Talk:BMW R1200RT

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Best viewed at[edit]

I had added the tag, "Best viewed at 1280 x 1024." I had not written, "ONLY view at 1280 x 1024." It is best viewed at 1280 x 1024. Good grief! Jeff dean 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is that an open project like Wikipedia should design pages that can be viewed on any machine with any browser at any resolution. If the page is best viewed at 1280x1024 then something is wrong with the design of the page and it needs to be fixed. I track browser resolution closely on websites that I own. What I see month-on-month is that proportion of browsers with a resolution of 1024x768 or less is around 50%[23]. --Cheesy Mike 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. To add: Wikipedia also includes cascading style sheets for viewing on devices like PDAs and devices for the visually impaired. So it is not necessary to recommend a viewing resolution. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 17:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Now that the infobox is added and it contains most of the key elements in the specifications section, is the specifications section now redundant and ready for removal? i.e. is there anything in the specifications that is not adequately covered in the infobox? --Cheesy Mike 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think See information box for other specifications is good, and I will remove redundancies in the specs section as I have done for other articles when adding the {{Infobox Motorcycle}}. -- Brianhe 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanks[edit]

Dear Jeff dean,

  1. Please don't revert unless you assume vandalism. Please see WP:Revert for details.
  2. Please don't assume that any article on Wikipedia is yours. If you look at the bottom of the edit page, you will find the sentence "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Please read WP:OWN for details.
  3. As your changes are obviously contested, please at least provide arguments for them. As shown above, your personal preference is not an argument.
  4. Please don't make assumptions about me, in particular, don't accuse me of breaking WP's rules unless you have evidence. This is clearly a personal attack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.189.126.6 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Dear anonymous person. Thank you for your comments. How can I make assumptions, as you suggest, about an anonymous person? It is not a personal attack. How can it be inasmuch as you are unsigned and anonymous?
How indeed? Yet you assume that I'm a sock puppet, something which would conveniently carry a block.
Please check this PDF file: [24], and this: [25]. Should we name bikes like this -- R-69 -- with a hyphen?
On the R-27: It's a contemporary source, so it looks that way. Stuff original from BMW like owner's manuals would be even better. I would even prefer German stuff over anything else possibly foobared by the importer, but I see that the alternative has merit, too.
On the R-50: More interesting because it looks like foobared by the importer, as the bike is called both R-50 and R 50.
To be fair, my 1937 and 1938 German BMW motorcycle brochures have a space after the R and before the number. So do my brochures from the 1950s. Indeed, my own uploaded photo on Wikipedia from 1964 show the following:

thumb|left|250px|1964 manual

I don't understand you guys. Is there a mandatory religion for WP editors, the Church of IPs Are Always Wrong? Sorry that I blew your believe system. --87.189.116.19
Entering this debate late: But what about the 1st 2 points? And I note that BMW themselves use the spaces. Paul Beardsell 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. M-72 re-emerges as "87.189.xxx.xxx.x" His/her writing style is, let's just say, unique. Jeff dean 08:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually., it's not me. That IP address is from the Netherlands, a country I've not yet had the pleasure of visiting. The use of the hyphen seems to me to be un-BMW-like. It's almost mandatory in Soviet nomenclature, but rare (from what I've seen) in BMW literature, (though it does exist). As to spaces in early advertisements and literature, are they typographical/artistic, or do they also appear also in text? A point of interest is that BMW rarely seems to have used Blackletter/Gothic script for model designations. A final point is that my writing style may be unique, but I'd never make the mistake of saying "believe system". The correct usage is "belief system". M-72 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apology. Jeff dean 12:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It really does not matter by whom the points are made. And anonymous edits are allowed. Neither is the style pertinent. The points are well made. No one person or group of people owns the article. WP:Revert and WP:OWN are pertinent here. Address the argument, not the man. Paul Beardsell 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the move to R 1200 RT, just as I do not support the changes for F 650 GS or any other BMW motorcycle article. --TimTay (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are clearly demanded by primary sources. Why do you oppose them? Remember that WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. --87.189.62.202 (talk)
To space, or not to space: "that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? To die: to sleep ..." Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, The result of our little discussion seems to be that the move is unambigiously demanded by primary sources, supported by secondary sources and that the only reason not to do them is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --87.189.71.248 (talk)

Blanks (reprise)[edit]

BMW itself uses blanks in its motorcycle model names. To be 100% correct we should do so here also. One argument against this is that it makes referencing WP articles difficult. Another: In text we will forever be using nbsp markup to prevent the model name being split over lines. Paul Beardsell 08:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I notice the {{advert}} template has been added stating that the article is too fulsome in its praise of the RT. I disagree. I think it contains a lot of useful factual information and the only real praise is appropriately cited magazine / award quotations. Bottom line - I think the use of the template is unjustified. --Cheesy Mike 08:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The motorcycle is great. I own one myself. But the language is too fulsome in its praise. There is not one word of criticism. I just want a few small tweaks to what is otherwise a good article. Paul Beardsell 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. So what changes would you suggest? Be bold!! --Cheesy Mike 09:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you put me on the spot! It is, unfortunately, much easier to criticise than it is to contribute. That doesn't preclude criticism, and you seem to agree with the criticism I make. I'll give it a think. Bide with me a day or two. Paul Beardsell 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion[edit]

Others have worked on the page besides Jeff, so speedy is not appropriate. (from WP:CSD: "Author requests deletion... provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author" As I have not created or worked on the page, I can and did remove the tag. On the basis of the talk page & the history, it seems the deletion will be controversial, so the best course if still serious about deletion would be to list it on AfD.DGG 18:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prospect for deletion: It's a good article. All the contributors to it deserve praise, even the main contributor, who now wants to throw all the toys out of his pram. But no article is finished, there is always room for improvement. Paul Beardsell 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Motorrad-67 (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable news link[edit]

I was wondering if any one can comment on the reliability of the refence link i repaired. The reference was no. 13. Id this link reliable? (http://www.automobilsport.com/bmw-motorrad-rider-power-survey-r1200-rt-uk-ride-magazine-comfort-reliability-handling-overall-impressions-best-motorcycle-plymouth---15371.html). Hextad8 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reprint of a BMW press release. It would be better to link directly to BMW's press section, here, and to title the reference "BMW Motorrad claims top accolades in the 2006 RiDER POWER survey (press release)" so it's clear it is not an independent source. I think it's acceptable to cite it, but because it's a biased source, I would de-emphasize it. The quotes from Motorcycle News fail RS and should be deleted, because they are self-published comments on a forum, not edited work by named, authoritative sources.

The effusive peacock puffery in that section looks all the more silly when you scroll down slightly to the embarrassing safety defects in the braking system described just below. The whole section needs a rewrite to be more objective and lean on better quality sources. --Dbratland (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The puffery is a legacy from Jeff Dean who put it there. I'm happy to see it go, despite thinking that the R1200RT is a fine bike - I have owned two (but won't buy another as I'm too young for pipe and slippers)--Biker Biker (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colors[edit]

Is there any particular reason to break WP:MC-MOS and mention San Marino Blue more than once in this article? — Brianhe (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014-2015 Specifications[edit]

I could not find any stand-alone list of specifications for the 2014-15 RTs on the internet, so I made up my own from the BMW web site as a reference. I have no self-promotion in the link. Nevertheless, I suspect it may be a violation of some Wiki rule or other and that it will be deleted by someone. Such is life. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's baffling to me that you would make this effort when you know that Wikipedia doesn't link to personal websites. Why don't you cite BMW? Or some other publications?

Keep in mind that non-controversial specifications don't generally require a citation anyway, because there's not much reason to lie about wheelbase or tire width. It's performance statistics, like weight, power, and speed, that require citations to independent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think any of these would be acceptable:
Note Cycle World measured 113.5 hp/82.1 lb-ft on a dyno, not what you added a few minutes ago. Cheers — Brianhe (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested instead a direct link to BMW Motorrad USA rather than to a magazine's or dealer's site. See if that works. I did it. Fingers crossed. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You latest edit I do not understand at all. My latest refered to a non-personal web site and the awards are listed below on the page. Huh? Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added the CW data while we sort out whether BMWs claims belong at all. — Brianhe (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I restore my single sentence regarding 2015 models? Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keyless ignition has already been mentioned. Stop with the colors already. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keyless was mentioned in the 2014 section. It was NOT available for 2014 RTs. It was a significant new option for the 2015 RTs. I assume you want accuracy. No? Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite evidence that it was significant? To me this whole list of options looks like cruft. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something that would satisfy you? Perhaps not. I have owned every model of BMW RT since they were introduced in 1978. I currently own 2007 and 2015 models. What is your experience with BMW RTs? I will put my knowledge of RTs up against you or anyone in the country. If that does not satisfy you, fine. Do whatever your muse directs you to do. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to put your opinions here instead of at your blog? If your experience is equal to anyone in the country, then why would anyone in his right mind want to read Wikipedia over your blog? It doesn't add up. What does add up is that perhaps your blog doesn't get enough traffic and so instead you come to Wikipedia to try to get an elevated platform for your opinions.

All that is required to show that keyless ignition or robin's egg blue paint is important is to cite a source who says something to justify that it matters. It doesn't take much -- just mentioning it a tone of interest is enough. Or saying it was influential, or saying it was an industry first or that it would affect sales or that it in some way mattered. It seems to me that if in your highly expert opinion kelyess ignition was significant, then at least one writer at Cycle World or Motor Cycle News or Motorcyclist or Rider or The Telegraph or the New York Times any one of a dozen other publications would have agreed with you. Is it possible every one of them is staffed with fools and Jeff Dean is the only guy on Earth who knows what's what?

You've been through these exact same fights at Wikipedia for years and years. Yet here you are doing it again. Why? Wikipedia hasn't changed. What is the point of this? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

File:B. Un samedi à Bordeaux... (7863588160).jpg was a bit gray so I adjusted the color balance a little to fix it up. It is a better photo than File:R-200-rt.jpg because there's less pixel noise and other distracting flaws like glare off the reflectors. Cropping out the unhelpful background would be an improvement but that would only exacerbate the low resolution. Another quality photo is File:BMW R1200RT 2014 Liquid Cooled.JPG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled Ref[edit]

I think I fixed my mangled ref. At least I hope so. If I did not I hope someone will step in and fix it. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on BMW R1200RT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_R1200RT&oldid=1206346085"