consent had been formed to keep the page and as its intrinsic state is fully WP:STUB (at the foot of the entry there is also the notice sic! read WP:DRAFTOBJECT ("If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc."). Does a different or incorrect positioning of the sources justify a move in the draft? This is exaggerated beyond measure and "to look for the hair in the egg".See this source and this, if you read and look there is some many sources for verification of the text. And why don't move on draft about 125k article without not sources? It's a Double standard? For this some many reasons, the moving is wrong and a abuse of this function, therefore the entry must be answered and if it is considered irrelevant because there are few sources or other errors, it is cancellation's requested with a community discussion through consent deleted with AfD. What has been done is not in the merits and in the correct method.37.159.120.37 (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The New Page Patrol reviewer tagged the article with {{refimprove}} to give the creator, or any other editor, the chance to bring the article up to the required minimum standard. The tag was removed without any improvements by the creator, indicating no inclination to improve the article. The subsequent move to draft was entirely appropriate and compliant with the relevant WP policies and guidelines. Tacit consent and other arguments against the move have no basis in WP policies and guidelines.

However, as you have objected to the move per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, I have moved the article back to mainspace. Also per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and per WP:VERIFY, I have stubbed the article by removing unreferenced content. Please see WP:BURDEN and don't restore without adding references. These need to be from secondary sources, not manufacturers brochures or technical manuals, which are primary sources and sometimes contain flattering claims rather than facts. --John B123 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, the moving should not have been done and it was not appropriate for this item (moreover, no reason was given as to why). I have restored both the content and the notice because, assuming good faith and searching quickly online (and seeing the image of police version), it seems to me quite plausible and it is certainly not an original research. I don't agree on the manuals, they are useful and reliable for some things like ad technical and mechanical information you need official sources that only the manufacturer can provide for example the tire sizes (how do you know the engine displacement, who physically opens the engine to measure bore and stroke?). I reset the alert "refomprive tag" (what should have been done from the start and not moving it to draft) as is the case for similar entries and that exists specifically for these cases (the content is not referenced but could be sensible and verifiable later). 37.159.119.101 (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whether it seems plausible to you or not is irrelevant, as is what you can see in a photograph. What is relevant is Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:BURDEN from which I quote: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

I reset the alert "refomprive tag" (what should have been done from the start and not moving it to draft). Isn't that where we came in? The tag was added by Onel5969[25] and then removed by yourself 17 minutes later.[26] --John B123 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

From refimprove tag: "When to use This template indicates that the article needs additional inline citations. This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article." I have never signed up for Wikipedia nor have I done what you said and I beg you not to launch accusations against me. I put the notice back and I didn't remove it, the sense of existing of that notice "refimprove tagging" and WP:CITENEED, otherwise instantaneously on all the items without citation in lines (about 125,000) from removed the text, but this is not the modus operandi for standard practice common sense for WP:WIARM. I restore the info, if do not you want it opened a discussion and seeks consensus; other users have passed before you and have not removed the text, so it means that it is not so blatantly and urgently to be removed or wrong this info. 37.159.120.251 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:CITENEED and WP:WIARM are not WP policy, whereas verifiability is a core content policy and must be compiled with. Please do not restore the content without adding references. This is a specific requirement of verifiability policy which is based on community consensus. (I don't know if there is confusion here between the English and Italian versions of Wikipedia, both of which have different policies. The Italian version seems to have a lesser or no requirement for verifiability) --John B123 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The confusion with the guidelines is your doing. The application of that guideline is not done as you say in a "literal" way, but as per pragmatic practice. Please stop remove text and warning. As I have already explained to you and you well know, parts of the text without sources are not removed mechanically and automatically, but an assessment is made of whether they are more or less verifiable and plausible. What is there to do the "refimprove" notice tag? If it exists, it is because the unreferenced text must be used and not removed regardless, but a weighted assessment is made on a case-by-case basis. And in this case the text shouldn't be removed, why didn't the others who passed on the voice do it? There is no consensus to remove those parts. Until then the text doesn't move from there for status quo. There are 125,000 articles that are missing references and do not undergo the same treatment of indiscriminate removal of parts of the text. We use template "citation needed", that exist precisely to control these cases of lack of sources but plausible.37.159.116.41 (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

No confusion here, policy is clear: unreferenced content may be removed and should not be restored without adding references. parts of the text without sources are not removed mechanically and automatically, but an assessment is made of whether they are more or less verifiable and plausible & the unreferenced text must be used and not removed regardless, but a weighted assessment is made on a case-by-case basis: please supply links to policy or guidelines that supports these statements. --John B123 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

What i wrote and you quoted in green is what is done, see WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. The guidelines you quote are guidelines and not rules set in stone. What's the point of having the "reimprove" and "cn" tagging exist? For this WP:CLEANUPTAG. And why are there 125k articles with no sources? Because Evidently because the WP:GF of the writer is also assumed and for WP:COMMONSENSE. Example this article [27] and more others here are no citations online i take everything off, it doesn't work like that and i proved it to you with 125k articles deficient in sources. This is why a weighted assessment is made. You don't write falsehoods in other threads, the move to draft was done without valide reasons (just a vague "not ready"). Literal and mechanical interpretation that you give does not reflect the reality of what happens on wiki, because there is a certain flexibility, here it is dutiful and it also seems trivial to say that logical rational evaluations are made on the contents to understand whether because there is a certain is plausibility or not it is an original research; it seems to me then that you are not an expert motorcycle expert to say that those info are illogical and unverifiable. 37.159.112.200 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nothing you have linked to supports your contentions highlighted in green above. Nowhere can I find anything to support 'plausibility' in this situation. WP:VERIFY is not a guideline, it's a policy and more than that it's one of the core policies. Because other articles have problems with referencing is no reason to introduce them in this article. --John B123 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Read WP:FAILV "If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}}". The example I showed you is just one of the 125k unreferenced articles that are not deleted and the usual way of proceeding. If you want to remove content, given that I have motivated the opposition, generate consent. Because otherwise the content remains there both for practice and for consolidation of the same over time. You still haven't answered me because there are all these alerts tagging like cn and refimprove. Yours is an unjustified removal of content, because you cannot say that there is a guideline that says we need sources when it is not applied to the letter as you want to believe, but it depends on the concrete case (such as if it is clearly false or an original research or if a quick search on the web does not find any trace) and also on the presumption of good faith of whoever wrote that text. We discussed profusely more 10 days and consensus was not formed on the removal of the text, therefore I ask you not to insist and not to remove further parts of the text. Regards. 37.159.123.149 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate article? Mika1h (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention Suzuki RG 500 gamma! There should be one article for the racing bikes and one for the road legal bikes. The Yamaha equivalent articles would be Yamaha YZR500 and Yamaha RD500LC. The Wikidata entry is similarly confused. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added hatnotes to all three articles and replaced the racing bike lead image in the road-going RG500 article. A DAB page should be raised once it's determined which (if any) of these articles have the right titles. I don't have the sources to work out if there were spaces in the name and if 'gamma' was officially used or not. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nimbus227, you say all right and correct, in the entries at least data incipit and technical data it can be deduced that they are different motobike built for different purposes in distant eras several years. 5.91.95.182 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The more you look into it the more complex it gets. RG500 (without the space) seems to be most commonly used. This fits in with Suzuki's designations for most of their models. The racing RG500 gained the Gamma suffix in 1981 although it was an evolution of the previous RG rather than a new model. Although the racing bike was officially discontinued in 1984, Suzuki continued to develop and supply engines and frames to Skoal Heron in the UK and Gallina in Italy. The road going version was introduced in 1984, based on the racer.

Agree there should be two articles, one for the racer and one for the road bike, possibly Suzuki RG500 for the racers and Suzuki RG500 Gamma for the road bikes. --John B123 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a book with the space that I found this morning but that might not necessarily be correct! I've seen the road machine named with a space. Haynes didn't do a manual for it and Suzuki's website doesn't list historic machines. Suzuki RG 500 gamma is completely unreferenced and I think Gamma should be capitalised wherever it is used in a name.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've checked the only thing I could think of in the house, a 1975 six-page feature in Bike, but RG is not even mentioned by designation, being only bland references to 100 horsepower and square-four, and being part of/owned by the Suzuki GP team. Bike is UK-orientated (so coverage was concentrated on racing 500 twins/750 triples), but does confirm Barry Sheene rode for Suzuki GB in national/international events, Suzuki GP in world championship and Suzuki Corp when racing in US.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Specialized pedal bike crank shaft 140.186.199.175 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There has been an ongoing dispute on Brother Speed Motorcycle Club with regard to the criminal history of the club. Several COI members of the club have challenged the reliability of some of the sources and have attempted to remove content. This is not really my area of expertise but perhaps you would be able to take a look and adress their concerns or find more reputable sources on the club's criminal history?
Thanks, Lenny Marks (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have slightly revised and amended the Megola article. However, there remains one self-contradiction within the text, to which I do not know the answer. Each Megola has two fuel tanks: a main tank within its body, and a header tank above the engine. Early in the article, the text says that a hand-pump delivers fuel to the header tank. However, later on, the text says the header tank is gravity fed.

Megola built two models: touring and sport. Both descriptions of the fuel system could be true, if one model has a fuel pump and the other model has a gravity feed. Or it could be that both production models had the same fuel delivery system, but the prototypes had something different. A hand-pump seems more likely, as the header tank is mounted relatively high up, but that is only my guess.

Whatever the case, please will an editor with more knowledge or better sources resolve this? Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Problems with BSA A65 in that a one-off special racer renovation has usurped the long-standing redirect, full details at Talk, I am uncertain if the author can rectify, needs someone with your skillset Bri to restore things and hive-off separately what is there, if you can fit it in. Thanks. 82.13.47.210 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply