Template talk:Folding bicycles

Neutrality

I have deleted this list again. This list is inappropriate for several reasons:

1. It is appearing in the Template (which shouldn't even exist). If you want a list of manufacturers, they should go in a page like List of Folding Bicycle Manufacturers.

2. It is a list of rated *manufacturers*, whatever that means, back when manufacturers usually only made one particular bike. That's not the case now. For example, the Tikit is so different from other Bike Fridays that they can hardly fit under the same rating.

3. It is old, and does not even reflect the Folding Society's current ratings.

4. The list is by the Folding Society, a UK organization. It has a very strongly British bent, including many manufacturers found nowhere else but Britain and missing a number of major manufacturers elsewhere in the world. Furthermore its reviews are from a highly British perspective. For example, Bike Friday has a much stronger warranty and a much higher customer satisfaction record and reputation than Brompton, but Brompton is listed at the top: why? Likely because Bromptons fold small enough to be placed on British commuter trains. This is perfectly acceptable for the Folding Society to do, but Wikipedia should not be copying their ratings without explaining to the reader the viewpoint to them.

Undoubtedly when people go to the regular Folding Bicycles page they're looking for a list of folding bikes to consider. But (1) the Template should not be abused in that fashion and (2) if we cannot find an agreed-on, world-wide rating of models (not manufacturers), we should not state ratings. Wikipedia should remain neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.220.69 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the original version was unacceptable, and I took out all the ratings. Have a look at this revision which addresses most, if not all, of the neutrality issues. - 58.8.211.127 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tidying it up. .220.69: Thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns here. Please remember that blanking content is unconstructive and unacceptable and as such, the navbox content has been restored. —Sladen (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]