Talk:Migrant Workers Convention and Talk:Motorized bicycle: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
→[[UN Convention on MIgrants Rights]]: ?? my Jeffrey Waruch entry appears here?? Create header. |
|||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
* ''[[Talk:Motorized_bicycle/Archive|Talk archive]]''
* ''[[Talk:Motorized_bicycle/Archive2|Talk archive #2]]''
==We have a clearer picture==
Actually, I found many more hits on google when I looked up "motorized bicycle" as opposed to "electric bicycle". If anyone can find a picture of just the motor that is public ___domain, that'd be great. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
==
I removed most of the "See Also" links. I either incorporated them into the main article or just removed them. Apparently, the links for emergency vehicles, vehicles for hire and for [[OC Transpo]] were basically attempts by the anon and CyclePat to promote electric bikes for those purposes. [http://viki.gedris.org/index.php/Power-Assisted_Bicycle_(PAB)_Petition_for_the_Legislative_Assembly_of_Ontario here] is a petition formed by CyclePat and others that specifically mentions that OC Transpo does NOT currently allow PABs (electric bikes) in their Rack and Roll program. And I saw 0 google hits for motorized bikes as electric vehicles or as vehicles for hire (a la a taxicab). --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 10:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
::Does the fact that it is not permissable to do "something" (ie.: putting an electric bicycle on OCtranspo's rack and roll) denny the fact that it exist? Analogy: It is illegal to smoke marijanua. Are you going to delete this fact? I question your edits and bias toward this article. --[[User:72.57.8.215|72.57.8.215]] 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
::I don't think Woohookitty deleted the OC Transpo link because electric bikes on Rack and Roll are ''illegal''. The question is not whether it is legal, but whether it is relavant to the article. If someone in Poughkeepsbie, NY rides an electric bike (legally or not), does that mean we should add Poughkeepsbie to the See Also? --[[User:Alynna.Kasmira|Alynna]] 20:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:::NO, but if that person has developed a new or undiscussed method (within the encyclopedia) of transporting or using his vehicle, it would be worthy to include. (Like we say in french: "Les moeurs de notre société.") For example, how cars are transported oversea (freight, etc)? Or, the same as cars can be towed by a tow truck? Or perhaps the same as an idea that a car might change their tires for winter driving. This is a log of society and the cultures of using an electric bicycle.--[[User:72.57.8.215|72.57.8.215]] 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:: As previously mentioned, from the comments about an "edit war," I also question the method this article uses for discusing changes to an article? What happened to the thingy on top that said this article does not necesarily represent a world view? Is it not better to have a concensus? (ie.: like the idea of keeping motorized bicycles, but putting the article of electric bicycles back, seems to have been agreed upon with a curent vote of 3 to 2) Are you taking owner ship of this article? What happens if your methode of research, which appears to be only based on internet "googling," is flawed. Generally there is a concensus from academia that books have a significant importance in research. The last I recall, it was highly recomended that you obtain '''at least''' 5 book sources when handing in a project. This article seems to constanly be removing reliable "book sources" information and other important links toward the developement of the article. --[[User:72.57.8.215|72.57.8.215]] 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
::: I added the <nowiki>{{globalize}}</nowiki> tag shortly after a rewrite was suggested, because one of the reasons stated was that there was too much about Canadian law. Since all the laws have been moved to a separate article, that issue is no longer present. So I removed the tag. Is there something about the ''current'' article that you think represents a geographically narrow view?
::: I don't think it is appropriate to count "votes" based on comments about a much different version of the article. If you think it still makes sense to break electric bicycles out to a different article and you want everyone's current opinion, bring it up here again and ask.
::: I don't see anyone taking ownership of the article (are you accusing me or Woohookitty of this, anyway?). I see some bold edits, but I don't think that's a problem, especially when there was a movement to completely rewrite the article. I think the article is a lot better now.
::: You're welcome to use books as references. However, Wikipedia is not a book report, and the fact that this article uses internet sources is not in itself a reason to disparage the research that has been done. If you think a particular link is not a reliable source, please bring it up here and explain why.
::: --[[User:Alynna.Kasmira|Alynna]] 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: Yes, this article is very narrow minded in the description of a motorized bicycle and essential has a on point of view describing them as mostly electric bicycles. It even goes on within the article refering to motorized bicycles as a list of different electric bikes. A motorized bicycle however is described as having a motor. (includes mopeds)(moped are generally defined as a modified bicycle) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
==Done with my edits for tonight==
Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motorized_bicycle&oldid=27432909 this] to the current version of this article. I think it's much better. There's more we can do but it's more readable now and it has fewer unneeded links. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 11:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
== Motorized bicycle or Electric bicycle ==
Does this article talk about motorized bicycles or electric bicycles. It seems to state that it will discuss what an motorized bicycles is... but as soon as it goes into detail: ie. history, etc. It talks solely about electric bicycles. --[[User:72.57.8.215|72.57.8.215]] 21:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
== This article isn't about motorized vehicles ==
Hey folks. Does anyone know enough about other motorized bicycles to write about them? I don't think that electric bikes are necessarily the most common/important sort of motorized bikes. I've seen bicycles powered by small internal combustion engines, and I'd hazard a guess to say that they're more common than external combustion engines.
I think that the people who've been working on this article have been doing good work, I just think that as it is, this article is really about electric bikes. In order to make it fit logically under the name motorized bicycles, it would need information about other types of motorized bikes.
My suggestion would be to rename this article (with a couple minor edits) to Electric Bicycles, and put a disambiguation page here, directing people to the electric bike page and uncreated pages about internal combustion motorized bikes, and others.
As I'm new to Wikipedia though, I don't know what the conventions are about this sort of thing. Is it done to leave incomplete articles like this until someone knowledgeable comes along to fix it? I suppose if there are strong feelings about structure this might make sense. Can anyone enlighten me?[[User:AdinaBob|AdinaBob]] 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:Thank you, thank you, thank you! How about we set a date. Tuesday the 8th of November should give enough time for everyone to voice their opinion. I agree with the change. (b.t.w. check out my user page and company page [[CyclePat]] --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 02:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC) :)
::Because of all the changes we made back in september... The french version of this page needs to be re-written. Or we could simply turn back the article to electric bicycles. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::No. CyclePat has a major conflict of interest here. He sells electric bikes. He has a court date on Monday involving electric bikes. He has a petition online about Electric bikes. "This article is about electric bicycles". No, actually it's about motorized bicycles. The thing is, many jurisdictions do not call them "electric bicycles". They call them power-assisted bicycles or PABs or whatever. We came up with motorized bicycles because it's a good general term for them. It covers all of the various terms. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motorized_bicycle&oldid=27340430 This] is what this article looked like when it was basically about electric bicycles. Isn't it ugly? The problem is that if we rename this into electric bicycles, Pat is going to decide he "owns" this article again and turn it right back into what it was. No. I've run out of patience with you, Pat. it's obvious that you want to turn this into a pro-electric bicycle article. Considering, you had links on here to things that don't even exist yet. There were here to promote your ideas. No. It stops here. I'm removing the "attention" tag. People are already looking at this through the cleanup tag. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 03:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::And let's not pick an arbitrary date ok? For one thing, I can do research on this. Any of us can. You have to give us more than basically one day since that's how long it's been since we got the laws out of here and started to make this a real Wikipedia article. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 03:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
== Propoganda ==
This article is [[Propoganda]]. This is because it presents one point of view for [[motorized bicycle]]; that is being an [[electric bicycle]]. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:This article '''needs much attention''' and should present more than one side. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::Great! Then start contributing to the article instead of A) bogging it down with links Or B) Insisting that we switch it back to electric bicycle. After just saying that this should be switched to electic bicycle, now you are complaining that this article is only about electric bicycles? You're not exactly helping yourself, Pat.
:::--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)You are putting word in my mouth.
::We try to assume good faith here, but contradicting yourself to desperately try to get the article back to electric bicycle is not exactly good faith. And as I said, the last version you worked on had links to things that don't exist. Electric or motorized bikes are not being used as emergency vehicles...
::: --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)please read http://www.wavecrestlabs.com/newscenter/releases/pr_052405.html
::nor are they used in the OC transit system you had it linked to.
::: --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Yes they are! a PAB is essentially like a bicycle. It can be placed easily on on rack and roll OC transpo device.
::It's hard to trust you when you talk out of both sides of your mouth and then link to things that don't exist.
::: --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)If it doesn't exist how can I link to it?
::It feels like you want the article to be a promo for your electric bikes. It's felt that way since the start, since at one time, you had a "contact me if you are interested" type link on here.
::: --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Feeling don't really have it's place in hear but... No I think I was citing my sources. (and I was new to wiki so I simply put the name of my company: [[CyclePat]], which b.t.w. I now have a place for on the wiki here. So why would I want to do that now?
::You are welcome to contribute into making this a readable article, but Katefan, Alynna, I and others are not going to let this become promotional material.
::: --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) I am trying to creat an article on electric bicycles and you keep deleting it. You are, (or we have) deleted an article about electric bicycles and massacred it. Essentially, the title was changed but the material within is still propoganda for "electric bicycles" (Which I don't really mind, except for the fact that it's plain wrong because it doesn't belong there) As I have mentioned time and time again "Electric bicycles" are a sub-class of "motorized bicycles." (A different beast all together) Lets me make this clear from what I might have said in the past. I don't agree "removing" electric bicycle page and replacing it with a broader term such as motorized bicycle. I am all for creating a page on "motorized bicycles" but keep "electric bicycle" seperate. I am going to bring this up further (once I figure how to, LOL!) (since I'm so new at wiki... and since you seem to have such great experience perhaps it would please you to take this to arbitration) Or I'll figure out eventually... that is how to ask wikipedia for a fair evaluation of the subject.
::We're here for encyclopedia articles, not promos. Read [[What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine|Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine]]. We're actually anti-propoganda.
::: Is that why you are putting propoganda about mostly electric bicycles (constantly attempting to place narrow minded progandic material (either by negligence or on purpose) within the article of because of the poor perception of these anti-capitalistic, gasoline free vehicles with the terminology "motorized bicycles" (that can be easily confusing)
We want this article to encompass everything that is considered a "motorized bicycle". We're using that term because jurisdictions use all sorts of terms for what is essentially the same thing. It shouldn't be "electric bicycles" because many jurisdictions don't call them that. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 04:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
==Stop==
I stopped your attempt to make a separate electric bicycle article. By consensus, this was to be all under one roof so to speak and you actually agreed to that, remember? Stop being disruptive. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 04:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
: Someone has recently gone and re-reverted electric bicycle to the exceedingly ugly version that was there before you re-redirected it... I'm going to go redirect it again, since that seems to be consensus and the revert to the ugly version was not discussed. I hope that's okay. --[[User:Alynna.Kasmira|Alynna]] 19:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Okay, sorry, that was both unclear and inaccurate. [[User:Benjamin Gatti]] reverted Katefan's version of [[electric bicycle]], and I reverted it back. I think that was how it was supposed to be while up for RFD - I hope I haven't done anything too horrible. --[[User:Alynna.Kasmira|Alynna]] 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::You did just fine. Ben is someone that Kate and I are dealing with on another article. Anyway, you did fine. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::::I trust if the article is reverted back enough times, or if people keep trying to put stuff there... eventually you/we might decide to do something (write a new one or put back the re-direct) (considerering the beautiful history I just wrote about motorized bicycles, (*blush blush) (seriously though) It seems we are moving along good. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
==I opened up a request for comment on this article==
If outsiders think this should be electric bicycle, fine, but in any case, we're not going to let this become a promotional article. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C natural science%2C and technology#Technology and engineering|Here]] it ison the RfC page. I'm going to flesh out the non-electric bicycle part of the article tonight. I asked for the rfc because obviously, we have a dispute and this is close to degenerating into an edit war and I'd like to avoid that. I deal with enough of those already. Don't need another one. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 04:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I did not say this should be an article for "electric bicycle." I think the vote should be on bringing back "electrci bicycle" (consenquentially lightening up the present article) (That was the point I was trying to get by with the strawman I had put up earlier) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
==And btw==
In the research I have done, DMVs in the US use "motorized bicycles" as often if not more than "electric bicycles". They seem rather interchangable in the laws, in which case, I don't understand the hubbub here. I think we should be going for as general of description as possible given all of the different names given. In fact, I think that should be the main point of the article, i.e. that these all describe a type of bicycle that we can call a "motorized bicycle" as a general term but that everyone differs in terms of their definition. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 05:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:Humm? DMVs? what? Hum... well I did (I think a good start on the history)... I think we're getting to that idea, that is that everyone differs in terms of their definition. (a good example for that is what I did for [[History of the bicycle]]. One bicycle had 4 names. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
== The right way to do it! ==
after much edit war I was finally able to get something that resemble a little bit of an article for [[electric bicycle]]. So we can officially argue about this (which was never really done / considered when we merged to "[[motorized bicycle]]" I've added the consideration for deletion of [[electric bicycle]] (This way we can place our debates in the write spot) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, that's not the "way to do it". I asked for a request for comment on this page. That means that others can come in and comment on what they think. Putting electric bicycle up for deletion is NOT the answer here. That's not how to settle a dispute. [[Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes|Here]] is a description of how to resolve disputes. Putting an article up for deletion is not part of that. Besides, you did not properly add it to the articles for deletion page. I did that for you. Again, we created this article so it encompasses all of the fractured articles we had. Making an article on electric bicycles is just silly. It's already in this article. Plus, you are putting it up for a vote so it loses, which is against the spirit of afd. You are supposed to put articles up that you want deleted. That's why it's not part of the dispute resolution process. Also, you are asking for a redirect to be deleted, not an article. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::No, this article [[motorized bicycle]] is mostly about electric bicycles. It is proganda for "electric bicycle" and most of the information should go back to the appropriate article. I believe [[electric bicycle]] was improperly merged with [[motorized bicycle]]. After the merger everything at the [[electric bicycle]] page was moved to [[motorized bicycle]] (essentially deleting everything or the article of [[electric bicycle]]). During the discussion we had talked about using the "electric bicycle" article as a stencil for "motorized bicycle." However opinions quickkly changed after the merger. This is because we utilized essentially the same article, changed the a few words (ie,: electric bicycle to motorized bicycle) but not the definition. Currently there is some arguable fact that exists for the various other names that exist to define a "motorized bicycle" (ie.: = pab, = motor assisted bicycle, = e-bike,) Trully these are all types of electric bicylces. Again, there was no real vote for mergerging, just a concensus by a few individuals that we should make another article. And what does a vote have to do with things when someone can easily "make a sock puppet." Electric bicycle, is a sub class of motorized bicycle. Just like "[[Pot pie]]" is a sub category of [[Pie]]. Or how [[motorcycle]] is a sub category of [[motor vehicle]]. Each one should have their respective article. You are right. I want to ask that the re-direct be deleted, however, because the article was merged it was essentially deleted. I am asking that the article be brough back seperate. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:Pat, that isn't what the afd page is for. The afd page is to ask that articles be deleted not kept. So if people vote for keep, they are not voting to keep the pages separate. They are voting to keep the redirect. Which is why it needs to be on the redirects for deletion page. The electric bicycle page was never deleted. It was redirected to here. That is an entirely separate thing. I just don't get it. You call this all "electric bike propoganda" but then say that electric bicycle should be its own article. That makes no sense. I'm moving the afd to the proper place and making the electric bicycle article a redirect again. And I also don't get this...well we should do a vote but people can manipulate votes so...why bother with a vote? --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::I understand what you are saying about deleting the redirect, but in your last edit (adding that delete the redirect) you removed some arguments that where currently happening concerning this article. I added it to your edit. (perhaps we could take those conversations / vote and save them somewhere else?)--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 07:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Opps! Acted to hastelly. I see you put in the redirect "debate." Sorry. However, before I go and hastily revert back to what you just had, should we not have something people can compare to? So they can have an idea what the [[electric bicycle]] article would look like?--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 07:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: Wait a minute here. You put all that information on the redirect page. Anyone who reads that will think that I am in for keeping the redirect. Bah! I'll make it clear. I'm sure anyone that votes will read this discusion. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 07:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::Next time, try to follow procedure and this won't be an issue. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 07:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
== naming and legal status ==
Wow! It's comming along. However, I think we should put in the section of "legal status first" the paragraph (Generally motorized ....) and then (Electric bicycles...) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 08:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:I think that there are still some sections that need an extensive analisys to ensure they are not totaly biased toward "electric bicycles" and that we develope some more on the other vehicles. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 08:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::Aside from my lack of knowlege on how to properly proceed in some wikipedia element, to which I appology, I think we are all doing a very good job. (with an article well writen like this, perhaps electric bicycle will not have such an important place) (however I still believe it should have it's own spot defining what it is, if not for that, at least for dissambiguation) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 08:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm glad to hear that you think the article is coming along. I will say, though, that disambiguation pages are really only for things that multiple definitions (like [[America]] for example). This really only has one definition. But yes, I was actually wondering that myself. Most articles would put the naming part first. I'll switch it to that and see what others thing. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 08:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Is there anything out there on laws in Europe and Asia? I would like to see it integrated into what we have, i.e. maybe 2-3 sentences on the law in other parts of the world with links to the sites the info came from. I can't seem to find a darn thing. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
==Low emissions vehicles==
I really don't think internal combustion motorized bikes can be considered "low emissions vehicles". They usually use simple two stroke engines (often lawn mower engines) with no filtering at all. This means that although less fuel is used, these vehicles are very dirty - rivalling or _surpassing_ cars minute per minute, even though they use less fuel! Here are a couple of links to back this up:
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Lawn-Mower-Pollution.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98532&page=1
[[User:AdinaBob|AdinaBob]] 16:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry for not commenting about my edit! I added information about the environmental effects of lawnmower powered bikes. [[User:AdinaBob|AdinaBob]] 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, we don't talk about internal combustion bikes. We mention EXTERNAL combustion bikes. The only mention of internet combustion is that motorized bicycles had them at one time. Nothing says that they have them now. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 17:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::Oh. They still exist. I've seen them. I'd bet that external combustion bikes are way less common than internal combustion, if only for the reason that it's so much easier to make an internal combustion engine. It's fairly common for kids to have access to a lawnmower and a bike and decide that they'll put the two together so they don't have to pedal anymore. I'll fix this. [[User:69.159.190.117|69.159.190.117]] 18:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:Um. There's nothing to "fix". The article doesn't say anything specific about internal combustion engines. It doesn't say that they do or do not exist anymore. Nothing to fix. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 18:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::I don't understand. If the article is inaccurate, and implies something which is false (IC engines are not used as much as jet engines/external combustion engines) doesn't that mean that there's something to fix? That was what I was trying to say. [[User:AdinaBob|AdinaBob]] 18:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::I won't argue because I'm tired of arguing. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 18:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
::::It is preciselly this type of attitude that make this article progandic material. (One point of view: though we migh know this, the lower ranks probably dont)--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 20:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::You know, Pat, it actually takes someone with a vested interest in a subject for them to create propoganda. I had never even heard of some of these types of bikes before we got into this. I think you are confusing personal views with trying to make Wikipedia as neutral and tidy as possible. It's not as if I'm doing this all by myself. I haven't even done 1/3rd of the edits to this article. I'm a tech support geek from Madison, WI. I cannot create propoganda on this topic. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Sorry Woohookitty, I guess you're right. What I meant to say was complete. (Unless you think my understanding about IC engines is false? In which case, please say why! Maybe I am wrong...) I'm sorry to have caused you more stress when you've obviously been working very hard and doing good work on this article, despite being attacked. Thanks for your work. [[User:AdinaBob|AdinaBob]] 22:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::Don't worry about it. I was being too harsh and I apologize for that. I understand what you were trying to say. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
==Looks much better!==
Good work everyone. I think this page now has enough content about many types of motorized bicycles that it works. I'd like to rescind my request to move it to electric bikes. I'm sorry if I inadvertently got on the wrong side of some people for asking that. I'm new to wikipedia, and I didn't realise how quickly the article could be completed to more accurately describe all kinds of motorized bikes. [[User:AdinaBob|AdinaBob]] 22:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
With the fear of beeing considered hypocritical, I must agree. There is good work that has been added since [[user:AdinaBob|AdninaBob]] gave out some critical comments (to which I agreed with). Some edits appear to be very nice. This article is great. However it is still a work in progress. I'll get back to fully helping out (after my 6 hour trip for a court date tomorow in Guelph)(providing sugestions and working them in [[user:CyclePat/sandbox my sandbox]] before incorparation), and of course providing any typo mistake corrections and small changes in the order. Again, I think we need to make sure this article is broad in covering the different types of "motorized bicycles" and not specifically meander mostly about "electric bicycles." --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
== How about we all pick a section to add? ==
So woohookit, I could try and find some laws in Asia! I'd love to do that. Anyone else want to add something? Dunno, Political, Technical Aspects (I could upload a picture of my hub motor from wilderness energy (I had trouble last time but uploading a small video but I wouldn't mind uploading a picture... someone could write about the brushed motor vs the brushless motor (or should that be in another article?) (electric bicycle motors?) Dunno, just brain storming here. Hum.. Anyone want to pick a section (invent or elaborate on a section)? --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, I'm not talking about sections. In the case of the Asian law, it would be 2 or 3 sentences to add to the existing paragraph. I just feel like we have to be careful here. I really don't want to see this turn into a bloated article. Frankly, I don't see how much more needs to be added. We have to stay out of speculation, which would eliminate stuff like "it could be used for this" or whatever. I dunno. I can see fleshing out a couple of sections, but I just don't want this article to be unreadable again. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
== Emerging laws section ==
[[User:64.230.90.10|64.230.90.10]] 06:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
What happend to my discuss comment here?
I has asked (approx): "why remove this new section" (besides reason that some of the info is on a laws page I see now) and "intro material is sound - many of these laws pertaining to electrics are new (1-5yrs) and specific to electrics, not to gas power laws that have been around for decades"
I removed it for a bunch of reasons. #1 it was speculative. #2 I see no citations as to where this information is from. #3 I really don't see where we need another legal section. I think that if any information is added, this article is going to be basically a law article and I think the consensus has been that we don't want that. Alynna moved the laws section into its own article and I didn't see many complaints. In fact, we've received praise from a couple of people that the article looks much better. Now, I'm not going to assume anything, but the anon's changes look alot like CyclePat. Please don't try to "sneak" anything in if it is CyclePat or one of his friends. Whether you like it or not, it's obvious that the consensus is to keep this article on its current path and not to return it to being highly technical and law driven. I know you think I have some sort of "personal crusade" against you, but I don't. My #1 job as an admin is to keep Wikipedia as tidy and as readable as possible. I've never personally been on a motorized bicycle. I have no interest in them, to be honest. I'm just interested in a well written article. The thing is, if it wasn't me, it'd be a different admin.
I think I'll take a look at what I removed and see if I can integrate it into the article, but we need sources here. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, looking at it again, there is nothing to salvage. The first paragraph is a rehash of things we already have in the article. Most of the rest of the section contradicts what's already been said. To the anon who did those edits, actually no, we do not have uniform laws in the United States on motorized bicycles. We don't have uniform laws on *anything*. If you look at the research I did or do some yourself, you'll see that every state has different definitions for motorized bicycles. As I've said before, I think that should be one of our main points. Some states lump them with mopeds. Some don't. This is just my opinion, but I think that contrasting the areas is good enough. I don't think we need specifics unless they are necessary. So for now, I'm leaving that section out. I just don't see anything that is useful. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::This is the same issue we have been debating since the start of the article; The laws. Actually, the definition per jurisdiction. The idea that we can replace the entire article of electric bicycle(when we first merged) with the title "motorized bicycle" does have it's point. However, simply changing a few words to then say a "motorized bicycle" is an "electric bicycle" is plain wrong (reference to previous discussions: Universe vs galaxy vs solar system). That is why I believe this article has a type of propaganda (a one point of view)(or at least it did yesterday in some sections). We seem to have overlooked the inclusion of motorized gas engines into this article and I believe this is because we simply don't want to take the time to merge that already "well written article." When I first started out this article, I began with quoting, a citing every law section in the book that I could find (pertinant to electric bicycles). I believe we might have some confusion, or possibly accidently mix some of these laws up with the general term [[motorized bicycle]]. So why is it now... being suggested there are no more links to the laws? (rhetorical question) Again this page is full of double standards, on one hand we merged electric bicycles with motorized bicycle, yet on the other hand we refused to merge "moped" with "motorized bicycle." On one hand we separated the laws section to it's own page... What shall we do with the other names of "motorized bicycles" (ie.: "[[power-assisted bicycle]]," "[[power-assisted cycle]]," "motorcycle"(is a type of bicycle), etc...) I understand the clarity of the article is at risk when we begin incorporating to much information. Hence, following with this principal perhaps we should begin making sub pages for our main article? --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 16:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[[User:64.230.90.10|64.230.90.10]] 06:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Woohookitty:
Seems we are editing each others edits too quickly here. My info is sound. If you wait a few minutes before removing the new section perhaps you would allow me an opportunity to add thos references? Request revert. I can clean it up with a link to laws page, and with your other comments in mind.
:It had better be a *marked* improvement. I just don't see where we need yet more law in this article. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::I did the revert. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[[User:64.230.90.10|64.230.90.10]] 06:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. It may take me a few minutes but I will clarify, remove speculation, and provide references.
[[User:64.230.90.10|64.230.90.10]] 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I am going to look at the section above now to try and reconcile what is there with what I added so that there are no conflicts. Hopefully they can become one clear section, or a chunk on motorized laws in general with a chunk that can be moved to the electric bike law page. Much of the conflict arose when we tried changing the article to motorized bikes form the original electric bikes. Motorized bike laws have been around for ages. Electric bike laws are largely new.
:::I read what you added. You mentioned clarifying. I'll give you some more time, but honestly, I still don't see anything to salvage, but I'll probably keep it up to give others some time to give input. I think I'll at least try to combine it with the existing section we have. Otherwise, it still sticks out like a sore thumb to me. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[[User:64.230.90.10|64.230.90.10]] 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I incorporated most of it into the electric bike laws page, and combined the rest.
:Well I reverted some of your changes, but honestly, what you ended up with wasn't alot of different from where we started. I did keep the changes you made in the power source section. We probably should have some spacing in there. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 07:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[[User:64.230.90.10|64.230.90.10]] 15:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Your reversion re-introduced a bunch of the errors that I worked so hard to fix. Why?
:I"ll go back to it. Please read [[Wikipedia:Revert]], so next time, you can do all of this yourself. Thanks. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::Well I reverted somewhat. I went back to the original version of Legal status/Regulation because the version the anon put up had links to nowhere and such. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
== Mopeds ==
I really wonder if we need anything on Mopeds. I say that because Mopeds are a different animal. From what I understand, mopeds weren't originally meant to have pedals, but they were added so they wouldn't be classified as motorcycles. Well, motorized bicycles are exactly what they are...bicycles with a motor. I'm not sure why we even have to mention mopeds here. It's a different animal. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:I took out the section on mopeds. If someone objects, I'd like to hear why. :) From what I've read, mopeds just aren't the same thing. Motorized bicycles are basically what's pictured. Anything else is something else entirely. The reason why I can see keeping nuclear and all of that is that at least, they are still bikes, not mopeds. A moped is not a bicycle. Nuclear and such are just different engines you can use, but they are still motorized bikes, not mopeds. I think I understand that right. :) --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
::Moped are a type of motorized bicycle and we should talk about them in our article. Just like I previously discuss in the section "Ontario Moped," (I think the issue of merging moped with this article should be brought up)(b.t.w. why the double standard, Moped is motorized bicycle and when we attempted to merge it with this article you guys objected, however electric bicycle is a motorized bicycle and we merged the article quite nicely. I will try to find a place to incorporate this within "motorized bicycle." --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 16:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Mopeds are distinctly different beasts from bikes with helper motors. Mopeds have pedals, but the pedals aren't intended to be the primary motile force. Early Triumphs, Harleys, Indians, etc. all had pedals, two wheels, and a motor, too. --[[User:Charleschuck|Charleschuck]] 17:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Let's discuss it and come up with a consensus first, because I and at least one other person don't think it should be in here. A moped is a moped, not a motorized bike. From what I've read, the only reason why pedals were ever put on mopeds is so that it could meet existing laws at the time of their introduction. If you include mopeds, than we'd have to include motorcycles. From what I've read, mopeds were meant to be smaller versions of motorcycles...basically like a scooter. Motorized bicycles are not like a scooter or a motorcycle or a moped. Basically, motorized bicycles started as bicycles but then a motor was added. With mopeds, they started as motorcycle wannabes but just didn't look like them at first. This is right from the mopeds article...
:::"People have been adding motors to bikes for over a hundred years. A bicycle with a small motor added used to be known as an autocycle or cyclemotor. [4] These eventually evolved into mopeds, which really aren't bicycles as they were never actually designed to be pedalled, though pedals were fitted to comply with regulations and to aid in starting."
:::I just think this is another attempt to achieve your goal of making this article so bloated that then you'll have a reason for a separate electric bicycles article, because you sell electric bicycles. No.
:::PS- We usually don't move sections of talk, but I moved to this to the bottom so we can get other opinions. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 16:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
*My take is this: we mention that mopeds are a development of motorised bicycles, but that they are designed to be run primarily on motor power with the pedals present in order to overcome certain regulatory restrictions. A single, short paragraph, nothing more. And it can go at the end, or at the end of History, or somewhere else, I don't really care which.
:As for the rest, the parallels between the vélomoteur and the electric bike are, I think, sufficiently strong as to make it difficult to separate the two without substantial duplication. The article is nowhere near the length limit, I see absolutely no need to split it. And I have no axe to grind. - [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?|Just zis Guy, you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:Just zis Guy, you know?|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Just zis Guy, you know?|[C]]]</sub> :: ''[[User:Just zis Guy, you know?/AfD|AfD?]]'' 16:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
**"Vélomoteur" and "electric bike"? Do you see these types of "motorized bicycles" in the article? "My take is this: We mention '''electric bicycle''' are a development of motorised bicycles, but that they are designed to be run primarily (or not) on motor power with the pedals present in order to overcome certain regulatory restrictions. A single, short..." The article is nowhere neer the lenght limit because some people have decided to remove and place some sections elsewhere (ie.: mopeds) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
== EDITING ==
You are breaking your own rules in editin the talk page. Go figure when I was writting this you went and made another edit... forcing me to put this in another section totally unsubtianting my comments however.: here it is: --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Woohookitty, you often do make quick reverts (practically starting edit wars (reference to the [[electric bicycle]] page), perhaps we should take a little more time to discuss other peoples changes instead of reverting them write away. In the mean time anyone that wishes to add work on a text before incorperating it can do so in my [[user:CyclePat/sandbox]] that way you save from losing your information from people that revert quickly (and believe they might own the article) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::No. I'm trying to keep this article as tidy as possible. "Breaking my own rules". How so? Moving a section to the bottom to spur discussion is not unprecented. It's done to get a consensus and since this moped issue isn't going away, I thought it'd be a good idea. If the consensus is that we should include a paragraph on it, great. I'm here to uphold the consensus, whether I agree with it or not. I don't know when you decided that I'm making this article for my own personal gain, but nothing is further from the truth. I'm actually trying to keep it up to Wikipedian standards. I'm sorry but most of the edits you have attempted and that the anons have attempted have been full of misspellings, bad grammar, etc, etc. And you know, I don't see the others (Alynna, Just diz guy, Katefan0, AdinaBob) complaining about how I'm handling this. I wish you'd quit painting me as this evil bastard who is trying to ruin your life. I'm not. Why did I revert last night? Because the anon who was doing edits added a section that did not belong here. And then he/she complained when I reverted a bit at the end of their editing, even though they had left a link to www.example.com, which doesn't even exist. I make edits like that to keep this page from becoming a joke. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 17:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::Btw Pat, all I did was archive and move the one section down towards the bottom. I wish you'd read the stuff fully and see that instead of assuming that I removed your comments or something. You've done this several times now and then you have to correct yourself. Patience. This isn't a race. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::The question "Are you making this article for your own personal gain?" I think everyone has something to gain from working collectively together. I am personally gaining, hopefully, the ability to try and work in group and overcome some personal issues. I don't know why anyone would say I have anything to gain more than that because wiki is a place anyone can edit and eventually remove bias opinions. Some people have suggest that owning a bicycle shop creates a bias towards this article. Why does owning a bicycle shop creat a bias? Is there really a personal gain to editing articles? --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 17:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Well I'm glad to hear that about working together. I like you Pat...I always have. You just have to accept the fact that I'm trying to uphold what's been agreed to. I have no personal interest in this. I don't even own a bicycle. Anyway, as for the personal bias Q, owning a bicycle shop can create bias here because obviously, you want to further the cause of electric bicycles and their use in Ontario's roads because it could mean more work and money for you. If you look at the versions you've submitted, they've all been pro the push for Ontario to accept PABs on the road in one form or another. What you need to learn is to go for the greater good. The thing is. I'm afraid I've been too harsh on you at times. Burying bias for the greater good is VERY difficult. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::::OUh! geesh! (blush) Thank you. Yes, I have had to be pro for PABs in Ontario because all the comments in the article seemed to be against it. (Even the web page provided by the ministry of transportation on three wheeled vehicles is biases(propaganda). (I've decided there's no us talking to the ministry, I might as well bring that up with the Ontario Ombudsman service) I've called up some engeneers at MTO whome indicated that the page only applies to one type of PAB (the one in the picture). Honestly, the one reason I became a company is because I kinda needed to, so I may register my bicycle. Secondly I do this part-time (I have another job elsewhere, that actually pays) Thirdly, the main idea behind my company is "political statement." (My company is there to mock the government as much as it can!) All this to say; Now, if I tell everyone that I own a fully registered PAB, explain to them how to do it and legally opperate on road (even though it seemingly contradicts the facts stated by the MTO) does that makes me bias? Okay, so maybe I might want to eventually start making profit of my sales, and might make me bias? So, you're right about the first part but not really about the second part (money!) Hum... could it be that I do everything with passion? Does passion=bias? B.t.w. Like I've said, you do some very fine work and though I get unerved/stressed/uneasy at mistakes other people make (or even my own typos) I admire your patience toward my lack of wiki etiquette. I do like you too... essentially you've become a mentor for me and that's why I'm trying to still help out. And though I stirr up some stink in unconventional ways I'm glad we're on the same team. (Right?) Right! Thank you. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC) p.s.:(Now what do you think about this edit I...)--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Anyway, bias is a tricky issue. The main thing is...you don't want an agenda here like pushing PABs on public roads or political activism. Like I said, it can be a hard line to walk and honestly, some folks can't do it...and that's not a knock against them. Staying objective is difficult. And no, passion doesn't automatically mean bias. It can. But you can also use it to try to write as factual an article as possible. Honestly Pat, if this article is unbiased and objective, it can still be used by you to get people into bikes. I mean we do mention the emission free part and how enviornmentally friendly these bikes are. That appeals to alot of people. I'm not sure you have to tell them that they should allow bikes on public roads. Oftentimes, being objective can be as attractive to people then if you try to tell them to do something...in fact, I think being objective is always more helpful. People respect it more I think. Anyway, I'm rambling. :) -[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
== Improvement sugestions: ==
===Please add you suggestion===
(sign your name after each one)
*'''Suggestion #1:''' to add a section pertaining to different uses of PABs in society... recumbent bikes, trailor, and (ie. Wavecrest's press release on how police use electric bicycles). MAke a reference to LEV (light electric vehicles). --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:I don't object to that at all. Not sure how others feel, but mentioning their uses is probably not a bad thing. But let's keep it to non-speculation. In other words, let's make sure that these are all actually being used. I don't want something like the links we had in here originally to stuff that didn't exist yet. And make sure we have sources like to the press release you mentioned. I know. It feels like lots of rules but I just want to make sure we have our ts crossed. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::I was actually thinking myself of starting up a 'uses' section sometime in the past... Yes, I think it'd be a good idea. But it does need to be sourced. --[[User:Alynna.Kasmira|Alynna]] 23:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:::I added a section for use by different people and organisations. However affordability was incorperated together. I originally intended that to be a reason why people use this type of vehicle... Should we have a different section for this?--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 01:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Yep. Sounds good to me. I think we should find a better name for "Constuiencies". Maybe Official uses? I dunno. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 08:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::"Official uses" sounds too, er, official. Maybe just "users." Also, I don't agree that "affordability" needs its own section. This section already describes who uses these things and why; affordability is certainly one of those reasons and should be incorporated with the rest. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 15:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::"Users" would work. "Uses" would work. I was just trying to combine uses with the fact that these are not just personal users. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 15:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Suggestion #2:''' Addition of more ICE (internal combustion engine)(just enought to make reference and link to moped page. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:I have no problems with that. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Suggestion #3:''' Addition of a section "Technical" for different types of electric motors --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:My only problem with having a technical part is that this is supposed to be a general article on motorized bikes. If people are interested in the technical parts of the engines, they can click on the links to the articles on the engines. This article is supposed to just basically be a primer on these things. We don't want it overly specific, I don't think. And like I said, if people want to learn more about...say...2 stroke IC engines, they can click on the link for it. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Suggestion #4:''' Addition of section "Terminology". (Like on the EVCO web site):
:Terminology--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Electric bike''' or '''Electric Bicycle''' is the general use term for bicycles that use an electric motor to power a two or three wheel vehicle with or without the addition of muscular power.--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Electric Assist Bicycle''' or '''electric motor assisted bicycle''' is the technical term used to describe such an Electric bike.--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Power Assisted Bicycle''' is used in the Federal Legislation, but is carefully defined to only apply to electric motor assist, and specifically excludes internal combustion engines.--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Motor Assisted Bicycle''' is a provincial technical term from Ontario used to describe a [[Moped]].--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Moped''' uses a ICE or an Electric Motor or a combination of both.--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Electric Moped'''[http://world.honda.com/news/2004/2040824_01.html] is a term used to describe a moped that only uses an electric motor (it similar to the definition of 'electric assist bicycle') (other links: [http://www.evworld.com/archives/testdrives/revi.html],)--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Power Assisted cycle''' is similar to a [[Moped]] (Distinction between a 'power assisted bicycle' is that they may have an ICE.)--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Cyclomoteur''' is a french term used to described a 'motor assisted bicycle'--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:*'???(''anymore here'')???
::I have major problems with this. We already have a section that lists alternate names. I just don't see where this is necessary. Again, let's not get bogged down in details. Let's pick 3-4 common names and stop at that or else we're going to get into minutie. I think we should integrate it with "Names and legal status" since that's intertwined. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 05:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:::You mean in the electric bicycle laws? --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Actually, the last sentence of that paragraph has names for motorized bicycles. I wouldn't object to you adding 2-3 names to that list. Oh and don't fret about forgetting to sign your posts. I've been at this for a year and I STILL do it. :) It's easy to forget. I don't even note it in edit summaries anymore when I go back and sign. :) --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 04:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
'''Suggestion #5''': at the end of article [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051110.wxwhscoot10/BNStory/specialGlobeAuto/ Globe and Mail News Article on electric bikes in Ontario from Nov. 10th] there are various models. We should do the same for our article. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
== Constituencies ==
I found an interesting article that talks a little about motorized bikes (electric) (and other stuff). What do you think about the source? Is this a fiction novel or is based on reality? Anyone from France have a say on that? (Asside: I understand France if a very politically active country (Revolution, etc...) and the present riots. I hope that you/they may find a healthy resolution to their political debates.) http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/044181.html --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:I think it is largely redundant. The issue of mobility impairment is a couple of additional words in History (where it discusses why motorised bikes are becoming more popular), the point about licensing is also already covered elsewhere. That leaves a small note on who uses them, which might arguably be added to History. The tone of this para is also evangelical and runs against the general style of the article, which is already in danger of becoming fragmentary. - [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?|Just zis Guy, you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:Just zis Guy, you know?|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Just zis Guy, you know?|[C]]]</sub> :: ''[[User:Just zis Guy, you know?/AfD|AfD?]]'' 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::Is the information trust worthy though?--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Found some more sources of info for this section:
# [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051110.wxwhscoot10/BNStory/specialGlobeAuto/ Globe and Mail News Article on electric bikes in Ontario from Nov. 10th]
# [http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/china-moves-to-ban-electric-bi-001594.php China laws and PABs]
# [http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MTcyMTk World business council for sustainable development] (talks about some laws in China (this link is taken from within the URL above) (There you go woohookitty) Found you some instance of Asia! mohohoho!:)(*breath)(*sigh)--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 03:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:I added some of the information to the article. Thanks! --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
==Fill the ______ ==
I won't do the edit yet since you might be working on the article yet, Pat, but you need to fill the ______. Otherwise, your edits look good. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:Humm... I can't find anything right now... I guess I'll have to take it off. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
::I can do it. I'll just reword it. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Humm... Cool! Thank you. Well I tried to re-word it myself. Maybe you can try again. Something still doesn't seem right about it. (just had the idea of adding the section for ICE engines... I have so many ideas. but... I'll get back at it tomorow. Happy editing, Gnight! --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 06:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. Well, try to integrate it into the existing motors section if you can. If you need to make a subheading for it under Description of Motorized bicycles or maybe under one of the engine headings. If you haven't figured out, you are the creative guy and we're the editors. :) It seems to be working ok with the last few edits you've done. Just try to keep it focused and not too technical if you can. If it is too technical, we can always edit it. So far, your ideas have been good the last few days. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
== Museum of Science and tech! New info ==
hey! I'm off to the museum to check this out and take some better pictures. but if anyone wants to add this in the mean time, Thank you! http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes5.cfm --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:Couple of pictures in this article...please...no more. :) 2-3 is good. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::If you see any other exhibits in there that could lend themselves to illustrate other Wikipedia articles, by all means shoot them. Sometimes obscure topics are difficult to illustrate with public ___domain images. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:Didn't get any pictures but there are some available at the museum's web site http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes5.cfm (I believe that's public ___domain!) :) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
==Just a little helpful note about the edits I did==
No need to link things more than once in the article. It's one of those unofficial Wikipedia things that most articles follow. No biggie. Just thought I'd point it out. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 02:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:Yah! I went all out on my linking. This started because I noticed some "links" where not quite appropriate for the term being used in the article. Anyway, Thank you. Sorry. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, I ended up restoring your links. :) Motors/bikes/engines are kind of the gist of the article, so linking them more than once is probably alright. I was beihng a bit hasty. The general rule I follow (and this really varies among editors) is that if it's the subject of the article, linking it more than once is ok. But anyway, that's good what you did with links that didn't match up where they were supposed to go. That's *very* common on here and I think it shows your growth that you noticed it, because some don't. I run into articles every day where they will have a word like "1984" linked where its pointing to the year when it should be the album by Van Halen. It's a pain. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
==Question for CyclePat==
It's about this line: ""Motorized bicycles" generally have pedals. ". Don't they always have pedals? If they don't, then we need to modify the opening paragraph since right now the opening paragraph says that motorized bicycles have motors to "assist pedaling". We'll have to add a "usually" or something like that. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:In my oppinion. yes. Motorized bicycles should have pedals. If they don't it would be a motorcycle. (I'm not sure exactly what section you are refering to, however if you do change it, make to pay extra special attention to see if there was not an attempt to compare to a motorcyle.) (otherwise change it!) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::Then again, generally... could be a better term. Its not so exclusive. Mean a someone could have built a motorized bicycle with a bicycle that had pedals but removed them... (but then again, that would be what? a noped? (but that's a term that we use here in Ontario... so we get into the name game thingy, maybe in Germany it's still a motorized bicycle or "motorisiertes Fahrrad"? (I really don't know anymore) (I do know that in Ontario though you take the pedals off and it's a noped.)--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:::That's kind of what I thought, but I wanted to double check. I'll edit it. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
== History section updated! ==
After my excursion to the museum today (for about 40 minutes)(for free after 4 pm.) I got some info that I added. Though I tried a little, a lot of it I could not really put in my word so we might want to be careful of copyright (I'll reread through it in the next few days)--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
== CCM bicycle ==
Humm... you know there's something wrong when you have more precise information in another article ("motorized bicycle") then with the original "[[CCM (bicycle manufacturer)]]". --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 05:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:Well actually, I want to address that. The history section is nice, but it's way too Canada centered. We need to generalize it a bit. I say too Canada centered because you could've used Schwinn or many other manufacturers. I'll try to generalize it a bit. I'll keep some of the information, but it just needs to be given more of a "world view". In fact, the specific stuff on CCM should probably be in the CCM article. I'll see what I can do. I'm good at merging stuff. :) --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 07:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::Well, I went ahead and moved what you added tonight to the [[CCM (bicycle manufacturer)|CCM]] article. I did that because we're talking about motorized bicycles here, not bicycles in general. So instead, I included a "see also" link to the history of the bicycle. Pat, this is not something you know unless you've seen lots of articles on here, but generally, that's what's done. I.e. if you did an article on the history of a specific brand of car for example, you would include "History of the Automobile" as a link. As we've said, it's a steep learning curve. :) That's why I usually recommend reading as many articles as you can on here. It'll help you alot. Anyway, I would definitely add to the CCM article if I were you. It looks like you found some good stuff. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:::It looks like everything I added was removed. Even the "pixie" motor to the CCM bicycle? Why? This is a documented fact about the firt motorized bicycle? (I could understand all the other information about the history of bicycles, but why the information of around 1940's addition of the Pixie motor?) It doesn't seem right? When you look at the article [[bicycle]] a lot of the information from [[History of bicycle]] is repeated. It just seems prety harsh to totally remove some information, put it in another article, and not even link to it. Maybe it's time we think about merging the <s>article bicycle with motorized biycle<s> (I mean the article motorized bicycle with biycle? (I've been thinking about for a day or so) I think the inherent history of a motorized bicycle puts in jepeordy many other article such as [[moped]], [[motorcycle]], etc. and essentially, as we have stated in the article, is like a bicycle. What do you think? --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 15:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::::And I'm not asking this to, how do you say, go against comon procedures, I'm serious. (well to a certain point). What really qualifies "motorized bicycle" to have it's own article? The answer to that question, should it be in the article? --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 15:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::(Okay! I'm a little frustrated so I might be giving you some lip. Sorry in advance if the tone offends you.) Well, I see someone changed the name of "History" to "History of adding motors to bicycles" ... does that mean our article should change names too? Adding motors to bicycles? What about adding engines to bicycle? (motors are more limited then engine?) (now doesn't that just seems appropriate). Now I understand there is a difference from what was there previously and what you might expect to be there. (A discusion would have been worthy) (Just as I'm pretty sure you don't like going through I finding relevant information, I don't either) However, I will have to do that, and repost relevant information. (this article needs serious re-writing and pen-menship skill) (I'm not one for that... but I tried pretty hard last round and felt prety offended not to see one litle bit of information left over... until of course I point out specifically what should be put back. Why is it everytime I add something, You delete it. Do some of your own edits. Then often, eventually it ends right back up there? (Never mind... actually, the real question should be... why is it not possible to pay a little more attention when deleting someones additions? Anyway, we still have to talk about the history of motorized bicycles? And if we defined a motorized bicycle as being a bicycle with an attached engine, it is un-avoidable not to talk about the history of bicycle. Again, I find it awfully rude to delete a section (history), change the name (history of adding motors bicycle). I think we might have to rewrite (or paste) a lot of that info. Again the history of motorized bicycle can not be explained without talking about the history of bicycles. How will we explain the difference between pedaled bicycles, non-pedaled. Motorcycle, Moped, Scooters,... All these are a type of motorized bicycle that needs to be explained in the article (even if they are not necessarilly "technically" a "motorized bicycle") It is a common name used by many to describe a two-wheeled vehicle that has an attached engine. Again, like the article, [[bicycle]] a lot of the information is repeated from [[history of the bicycle]]. I also would like to bring into question the validity of the information concerning "autocycle" or "cyclemotor." (Do we have any other sources?) Finally, the article seems to have a few sections that repeat and say the same thing. (That's my beef) --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 21:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::I'll try to tackle what I can. First of all, we might want to try to explain why it should have its own article BUT remember to avoid self-references. In other words, you have to avoid language like "This article is being included because" or "This belongs in Wikipedia because". Secondly, I removed the content you added, Pat, because it didn't belong here. From what I see, CCM was a bike manufacturer. You spent an entire paragraph talking about CCM. Why? From what I see. They didn't have a major role in motorized bikes. They produced one, yes, but other companies did as well around the same time. Save that kind of information for the CCM article. And you know what? A discussion would have been worthy before you pasted the section in. You should've asked if that would fit into the article. I still don't know what you want, Pat. This article is about motorized bicycles, their history and their use. It has to have world scope. Listing CCM is fine as a company who made an early motorized bicycle, but we do not need their company history in here. How does it possibly add to the understanding of motorized bikes?
:::::::NO! NO! Don't go saying I only talked about CCM. I might have talk a bit more about them... Yes, That's because they have an important role in the developement of our "motorized bicycle" (as you realized and put a small blurb back... still lacking some key points, which I will attempt to fix after my nap) I disagree with you. I think they had a major role with motorized bicycles. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly. Because they manufactured a stronger, steardier, lighter frame bicycle than the previous (afformentioned somewhere in that now deleted section of the article) it made place for the ability to easily attach a "pixie" motor. It's is preciselly that type of naivety that make me mad. Saying that because they only produced one bicycle that's not enought. The US produced one H bomb? Then of course many more.... Seriously I only quote one example that I found. If you feel that their are other bicycle companies during that time produced motorized bicycles.... than name them... add them to the article. Again, you are removing information, to suite your perception of the world. The is destructive. Become construstive and add some information to be merged... and if Schwin did exist, and if Schwin did have some motorized bicycle during that time than find some info... put the source and incorperate to the article. The more the better someone will be able to make an educated assumption of when the first motorized bicycle was constructed. We all know that what was there had a lot more. (Talking about motorized bicycle from CCM is a documented fact in an Internationally recognized museum (that just happens to be in my back door), it is not some biased opinion) You also missed the point... the history of a the bicycle is an inherent property of the history of motorized bicycles. We need to begin talking about the bicycle before we can elaborate on the motorized bicycle. Call it pre-history! That's a good idea. (bring it back and call it pre-history) (Well not all because of course it will never be quite the same but some good parts) There will be an overlap somewhere... we will need to explain the shape of the bicycle used... was the first motorized bicycle a high-wheel... or was it a diamond safety style bicycle (such as we kinda know it today!) What was the first motorized bicycle based on? Did it have more than 2 wheels? What or who are the major key player in the developement of this type of bicycle that lead to eventually a motorized bicycle? Where these bicycle originally constructed for the addition of a motor? Are they now contstructed for the addition of motors? (ie.: electric bicycle?) Many of these questions where answered by this section... I think a pre-history section is good. (Just as bicycle give a section of history)... however (I haven't read further down... if you feel there is no need for so much info, then I guess a new article called [[History of the motorized bicycle]] might be appropriate?--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::As for the history of the bicycle, you say "How will we explain the difference between pedaled bicycles, non-pedaled. Motorcycle, Moped, Scooters,... All these are a type of motorized bicycle that needs to be explained in the article (even if they are not necessarilly "technically" a "motorized bicycle")"
::::::No. You don't have to cite the history of bicycles to explain motorized bicycles. That's what the link to "History of the bicycle" is for. I'm still not sure you quite understand Wikipedia. Bicycle is the most general 2 wheeled category. So it has a full, all encompassing article. Motorized bikes are a class of bicycles. We do not need to explain the history or scope of bikes here. Why? Well, #1 chances are good that people that run across this article already know what a bike is and they are looking for information specific to motorized bikes. And #2, that's what links are for. The beauty of Wikipedia are the links. If people want more information on bicycles, they can click on the bicycle link or the history of the bike link. We don't need to recap what is already on the site.
:::::::Actually, I think it is necessary for this article to have a disctincly written history that covers the development toward motorization. Perhaps a pre-history --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::For our purposes, having the history of the bike link and saying that a motorized bicycle is a bicycle with a motor on it is all you have to say about bicycles. If you start going into detail about the history of bikes, then you are repeating information from 2 different articles. And yes, the history of the bike article repeats information from the main bike article, but that's ok since the reason why the history of the bike article was split off from the bike article was that it was getting too long, so they decided to give it its own article.
::::::You mentioned rewriting. What do you want rewritten? And honestly, I didn't appreciate the "do your own edits" comment. I've had to edit your contributions for spelling and grammar since we started this process. And I did do some of my own research...and...I've been responsible for organizing this into a readable article. Like I said, Pat, my job here is to get this article to conform with the usual format here. And yes, I'm the one who changed the "History" section, because for awhile I had 2 history sections until I decided that the CCM stuff didn't belong here. I was going to change it back but I had to go to bed. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::::What is the "usual" format? Actually what is Usual? Please someone explain? Because the last time I saw something that was usual, well... he was stealing a bicycle? (ironically)Okay! Well you, see, the common etiquette that I've had when working in project is... you sugest something... (or put it down).... someone says... yup... no... change this. So I guess, all I can say is I feal like you've made this your article now? I understand. Until that's resolved I will go explore other venues in the mean time. Heck, I have a business to run! --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 11:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::Btw, I don't see alot of repeating. I do see some between the intro paragraph and some of the sections, but that's normal. It's sort of like a school paper where the introduction introduces the main topics that the paper will cover. You will have repeated info. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 09:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::btw I think I remember what I said. Sorry. You often do a great job editing often fixing many of my typos. I will, in the future attempt to reciprocicate the favor. Thank you.--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
== Copyediting ==
OK, I am now working through the article trying to polish up the flow and development. There have been a lot of edits, some of which which have been moved or partially backed out, leading to the same concept being addressed in more than one section (mopeds, for instance). Nothing big, it just reads slightly disjointed (natural with multiple editors). FWIW, I believe the major historical development of IC engined motorized bikes was in France, the Veolomoteur goes back to the early years of the 20th Century. But I am still researching that trying to find a categorical answer (it may well have developed in several places simultaneously). - [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:Just zis Guy, you know?|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Just zis Guy, you know?|[C]]]</sub> [http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (W)] ''[[User:Just zis Guy, you know?/AfD|AfD?]]'' 13:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
== difficulty to define a "motorized bicycle": ==
We could say {of course taking out and developing the idea such as this interjection}(''but where would we put this? History''? The start?): Some of the major difficulties in defining a motorized bicycle have been because of it inherent association with the regular bicycle. For example, the [[history of the bicycle]] has a specific development. These bicycles throughout history often have only become motorized through home made modification(s), {''self made motorized kits''}(''now we need to put some examples'')(''eg.: is the Pixie motor a self made kit or was it specifically designed for bicycle addition''?) or when small manufacturers specifically designed addition kits {from perhaps the Pixie motor? (Or was it the addition kit that came first? Or was it the entire motorized bicycle?) {''Personally I would imagine it's the homemade modified kit''} to the eventually the electric hub motor kit such as [http://www.bionx.ca|bionx]]}. Of course other manufacturers specifically designed some motorized bicycles {''I only have recent electric motorized bicycle companies such as [http://www.evglobal.com|EVGlobal] but I think ICE would be a good place to look''}.
----Pre-history of the motorized bicycle:-----
While the addition of a motor to a bicycle might seem natural, there are historical key points that lead to it's natural development. One reason would be the amelioration and historical development of the regular bicycle. This bicycle frame, a diamond-frame, such as demonstrated on the "Rover safety bicycle" from Starly & Sutton, c. 1885 (which can be found at the museum of science and technology of canada (Ottawa)) was a safer bicycle than it's predecessor (Ie.: the highwheel, etc.) and may have been a key reason for developing a motorized bicycle. Another reason might have been the development of a stronger frame made of stronger tubing, such as the "CCM Light Delivery bicycle", from [[CCM (manufacturer)|Canada Cycle & Motor Co.]], c. 1932(Which looks a lot like todays modern mountain bicycle). Which in the late 1940s had a [["Pixie" bicycle motor]] installed to add power when climbing hills. (not necessarilly to increase speed). The motorized bicycle is a natural evolution or modification of the bicycle, a sound basic design that can be improved to perform a variety of functions.--[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
(of course I didn't talk about the normal type of propulsion of a bicylce (pedals) but that might also be a good point to contrast... the adition of pedals, chains,... chained motorized bicycles. to the ruban... etc... --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 20:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:Pat, why would you want to go over this ground in this article? The bicycle and its history is covered in considerable detail in the linked article on [[bicycle]]s. The "pre-history" od the motorized bicycle is the history of the bicycle! As far as I can see the article as it stands is good, covers the ground thoroughly and in the right amount of detail, and provides sufficient pointers for anyone who wants to delve into it in minute detail. Only bike geeks would even think about anything other than the diamond-frame bicycle. I couldn't even get the "penny-farthing" article renamed to "ordinary bicycle", because only bike geeks like us have any conception that the high-wheeler was ever considered the norm. Leave well alone, it'll only confuse the hell out of people. Trust me, I've tried.
:And I really wish you'd stop banging on about CCM. By 1932 the veolmoteur and even the motorcycle were well-established. Gottfried Daimler built the first motorcycle in 1885, Sammy Miller's museum in New Milton (UK) has motorbikes going back to the late 19th Century, and I've seen references specifically to motorised bicycles from 1902 and earlier. I don't think Canada has played a leading role in the development of the motorised bike (compared with, say, France, where models like the VeolSolex and Derny originated) and a small Canadian firm sticking a motor on a delivery bike in 1932 is not, I think, a seminal moment in the development of the motorized bicycle. It might have been a seminal moment in the history of that company, which is great in that company's article, but from the point of view of the motorized bicycle worldwide it is really not significant enough to warrant more than a passing mention, if that. Sorry, I know you are an enthusiast for the thing, but that's how I see it. We have to remember not to be parochial (something I always struggle with too).
:Nor is there any difficulty defining "motorized bicycle". The article does it right there in the first two paragraphs: it's a pedal cycle with a motor attached. It's distinguished from a motorcycle by the fact that it has pedals and can be propelled by them alone. Where is the supposed ambiguity? - [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid"> Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:Just zis Guy, you know?|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Just zis Guy, you know?|[C]]]</sub> [http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (W)] ''[[User:Just zis Guy, you know?/AfD|AfD?]]'' 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
| |||