Talk:Cycling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
To-do list for Cycling: | edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
[edit] Discuss links here
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) --Wiley 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge to bicycle
Shouldn't this article and all its sub articles be merged with the Bicycle page, and this turned into a redirect. Does anyone agree/disagree G-Man 18:17 1/4/03
- I think it's reasonable to have separate pages for the bicycle and for the various forms of cycling, though they should certainly link to each other. On the other hand, it seems that there are currently separate pages for mountain biking and offroad cycling which could probably be happily merged. Magnus 11:34 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
- Disagree, there are articles for automobile and driving, so I'm thinking there should be discrete articles for the vehicle and the act with the vehicle in this case as well.PsYoP78 15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hour record
I've put together a page on the hour record. Comments welcome. adamrice 20:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from cyclist
Shouldn't cyclist be merged with this? The see also at cyclist is growing into a duplicate of this one. The whole article is a duplicate, only verb becomes subject. Furthermore, splitting sports and utility biking is something that should happen just once, like everyone who has a bike is a cyclist but there are also professional cyclists ad nauseam is ridiculous, imo. Phlebas 18:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agree, using the same measuring stick as automobiles, there is a disabiguation page redirecting from drivers to driving.PsYoP78 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Value of ON content and quality of reference
The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Currency
There are many comments regarding the cost of bicycles but no reference to what currency is being used.
[edit] This article could use a picture
[edit] Pudendal nerve entrapment by 66.25.163.164
Sounds pretty scary... Anyway, thanks to 66.25.163.164 for the contributions. Please try to stay away from original research by citing sources that are reliable and verifiable. --Christopherlin 08:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this should stay on bicyles because it is related to angle of seat which is a part of a bicycle.----Sincerely,PNE sufferer —This unsigned comment is by 66.25.172.211 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Cycling and Health Section
Somebody with a knowledge of cycling should elaborate on the health benefits of cycling on a regular basis. The current section devotes more time to negative things than positive ones, when in my judgment there's much more to be gained from regular exercise on a bicycle than there is to be lost by it. --Lantoka 09:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biking for transportation is the most common form
This article needs alot of improvements. It does not represent the most commong type of cycling at all, which is for utilitarian reasons and is heavilly biased towards recreational riding. I'll be adding some stuff in the "getting started" section to try to better represent, but a more attractive restructuring is in order. If anybody can help, please do so. Thanks.--Chicbicyclist 11:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Did some preliminary restructuring. going to sleep now.--Chicbicyclist 11:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Bicycle uses?
Why this article? When I use a bicycle, I'm cycling, and vice versa, right? As far as I see, there are too many bike articles and not enough thoughts to go around among them. Jim.henderson 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Because the Bicycle article was "Very Long". I guess all the text about bicycle uses that I removed from the Bicycle article could go into the Cycling article, but I didn't see that excellent suggestion anywhere in the long-standing discussion on Talk:Bicycle. Since May 2006, the only suggestions made were about moving text into new articles, and every previous move has been applauded.-AndrewDressel 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Applause I'll grant for getting this material out of bicycle which indeed still ought to be trimmed of most social, economical, political, historical, physiological and other non mechanical material. Now the best course is to move the every interesting non machine material that's here, into where it actually belongs, which for the most part is in cycling. I have done this a number of times elsewhere, moving larger articles into smaller ones that had the correct name (still plenty small enough to avoid any automated or human warnings about "Too big"). It does take some editorial effort to flatten out the seams when merging, but that's why we took on the job of editorial seamstresses, right? I mean, bikes are mainly two things, a machine and an action. So, cycling ought to be the headquarters and link root for the action, as bicycle is the link root for gearshifts, frames, tires, speedometers and other machinery. Once this article has had its material stripped out and sent to cycling or elsewhere, it ought to be reduced to a redirect. Jim.henderson 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great plan. -AndrewDressel 14:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably section 3, Social and historical aspects, including Economic implications, Female emancipation, Other social implications, and Cycling and public health, of the bicycle article could all be moved into the existing cycling article as well. -AndrewDressel 06:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_uses"
Inserted into Talk:Cycling Jim.henderson 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Perhaps the balance between this and utility bicycling ought to be adjusted, probably some duplication should be removed inside this one, and certainly the top picture, which is about a lovely piece of hardware, should be replaced with one that's about doing the thing. Jim.henderson 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Banana Cases?
Are banana cases really a frequently used bicycling accessory that should be included in an encyclopedia article on cycling? This item was added on 14 July 2006 without specific comment. I admit to owning a banana case, but I've never used it for cycling, and everyone who sees my banana case finds it extremely novel. Scott Roy Atwood 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I admit I've never seen one and that I've removed the material. If an editor thinks it should be in the article, please talk about it here before adding it. --Wiley 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Section titles
The article has been greatly improved in the past few days and I don't want to butt in directly with my own edits but rather make a suggestion. Aren't the section titles rather long and redundant? Wouldn't "Work," "Play," "War," "Racing, "Cities," "Health" etc be simpler and better? Jim.henderson 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Thanks for the suggestion! --Wiley 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hmm, I didn't expect "for" to be repeated so many times, or for the hierarchy to go so deep. Anyway I have every confidence the usual editors will work out the best structure in the next day or three. Jim.henderson 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I've worked on it some more. --Wiley 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Goodness; I didn't expect so fast or so precise a response. I also must confess fault for making the editing necessary; I'm the one who merged the former Bicycle uses into this one without then cleaning up the inconsistencies and repetitions that resulted. Anyway the work has come along nicely. I figure the x.x.1 third levels or subsubsections are unnecessary; they should simply be abolished and merged with their larger or smaller higher section, or perhaps reworked in a more complex way. Also, the section on sore knees and other repetitive motion injuries is a bit scary without context that ought to suggest that such things are rare unless you do thousands of miles/Km or hundreds of hours per month. But indeed it is coming along nicely and perhaps I'll look up a few See Alsos or something. Jim.henderson 07:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Towards FA status
I think the content in this article is really good. I thought I would just add a few suggestions that could take it towards FA status. I think the key areas to work on are the article structure (largely worked upon recently) and the final few bits - References, External links and See also sections. I haven't contributed much to this article so I'll give it a fresh pair of eyes on how it reads ("compelling" is the FA criteria). We all really need to work on references, however - an article this size needs loads. In terms of content, however, I think this article is very well stacked already. Mk3severo 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comments I reveretd from bicycle racing
I reverted these comments for two reasons. Firstly, this page should only give a brief overview of the subject, and bicycle racing was starting to bloat. Secondly, the comments were specific towards one part of bicycle racing (namely professional road bicycle racing) so was failing to give an overview of bicycle racing anyhow. Severo 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
