Talk:Unit construction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Unit construction is within the scope of the Motorcycling WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
[edit] POV
While Triumph and BSA used and advertised unit construction, they did not invent it. Many other manufacturers have used it. The article only needs to mention the BSA/Triumph divide between "unit" and "pre-unit". Including the "unit construction" article in BSA and Triumph categories seems a bit POV as well. A Unit Construction article should not be about manufacturers, but the engineering, no? Seasalt 13:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- But one needs to ask: Who propagates the engineering if not the manufacturers? indeed it is the manufacturers, so, IMHO, the important ones and their bikes should be mentioned, as they are, if they were proponents or significant manufacturers of this type of engine design. While the article could do with more information it is not badly balanced though the New Imperial could do with some more meat. ww2censor 15:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can agree to disagree. That's just how it looks when I read it.Seasalt 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Of course you can. Let's see if anyone else has any strong feelings about this, but let me ask, where will we put the info about BSA & Triumph unit construction, if not here? Do we divide it up into the appropriate manufacturers article? ww2censor 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've got no problem with the large amount of Triumph and BSA info--it gives an excellent way to look at the history of Unit Construction. But the utter lack of mention of its use by many, many other modern manufacturers is a problem. And, why is it categorized under BSA and Triumph?--Pi3832 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rereading it again make me see that the BSA section is certainly too long and detailed in the overall article balance. Certainly other manufacturers could have some small sections if there is enough information available (that's the problem; finding info). The BSA and Triumph info from the history could possibly be gathered into the individual sub-sections and the BSA should probably be reduced by about 50%. Any excess, or the full, information for each manufacturer should be copied into the main articles as mentioned by [User:Seasalt|Seasalt]]. Do you want to work on that Pi3832 in the order suggested? Regarding the cats, I seem to remember that I did that because I though it was an appropriate cat to include it under especially for people interested in those manufacturers. ww2censor 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've got no problem with the large amount of Triumph and BSA info--it gives an excellent way to look at the history of Unit Construction. But the utter lack of mention of its use by many, many other modern manufacturers is a problem. And, why is it categorized under BSA and Triumph?--Pi3832 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course you can. Let's see if anyone else has any strong feelings about this, but let me ask, where will we put the info about BSA & Triumph unit construction, if not here? Do we divide it up into the appropriate manufacturers article? ww2censor 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can agree to disagree. That's just how it looks when I read it.Seasalt 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Excess material in BSA should be in BSA. Its really the BSA bit that overdoes it. Seasalt 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Collected some material, but not happy with it. User:Seasalt/Unit Construction Has Chadwick properly distinguished between semi-unit and unit, looking at his Triumph "facts" in particular. A recently acquired Motorcycle Encyclopedia does not distinguish, and is no help in that respect. Seasalt 12:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
