Talk:Moto Guzzi Le Mans

NPOV: Ian Falloon's judgments of quality and fashion

Ian Falloon is a perfectly good source, but he can be highly judgmental and opinionated. It's fine to cite what he thinks but it has to be balanced with other sources. If all you've got right now i Falloon's book, leave out the editorializing and stick to basic facts. --Dbratland (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Design disaster" is definitely POV and doesn't belong. The tagged section needs some work—I'm going to give it a light going over pending consensus on how to report on the experts' statements. Brianhe (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also called "Lemon" strikes me as being POV too. Meltingpot (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It needs context to explain that it is not meant as a pejorative; the infobox is too succinct a format to include that. --Dbratland (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Le Mans II

Don't forget the fact that in the first series of the LM II Guzzi fitted a wider front fork.
This fork was about an inch wider than the one of the original LM and was widely criticised for its wobbliness. Consequently Guzzi fitted the "narrow" forks to the second production run of the LM II.
The fairing of the LM II was not only similar to the one of the SP 1000. The lower half of the fairing (the part fixed to the frame) was identical to the one of the SP, only the upper part (fixed to the fork and moving with the handlebars) was specific to the LM II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.126.136 (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Frame numbers

All the stuff on frame numbers may be (just) encyclopaedic, but they don't make for a riveting read! If they are to be kept in, any objections to having the numbers put at the end as a tailpiece? Arrivisto (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

They should be deleted. Frame, engine and serial numbers are definable not encyclopedic. It falls under the category of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Like paint schemes, or paint codes, the only exception would be if a quality source remarked that a particular number or code or scheme was somehow important, influential, or worthy of discussion, perhaps because of an error in the numbering, or because there was a remarkable level of confusion or discussion about the numbers.

If you run across frame numbers in any other article, please delete those too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wilko! Arrivisto (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I see motorcyclespecs.co.za is creeping back in - and I'm not 'allowed' to use this site for as little as linking to images for Seeley's bikes?

motorcyclespecs.co.za is an unreliable scraper site see WP:RS

--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know why motorcyclespecs.co.za is supposed to be "unreliable", as it is a mine of useful information. Although some reviews are perhaps subjective, I have yet to find inaccurate specification data. Arrivisto (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I, too, would like to know why one editor only unilaterally decides on policy, searching for and serially-deleting as evidenced by the time-codes: 15 deletions, scroll down to 20:29

Another example here deleted this site link with the requested explanation here and addressed here. Part of the reply refers to a local history site, where former colleagues of the subject of a BLP-type article had posted reminiscences of his employment as a BSA development engineer. I was disappointed that the link to an historic comparison image at a museum of his sidecar outfit was denied. This editor was part of the then-'Gang of Three' (for the uninitiated, that's an English political reference) and went AWOL after being exposed for sockpuppetry in June 2013 here, leaving a Gang of Two. If you've got a spare half hour, check this site for historic South African race imagery.

And check this where a site is generally-regarded as unreliable then later used as a big stick to beat-down a dissenter here

Regrettably, the motorcyclespecs.co.za Guzzi V7 Sport figures are off at 52 bhp (in the prose) when 70 bhp is in their infobox. And they didn't use metric tyre sizes in 1972? Motorcycle Mechanics (magazine) quote 70 and 72 bhp (so I've gone for the lower). 52 bhp is a (powerful) 500cc rating, and wouldn't reach 125 or more mph in road trim-weight-unfaired. Good pics at the site though, as I wanted to link to with the Seeley bikes, both disallowed. Phill Read replica and the later 750SS (scroll down, the top image is wrongly a Harris Magnum Kawasaki MkII Z1000). This is another good example of how the site is unreliable

I think all the links work but sometimes I edit the wrong page when sandboxing it 8¬).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded accusations without doing any basic research. Nobody is acting any more unilaterally than you are. We call it editing.

Unaware of the previous discussion of these sources? Did you go to WikiProject Motorcycling talk archive and search for previous discussions of sites like bikez.com and motorcyclespecs.co.za? What about searching other talk pages for previous discussions? The decision to exclude these sites included several editors in the Motorcycling Project, based on a straightforward reading of the policy Identifying reliable sources. If you disagree, why not go to the Motorcycling Project talk page and explain your reasons? Or if you want to simply cut to the chase and get a definitive answer, why not to to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see if uninvolved Wikipedians agree that these sites are reliable?

It's disingenuous to accuse other editors of being in "gangs" of two or three. What do you think you are doing right now? You're part of the "gang". The discussion includes you right here and now. If you think a small number of editors are deviating from policy, you have many avenues open to you, like the Motorcycling Project talk page, or various noticeboards, to draw in more editors to balance out the opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right that BikeEXIF was not getting much love in 2012, and we were leery of citing it back then. By 2014, we had warmed up to it, primarily because it had become more professionalized and more known motorcycling writers, such as David Edwards, were writing for the site. Please assume good faith, stop acting like you've uncovered a grand conspiracy. Nobody has been "beat down". In the Suzuki S40 discussion you characterize as bullying, an uninvolved third party editor was invited to weigh in, and agreed that the IP should not have been deleting references to the S40.

This is simply how Wikipedia works. Everyone does their best to judge what will make the best encyclopedia, and if they aren't coming to a consensus, then various methods of disupte resolution are used, like seeking a third opinion. Accusing me (or Brianhe) of bad faith is not going to to help you win any debates. You would do well to stick to facts and to policy if you want to get anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(I roughed the message below and then found you'd come back for a second bite, a second 'pound of flesh'...) Stick to the facts, yourself. I have not mentioned "bullying", "brianhe", "bad faith" or uncovering a grand conspiracy (just one thing of many I'm aware of). I am not intending to participate in any debate, in fact you should be knowledgeable that I normally ignore you and I declined Brian's kind invitation to join your project nearly a year ago. I am not intending to "get anywhere"...I am an individual - how dare you purport to assume that you can anticipate where I want to get to??? I wrote two articles last year but decided to withhold them due to the escalating hostility which is pervading Wikipedia; a third projected was requested by someone in US and will be donated elsewhere. My personal circumstances changed last year and I have wound-down on contributions, just clearing up a few bits as I always intended to. There are no ambitions or aspirations. Original message follows:

I am well-aware of the number of members of that project, and, having random-sampled occasionally, of those actually active, and of those active, those who interact. For those reasons, I have - and will always - distance myself from that project. I don't have time for extensive research beyond the past two years' cumulative experiences; nor the inclination, with some specific exceptions - for example, when I received a query from the BBC TV Corporation which I could not answer.

I have cited the facts above - I am an individual contributor, not acting in unison. I do not know of anyone else moderating and deleting similar sources, and I look forward to seeing any other editor's deletions you may know of? This in unhelpful. As your objections seem to mostly concern the more-historical aspects, then I surmise you do not object to the majority of other content, and I will accept your assurance that several-to-many other editors were involved prior to decisions to ascribe unreliability. I had already stated for Arrivisto some of the inconsistencies on motorcyclespecs. I have a book with errors and a 1979 book review stating the errors in Erwin Tragatsch's bible (from memory, spelling might be off). Regarding your objection to my use of the word "gang"...I thought it was User:Bridge Boy who was the objector?

I am not aware of bikez.com, but for the record, I am highly concerned about WP:CIRCULAR, where OR and/or Copyvio has existed for many years and editors - in GF - attempt to verify the content by adding recent websites, where the content could have been sourced from WP and had a Copyright notice slapped on to the footer. I am particularly concerned about this site requesting amateur contributions. I have no knowledge if you have deliberated or decided on this. As with most things nowadays, being subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns, it is too time-consuming. As a final comment, I will thank you for some of your advice. To quote your own alleged words from a draft RfC which was not submitted... "we're done here"--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You can pretend you're acting separately from the Motorcycling Project, but you're actively editing motorcycling articles. That means you're going to edit alongside members of the project. Sorry, but that's a fact. You can pretend that you edit as an individual, but Wikipedia is an inescapably collaborative project. You accuse me and Brian of acting as a "gang of two" -- it's clear from the diffs whom you're accusing-- yet you stubbornly refuse to take any of the many options you have to seek additional opinions. That's on you. Don't blame others when it's your choice to act this way. There are good ways to resolve content disputes, but instead you flounce off angry and blame Wikipedia's hostility instead of yourself. Wikipedia is not hostile. It's simply full of people and if you can't deal with people then what do you expect? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)