Talk:Yamaha TRX850

Does anyone know the differences between the Yamaha TRX 850 that was for sale in Japan (From 1995) & the one For Sale in Europe (From 1996) ? Did the Japanese market one in '95 have a black engine instead of Polished Alloy or similar , any difference to gearbox or electrics etc, Is it better to buy European Market model than '95 Japanese Market model ?

I have recently found a '95 Jap grey import (with kph Clock) & a European 97' model (with Mph clock) for sale & unsure which bike is best - any info,advice please..(other than about age related reasons for buying)

Cheers for any forthcoming advice....

Needs work

This whole article reads like a review.

Today's edits are aimed to make the article more encyclopaedic. Arrivisto (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"In the manner of a café-racer"

"A half fairing is not " In the manner of a café-racer". That would be quarter fairing also called a bikini fairing or café fairing. Those unlike this are mounted to the forks and plastics just around the headlamp." A 1974 Ducati 900SS is a café-racer, but has a frame-mounted half fairing. Note that the phrase "In the manner of a café-racer" applies to the entire sentence '"The TRX has a half fairing, clip-on handlebars and mildly rear-set footrests", and does not apply solely to the fairing. Arrivisto (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

First let me say thank you for addressing this issue on the talk page were it belongs, I should have started the conversation myself. The bike you mentioned has one of the largest fairings to be placed on what you call a café racer with its thin little strips along the tank and frame mount, but it is not the standard and it is still quite small compared to the average half fairing. That fairing would be called In the manner of a sportbike as this bike was actually taken racing and reviewed as a sportbike or superbike in its day, and classified as a sportbike on its article page. The TRX has a very average half fairing so large even the turn signal stalks are mounted on and mirrors. The features you also mention are sport bike features as you might know but the real defining fact is that all the reviews of the bike state it is a sport bike and do not call it a café racer. Cheers.72bikers (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bikers aren't especially keen on parallel twins

"MCN stated many years later: "But as the Yamaha TRX850 demonstrated, many bikers aren't especially keen on parallel twins..." While I accept that this quote is from a reputable source, it is somewhat out of context, with an uninformed MCN hack seeking to explain the demise of the MZ 1000. In fact he got it wrong; the MZ1000S was selling like hot cakes in Germany but the company overstretched itself by expanding too fast and then ran out of money. The reasons for the early demise of the TRX are not quite so clear, but probably it was because it was a little overpriced at the time (even though cheaper than the Ducati) and partly because of half-hearted promotion by Yamaha. That's one reason I put something on the page about the TRX colour schemes: Yamaha just couldn't make up its mind how it it should look!

What is certain is that the decline of the MZ and TRX was NOT because "bikers aren't especially keen on parallel twins". The ongoing success of the modern Triumph twins, the current Norton Commando and the Africa Twin shows that bikers still appreciate the benefits of Edward Turner's layout. Also, in the UK, bikers are realising that good TRXs are getting rarer, and their value has rocketed - I know - I've just bought my third TRX for 50% more than a similar one cost less than 2 years ago.

So I suggest scrapping that unhelpful citation, and restoring the quote from the late Kevin Ash. It may be a blog, but Ash was perhaps the most respected bike journo of his time. Arrivisto (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate your passion for this motorcycle. But you seem to be bias in favor of this bike, like you said you own three. Your reasoning seems to be of just your own personal opinion, and as you are not recognized as a expert in this field that would make your opinions just "original research" WP:OR. The source of this information is from a publication you yourself almost exclusively use and call a reputable source. The author of this information is just listed as "BY MCN STAFF", and as such could very well be the same author as the source of any of the other references you have used. But because you disagree with him again solely based on your own bias opinion (OR) you call them a hack, and suggest replacing this with something from a blog that you find more to your liking. So with Wiki not accepting blogs to be a reliable source, and Kevin Ash does not even have his name next to the blog information (that appears to be a back and forth forum discussion) you find more favorable. I don't think it prudent to replace sourced information for unreliable blog information.

I would also point out the MZ1000S was only produced for 3 years and ceased production well before MZ's financial demise. Also reviews of the TRX state sales were slow despite having its price heavily reduced.

I would point out this is exactly why Wiki does not allow original research to be included in a article. Cheers 72bikers (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Like other editors, I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and I welcome discourse on Talk pages. However, not only it is a Wikipedia requirement to "assume good faith", we are also beholden both to assist beginners and to assume basic competence from established editors. So it really is not necessary to teach grandmothers to suck eggs by explaining "original research" WP:OR! Bona fide editors will normally have an interest or specialism in the topic, and will have something useful to add. That does not mean that in expanding an article, one is automatically engaging in original research. For instance, whether one chooses to cite a quote from "MCN staff" or "Kevin Ash" is a subjective value judgment on what that editor considers to be most appropriate; it is not an exercise in expressing a "bias (sic) opinion". Arrivisto (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't take offense, but it is sounding as if you are making excuses for using original research and misinterpreting Wiki rules. I would point out your example would attempt to compare a quote from a reliable source and statements from a blog. Wiki has rules to follow and blogs are not regarded as reliable sources, so there is no subjective value judgment being made. There would also be a clear case of bias, if a editor would attempt to exclude information that is unfavorable and only include content that is favorable. Neutral point of view WP:NPOV and original research WP:OR are two of the three Wikipedia core content policies, so these are very important. Cheers 72bikers (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

None taken! Arrivisto (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The quoted statement from a reliable source that you keep removing is the sole opposing view to all of the undue weight you have placed on one praising view over and over again. We can take this matter to a noticeboard or bring it to the attention of a admin, if you persist in your behavior that is contrary to the WP:NPOV rule. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. -72bikers (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

TRX850 and TDM850

MSN states this parallel twin also used in Yamaha’s TDM850. Motorcycle.com states this Yamaha's TRX shares its engine and 5-speed gearbox with the 1996 TDM850, a simple way to reduce the costs of introducing two new models. So we have two sources that state they both share the same exact engine and one stating the same exact 5 speed transmission. When you have sources reviewing the TRX and mention the TDM it is also entirely appropriate to include the TDM in this context into the article.72bikers (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sportbikes

Arrivisto, there are no modern-day mid to large capacity high performance sportbikes that use a parallel-twin. Those motors were once used in racing but that time has long past. The last one to be produced was the 2007 MZ 1000S and it was the most powerful production inline twin cylinder engine worldwide. This segment of motorcycles is dominated by inline-four engines and to a lesser extent V-four and V-twin engines also triumphs only sportbike uses a inline-three. The bikes you are claiming to be sportbikes (Norton Commando and the Triumph Thruxtons ) with no sources to support you, are (80-90 hp) standard classed motorcycles with a retro twist to resemble old café racers and at best are simply sport standards. They have steel double cradle frame, twin rear shocks, and void of any fairings with low power engines the same setup as many standard and cruiser motorcycles. This line is from the manufacture sums it up, built to replicate the old style café racers so retro bikes from the 60s. Your opinions are just that, ill-informed opinion WP:OR and as such it may be time to bring your behavior to the attention of a appropriate noticeboard for (OR).

And for WP:COI, as I have pointed out you are selling these motorcycles on ebay[23] and talking them up there (“The TRX is "the best-kept secret in motorcycling"!”) with links to the Wiki article (See the Wikipedia page for more TRX information:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yamaha_TRX850) in a obvious ploy for financial gain. Your insistence that the article not say anything that would shed a bad light on this motorcycle and denial of WP:POV from reliable sourced content is obviously proof of just this. -72bikers (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Au contraire, there ARE modern-day sportbikes that use a 270° parallel-twin, as has been made clear before. The 1200cc Triumph Bonneville Thruxtons and the Donnington Norton Commandos are examples of such bikes. But that is NOT the point of the paragraph, which serves primarily to show that since the TRX pioneered the 270° twin, other manufacturers have seen the advantages of the layout which has been adopted for (amongst others) the 2009 Triumph Thunderbird, the Yamaha MT-07, the Honda 1000cc Africa Twin, and the KTM 800cc. I cannot fathom your objection to this axiomatic truism.

I do strongly object to your attempt to impugn my integrity as an editor by alleging an improper motive and "an obvious ploy for financial gain". It is true I am selling one of my bikes on eBay - so what?! I've had more than 50 bikes in my time, I've bought another this week, and I've often got one for sale. If you reflect on your words for even a moment, you should acknowledge that your comments are unworthy. No one but you is interested, and I would ask you to refrain. Wikipedia expects editors to presume good faith - so please let's act uberrimae fidei. Arrivisto (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your resent attempt to remove unfavorable sourced information (as the Yamaha TRX850 demonstrated, many bikers aren't especially keen on parallel twins) that was there for over a month (after your previous attempt to discredit failed) coincide with your recent TRX850 ebay listing, with links to the TRX850 article speaks volumes, enough said.

As I have stated before your opinion is just that your opinion and carries no weight as you are not recognized as a expert, so you are guilty of (OR). This alone is enough to have you blocked from the plethora of times you have done this. The overwhelming evidence of your guilt is astonishing. I presume if you had a reliable source to contradict the facts you would have cited this already, instead of just spouting opinions. But there are no sources that state these (Norton Commandos and Triumph Thruxtons) retro café racers are modern day sportbikes. Please do provide the sources that you are getting this information from, it really is that simple. This line as has been made clear before, when and were is this information exactly?

If you think no one but me is interested in your rule breaking behavior you are sadly mistaken. If I take this to a noticeboard were admins have more time to deal with these issues you will mostly be blocked for your repeated rule breaking behavior. The admin I had weigh in before was not to block you but to simply show you the error of your ways from a higher authority, that's it. And he told you this to replace it with content that speaks more favorably on a topic you seem to be partial about, is simply not acceptable and removing one for personal (?) reasons can lead to a block. But what did you do once again but state your unsourced opinion was of a higher value than a reliable source and claim you did no wrong. I am not looking to get you blocked, I simply wish for you to follow the rules the rest of use are beholden to. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My previous post (above) was succinct, yet you appear to have missed the point. Your tedious ill-tempered rants are tiresome, and your threats to block me are absurd and groundless. If a WP administrator wishes to take issue with me, I am happy to defend myself, knowing that other bona fide editors on motorcycle topics have been equally irritated by your (Personal attack removed). You have shown on numerous occasions that you cannot bear not to have the last word, so no doubt you will respond to this with more half-baked vitriol; but I am fed up with responding to such nonsense. So, as WP advises, please Clear Off And Stop Wasting My Time!

Please provide the sources that support your argument, can you simply do this, you have made numerous claims with no apparent source support. Also just in case you failed to understand the article you are referring to, it is a humor page and not rules to follow. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

A civil question deserves a civil response, so here goes: for the Triumph Thruxton 1200cc, see the MCN review: "Triumph’s big-capacity sports retro goes as good as it looks" and "Triumph’s 1200cc parallel twin is a very quick engine ...". For the Norton Commando 961 see the RealClassic review: "The Commando 961 Sport has a fairly strict running-in procedure, as you might expect of an air-cooled, pushrod operated OHV parallel twin engine." I hope this helps. Arrivisto (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a civil response, but your are aware that none of that states the bikes are modern-day high performance sportsbikes or even just sportbikes. Having the word sport mentioned after the name does not proclaim them to be sportbikes, nor is 80-90hp at the crank considered high performance. As I have mentioned before they are sport standards with a retro café racer twist that's it. To proclaim otherwise from the information shown is just making unsupported assumption. Please provide a source that states they are modern-day high performance sportbikes or even just sportbikes. I have three sources claiming that modern day café racers to be just sport standards. Highly reliable sources one over hundred years old (Motorcyclist) and the other over 50 (Cycle World).Cheers-72bikers (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed! Note, however that the statement is "... the 270° crank is becoming the optimal configuration for large parallel-twins." No claims are made for "high performance sportbikes or even just sportbikes". I have provided several examples to show that there are a number of modern 270° parallel twins. If you wish to add further sources, please do so. The reason that I have previously deleted the sentence: "Though in recent years and to date no mid to large capacity parallel-twins of any kind have been produced for modern-day high performance sportbikes." is that is is not strictly true, nor is it particularly helpful to the point being made. Note also that sentences should normally not begin with a conjunction; and that if "Though" (contrary to the rule) is to begin a sentence, it is better to use "Although". Arrivisto (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is on a sportbike so this is the context for the information and to bring neutrality to the article and to the assertion before it the 270° crank is becoming the optimal configuration for large parallel-twins. The statement goes hand and hand with and supported by MCN stated many years later: "But as the Yamaha TRX850 demonstrated, many bikers aren't especially keen on parallel twins..." and is simply stating these kind of bikes no longer use this engine configuration. This is the time a editor assumes good faith, should I list every manufacture as a reference simply to inform you of the facts. You say is that is is not strictly true Please do provide the source you are getting this from. Also the statement should read "is that it is not strictly true".

Also you did assert that the engine was still being used in large parallel-twins sportbikes, with the bikes you claimed incorrectly to be modern-day sportbikes, Norton Commando 961, Triumph Thruxton. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Also you did very much assert that the engine was still used in large parallel-twins sportbikes, so the bikes you stated were suppose to imply this". I've no idea what this message is trying to convey, but I feel that this matter has been done to death, and any more verbiage would be superfluous. Arrivisto (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It is important to understand that a talk page conversation is a sequence of posts made by editors. An editor may edit his own posts to repair a typo (and perhaps even the typos of another editor) but should do no more. It should be plain to all that it defeats the object and is misleading if, once a post has been answered by another editor, the first editor then retrospectively amends the content and meaning of the earlier post, as this gives the false impression that the second editor has responded to the amended post. Having said that, I do not accept the points you make in either your original nor your amended posts; and to repeat, any more verbiage would be superfluous. Arrivisto (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You asked for clarification. Also i've come accustomed to your typical response of refuting facts in favor of your own opinions, even if this means contradicting yourself. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Unhelpful reverts

My edit that you have reverted, asserting: "restore sourced content and neutrality" is better, so I am sticking to it. There is no issue of neutrality; rather, I have done two edits: (i) I have reorganised the text to make better sense, and (ii) I have deleted the following clause "Although in recent years no 270° crank in mid or of any kind in large capacity parallel-twin has been used in any modern-day high revving sportbike". Why delete the clause? First, it's ungrammatical; sentences should not begin with "although" unless there is a subordinate clause to follow. Secondly, it is a pointless and irrelevant clause. Why would anyone mention a "modern-day high revving sportbike" when talking about the notable adoption by the industry of the 270° crank for parallel twins? It makes no sense!

Also, while you claim to have "restored sourced content", kindly note that the Chris Dabbs quote on "New rider: Parallel twins explained" is not a source, but a plagiarised report by a motorcycle hack who has lifted from Wikipedia text that I personally wrote some time ago! Of course, I claim no copyright, but equally since the "source" is circular and self-referential, it is useless. Another "source", the Powersports Honda page adds nothing.

By the way, lazy hacks lifting stuff from Wikipedia is nothing new; I recently saw on the Facebook "TRX850 Owners' Group" that Dominic Warman Roup had uploaded a "new" magazine article on the TRX "Ahead of Its Time?" I read it and again, spotted text that I had written on Wikipedia some time before! So one needs to be careful when putting faith in such "sources". Arrivisto (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing WP:DE. You have repeatedly removed sourced information (12 sources) of such a trivial nature that only states that sportbikes are no longer using a 270° parallel twin in this kind and size of motorcycles, and that brings neutrality to the article. You also would have the article look like you are building a altar to your bike. So your editing on this bike has not been neutral as to the rule WP:NPOV. Neutrality requires that each article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The content that you keep removing is with one other sourced and supporting statement the sole opposing view to all of the undue weight you have placed on one praising view over and over again. And now making accusation that this content is somehow vandalism is absurd and does not hold water. Do you really want to go down this road again that you somehow know what is best based on your own unaccredited personal opinion WP:OR. This content has been in the article for quite some time. We can take this matter to a noticeboard or bring it to the attention of a admin, if you persist in your behavior that is contrary to the WP:NPOV rule. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.72bikers (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I reject all of the above, and other editors would support me. My edits are not disruptive, they are intelligent bona fide improvements to substandard text and poor sourcing. Before posting pompous screed such as the previous paragraph, the best advice is: read the observations that other editors make, think about them, presume good faith, and let others have the chance to make their views known. I will not give way to this constant vandalistic reversion. Arrivisto (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Saying you reject reason is not a sound defense. The mythical editors you refer to are also not a sound defense. Neutrality requires that each article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. You can not just include undue weight praising content and exclude all content you personally dislike. The sourced content you keep removing (but leaving the references) only enlightens readers to the fact that while once the parallel twin was used in high performance motorcycles that it is no longer the platform manufacturers use in that role. Also claiming that a editor is vandalizing by restoring sourced content or making personal attacks on others intelligence does not speak highly of your intelligence and could produce sanctions.Cheers -72bikers (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It is tiresome when an editor reverts contributions without bothering to read them. For instance, (i) in response to the valid comment "the the (sic) Yamaha MT-07 is not a large-capacity parallel-twins (sic)," I moved the MT-07 data to a new sentence, but a revert happened anyway. (ii) When I pointed out that some "sources" were substandard and circular, because they sourced from my own words on Wikipedia, such sources are retained. (iii) When I observe that a sentence that keeps being replaced ( Though in recent years no 270° parallel-twin have been used in mid or of any kind in large capacity modern-day high revving sportbikes.) is (a) grammatically incorrect (because it begins with a subordinate conjunction) and (b) pointless and irrelevant (this section is on 270° twins, NOT "large capacity modern-day high revving sportbikes", whatever they are supposed to be), my advice is ignored. (Note, in passing, that it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative, even with a dozen "sources").

The so-called "mythical editors" are quite real. It should be recalled some months ago other bona-fide editors made it plain that the sustained unpleasantness emanating from seventy-two sources was and remains the main reason they now avoid contributing in this category, much to Wikipedia's loss. Such endless pontificating, hectoring, and claiming to be more in line with WP policies is absolutely contrary to WP ideals. I have been editing on WP for over a decade on many subjects, and in all other areas I find editors who are knowledgeable and intelligent, and who behave in a co-operative spirit, who are prepared both to learn and to teach, and whose aim is to improve articles instead of having endless spats and reverts; and for my part, I enjoy the comradeship, wisdom and guidance that is so sadly lacking here. In this motorcycling category there is a pervading odour that discourages positive discourse. As one wag put it, "Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege." Arrivisto (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Long before I came around you had these same exact issues with other editors here on motorcycles, so instead of blaming or attacking others intelligence perhaps you should look inward. These mythical editors you keep referring to were just sock accounts who like you were a editor trying to edit from there own opinions instead of a reliable source. It is also absurdly laughable that any reliable source published in 2010 (MCN your go to and almost soley used source, but choose to damn whenever they state anything you deem unfavorable) has copy and pasted your own words as you would claim, as your contributions to the article did not start until a full year later in 2011.

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative, while this is generlay true in most circumstances this citation only shows what the current high-power sportbike motorcycle market is (and not what it is not) and in suport of the two other reliable sources. Perhaps instead of spouting such hostility you might want to take on some constructive criticism on some of the issues i have brought up. As i have done in the rare cases when you have actually offered up something helpful. Also maybe read up on policy and behavior, and after ten years of the crudest of citations left perhaps read up on how to leave a citation.-72bikers (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Soothsaying

A sentence in the "Reception" paragraph (allegedly supported by three sources) runs: "But as stated in a top 10 modern parallel twin review "They’re never going to be as popular as inline-fours, they’ll never be as iconic as a v-twin, and they’ll never have the exotic feel of a triple...". This is a value-laden ("popular", "iconic", exotic") prediction for the future, based on a journo's opinion. WP is about facts, rather than opinionated clairvoyance. Rather than an outright deletion, perhaps it needs to be rewritten accordingly. Arrivisto (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a sourced statement, it does not surprize me that you have issue with this as it does not give overwhelming praise. -72bikers (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I fear the point has been missed. The "sourced statement" is not a statement of fact, but an opinion of a possible future outcome; see Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 PC. The opinion may turn out to be true, but since it is a prediction, it is not a current source. Had the author said something like "inline-fours are more popular, v-twins are more iconic, and triples have a more exotic feel", and had it been backed up by some evidence, it might have been valid (provided one overlooks that the adjectives "popular", "iconic", exotic" here have no defined meaning). Instead it is no more reliable than a soundbite that said "Clinton will beat Trump in November 2017". Arrivisto (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Every published review holds content of a authors opinions or facts that appear to be opinions, this is given weight because they are recognized as experts in there field. Unlike editors here on Wiki who are not recognized experts and therefore there opinions do not carry weight like this.

The statement is the generalized common knowledge view in this field, and by showing all views it shows neutrality. The statement has supporting fact content in the same paragraph (as well as in other reviews) such as "However, parallel twins never really went away and most of the major manufacturers will still have one or two in their arsenal somewhere." and This statement also supports the statement as being more fact than opinion "Things changed though. Japanese manufacturers realized that by adding more cylinders, more advances could be made and bigger engines could be used, and the humble parallel twin was more or less relegated to the realms basic transport, as something to tinker with for weekend enthusiast or a steadfast choice for the cool commuter." The article lavishes high praise on the paralel twin of once being the go-to engine platform in its day, also supporting context. The article praises the parallel twin with this right befor the statement you wish to remove. "In fact, they’re enjoying something of a renaissance at the moment: they’re cheap, economical, smooth, and versatile." and this is also support and context for the statement. The statement is born out of the past histioy of motorcycles and the current markets, not some clairvoyant future prediction as you would suggest. The platform is never again going to dominate the market like it did the past. This is common knowledge, but it will none the less have a role predominantly for nostalgic bikes or light weight entry level bikes.

This comment after the statement speak of being just opinion "but if you’re like me, you’ll appreciate the parallel twin for exactly what it is: a damn good engine." But even if it was just opinion it would be accepted being that it is given in a credited quote.

You seem to be having a hard time excepting these facts, possible because you have lived in a time when the parallel twin dominated. It would appear you are trying to remove this content because it does not shine a favorable light on something you hold in such a high regard. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Spot the difference! Statement from the first paragraph: "Rather than an outright deletion, perhaps it needs to be rewritten accordingly." Statements from paragraph (iii) "befor (sic) the statement you wish to remove" and "It would appear you are trying to remove this content". Was the difference spotted? Was it not clear that no-one is "trying to remove " anything? Editors should bother to read the posts to which they affect to respond, pause to think for a moment, and then address the points raised rather than hastily indulging in amateur psychology and claiming "common knowledge" as justification. Arrivisto (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that really your response? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.-72bikers (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Parallel-twin engines

The section on parallel-twin engines has been trimmed down as this section had become larger than any of the section actually on the bike. This article is not about engines but about the TRX850, but that is not to say this engine configuration should not be mentioned. There is already two substantial articles pertaining to this subject matter at Straight-twin engine with sub a section devoted to 270° cranks and Crossplane with a sub section devoted to twins.-72bikers (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

I have nominated the pic (Left-hand view of Yamaha TRX850 for the Japanese home market) you uploaded on June 1, 2017 at Wikimedia Commons then to the article June 22, 2017[24] for deletion as it appears you are not the copyright holder of this pic. The pic is from Ebay UK [25] by business seller unit5moto[26]. It is plain to see it is the exact same bike with the exact same backdrop. -72bikers (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall that I contacted the firm for their consent to use the photo on WP, but I can't be sure. If I didn't, then guilty as charged. Arrivisto (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As Charlie Murphy has once said "He is a habitual line stepper" Since you admit to it and it will be deleted from commons anyways, I will just go ahead and remove it from the article. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts:

(a) I rewrote a sentence to say "However, to date no 270° parallel-twin engines have been fitted to any mid- or large-capacity high-revving sportbikes". This has been changed to "However, to date no 270° parallel-twin engines have been fitted to any mid- or of any degree in large-capacity high-revving sportbikes". I submit that the new change is (i) unclear and (ii) if it means anything, is probably wrong. If it means no twin cylinder engine" is fitted to a high revving sportbike, it is incorrect:The massively oversquare Ducati Panegale is a large-capacity high-revving V-twin sportbike. If the phrase or of any degree in means something else, please explain. In any event the point of the paragraph is to show how the 270° format introduced by the TRX has progressed since 1996.

(b) I note a caption has been removed as "unsourced". Captions are rarely "sourced", and should stand unless they are palpably wrong or misleading.

(c) A note on other bikes has been removed with the explanation: " A reference needs to include this (WHAT?) or its just WP:OR. You need to include sufficient information to enable readers to find your source,such as the name of the author, title of the article, publisher and date of publication." The readers can go to the linked Wikipages, and get all the further information they need. To remove this is to deny useful and accurate information.

(d) I rearranged the animation picture to appear at the bottom, to match the final paragraph. This was moved with "(Moved animation to be inline with content.)' . Whether or not it is "inline with content" depends upon how one has formatted the page ones VDU, and it may or may not line up. I suggest that what I did was the better option. Arrivisto (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Ducati is not a parallel-twin and there is nothing in the paragraph to indicte the content is refearing to a v-twin, so not sure how you would abstract that. Your statement "the point of the paragraph is to show how the 270° format introduced by the TRX has progressed since 1996" this is exactly what the content goes to show for the TRX (sportbike) platform and the (parallel-twin) engine platform. No 270° medium capacity parallel-twin engine sportbikes or any degree 360°, 270°, 180° large capacity parallel-twin engine sportbikes are used in these platforms. This all relates to the TRX (sportbike) and relates to the (parallel-twin) engine paragraph. If you think there is a better way to convey this to the reader have at it.

The captioned content removed was a claim you were unable to substantiate for almost a year in the article content. So if the claim was not provable the in the article, why would the claim be suitable for the caption?

Do you really not understand a simple statement? I guess I could make it simpler if you would like. Do you really not know that Wikipedia is not to be used as a reference?

Your statement "I rearranged the animation picture to appear at the bottom, to match the final paragraph" this is all that I did, pc shows it beside the related content and mobile shows the three pics stacked on of each other right after the infobox So none are inline there, not sure how you think your placement is better. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you really not understand a simple statement? The text that you submitted was neither clear nor "a simple statement". I asked for clarification, I get scorn. I'd rather hoped for a truce and an assumption of good faith; but no such luck. Oh well.Arrivisto (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A note on other bikes has been removed with the explanation: A reference needs to include this Followed with the content you stated you did not understand "You need to include sufficient information to enable readers to find your source, such as the name of the author, title of the article, publisher and date of publication." I doent know how this could be explained any simpler. You do not use links to other Wiki pages as a reference. Did you not know this? Is that what you did not catch on to? "The text that you submitted was neither clear nor a simple statement" The text is right from Wiki policy I did not right this, so I found it hard to understand what the problem could be. Hey I added references to the KTM 790 Duke there is still a lot of information you could add to the article from these.Cheers-72bikers (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read this "sentence" before you posted it?: However, to date no high-revving 270° medium capacity parallel-twin engine sportbikes or any degree high-revving 360°, 270°, 180° large capacity parallel-twin engine sportbikes have been used in these platforms.