![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Some people seem to confuse Ducati's calling the Monster a naked bike. "Naked Bike" is not a class of bikes, it is a description of a style of Sports Bikes.
Touring Sports Racing etc
all refer to FUNCTION not the form. A Monster is naked in form, but its function is a sports bike.
best,
izaakb ~talk ~contribs 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet there is a difference. Lots of people shop for motorcycle based on looks. It should stay "naked"
Mustangs6551 (
talk)
21:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's true that sometimes bikes are classified by function, sometimes by mere appearance, some times by lineage, and sometimes by horsepower, or engine displacement, or wheel size. It depends on who is doing the classifying, and why. The article Types of motorcycles goes into a lot of detail about these contradictory classification schemes, and how ultimately they're in the eye of the beholder. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
But moving beyond that, Wikipedia's definition of a muscle bike is a motorcycle "that puts a disproportionately high priority on engine power". Ducati Monsters come in engine size ranges from 400cc up to 1200cc. The monster 400 has 43 horsepower and weighs 384lbs. If anything, that bike is putting a disproportianately LOW priority on engine power. Over 2/3rds of the bike made have been under 900ccs and under 70hp. This is not a muscle bike.
I really like your idea of saying some sources give it all those deifnitions, and if we expanded it to say that, I'd accept saying that label could apply to a Monster 1200 or S4R, though I personally wouldn't call it that. Honestly, the whole page would probably be most accurate if it refered to the bike as a family or series of motorcycles. After all, a GSX-R 750 has a seperate page from a GSX-R 600, and they always have far more in common than say a M696 had to the M1100 or M900 had to the S4R.
(Sorry about the frequent edits, it's been awhile since I've written HTML and I'm remembering all the in's and outs as I respond here. Mustangs6551 ( talk) 15:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
But it's not wrong to call the Monster a muscle bike. It's just incomplete. I would use the basic wording "The Ducati monster is a standard motorcycle" and then follow that up later in the lead, or down in the body that standard can be a synonym for naked or roadster, and the Monster is often called a naked bike, as well as sometimes being called a muscle bike. All true. The sources verify that it has been called these things. Are the sources wrong? Sometimes. But we can't prove them right or wrong. But we can be sure they said it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
side note, would you have any objection to additional phrasing to reflect that Monster better reflects a family of bikes than individual?
Izaak, the DML is not merely a "fan site" (I can't find anywhere in the policy pages stating that fan sites are not allowed to be posted), but a community of people (forum) in addition to an informative website with a lot more relevant information that is posted on this wikipedia page. Many other pages have similar links (see Yamaha_Motor_Company and Honda_CB450 for example). I'm sorry you aren't allowed to post there (the DML) any more, but I feel like you're gaming the system because of personal feelings towards the administrators on that site. I placed the link in a "related links" category in the links section. I believe that would be in the spirit of the wikipedia guidelines. Dragsterhund 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Dragsterhund, links to forums such as enthusiast/fan sites are excluded under
WP:EL and
WP:FANSITE and specifically this guideline:
LINKS TO BE AVOIDED Specifically #s four and eleven, to wit:
4 Links mainly intended to promote a website.
11 Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.
Expect more expansions in the next week or two, this article is a collaboration for the James Madison University Student organization, Sadads ( talk) 13:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There is information re the Ducati Monster in an archived page of the Miguel Galluzzi article, linked here. The information was too specific to the Monster for the Galluzzi article, but anyone interested in improving the Ducati Monster article can find valuable information here. 842U ( talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As the source stated " indicates to the observer that some deliberate thought has been given to the transfer of loads" - it does not however state that the use of the trellis frame was deliberate - it doesn't have to. It wasn't an accident, someone didn't start making a frame and suddenly say "ooops I accidentally made a trellis frame without any intention of doing so" You need to understand the meanings of the word "deliberate" before using it. 1. With intention. (ie. not an accident) 2. Carefully and slowly. 3. Not impulsively.
none of the above apply to this situation/article.
What the source is trying to say, is that the trellis frame has a structural function, but it also gives people an idea of it's stress bearing qualities, by way of the aesthetics. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Structural purpose, knows what they're doing. And later he says: "One of the better examples of deliberate use of a trellis as a styling element is found in the Ducati motorcycle frames." which is mainly what the lead sentence is saying, that the frame isn't just there for function, but to intentionally further the stylistic goals. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 06:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that while the source is in English, it is unlikely that the writer is a native speaker of English and is not fully aware of the subtle nuances of certain words. "Deliberate" can be considered as a synonym of "calculated" in some cases, however in this situation it implies a slightly different meaning. "Deliberate" does not imply consideration of the consequences - ie. the aesthetics giving an image of strength. Anyway, the current version is good. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 07:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ducati Monster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have never seen the monster referred to as a muscle bike. The cited source is very weak, Torque is a general motorsports magazine, not a specialized motorcycle magazine. I cannot find any other good sources reffereing to the monster as a "muscle bike". This category would define something like the Ducati Diavel, or the V-maxx, not a Monster. The Monster is widley considered to be the first production naked bike. I am going to insist on removing that citation on this page. Mustangs6551 ( talk) 21:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
To continue, the book Ducati Monster Bible the Monster community considers to be the go to guide for all things Monster does not use the term "Muscle bike" [1] or even the word "muscle" once. Link bellow:
The wikipedia page and associated articles define a muscle bike
Types_of_motorcycles as "derived from either a standard or sport bike design, that puts a disproportionately high priority on engine power.". I would add that they're all engine and little suspension. Drag machines. Most Monster models, particularly pre-2007 produce around 80HP on a good day and are equiped with two valve, air cooled engines under 1000cc. This is porportionate with it's size. Even the highest performance models, like the S4R would only produce around 120HP, which is very fast, but not "muscle".
If we go to Motorcycle News' webpage, they classify the Monster as a "naked" [2]. Mustangs6551 ( talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
My edit was reverted, I have again removed the phrase "muscle bike". The additional refference:
[3] actually supports what I am saying. The phrase "muscle bike" is used in that article to describe the Kawasaki Z1000's tribute to "muscle bikes of the 70s". The article explicitly refers to the Ducati Monster as a "Naked Bike" and nothing else. I believe this change should stay.
Mustangs6551 (
talk)
15:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It is a moving target: in 1990 a middleweight bike might only have 60 or 80 hp. In 2017 middle displacement can mean more like 100 or 110. But that's mainly in the US and Europe. In India, China, southeast Asia, and Africa (i.e. most of the world) far less displacement and horsepower is "standard".
The article only needs to say that the bike is called a naked bike, another word for standard or roadster, and sometimes it has been called a muscle bike to highlight that (some models) of Monster are kind of overpowered. In the opinion of whoever is using the term. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If we look at weight, yes there are a places out there that will define models of Monsters as Muscle Bikes, can't refute that, but sources like this book that has a clear focus on understanding the bike never refer to it as such.
Look, I know it seems like I'm being pedantic here, but I have a special love for Monsters, I own one and have ridden a half dozen of them. I think this term is a misuse by people who aren't familiar with the bike. The term really should apply to the Diavel, Vmax, the Vrod, maybe the Streetfighter. Mustangs6551 ( talk) 21:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Ducati Monster be primarily described as a standard motorcycle, naked bike or muscle bike? Or none of the above? Example approximate phrasing options:
Actual wording and article layout and organization are left to later editorial discretion. The RfC question is only which term to emphasize. Please read the sources cited in the lead of the current version, and the footnotes at standard motorcycle ad Sport_bike#Variations. Copies of offline sources can be emailed upon request or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The Ducati Monster (called Il Mostro in Italian [9]) is a motorcycle designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi and produced by Ducati in Bologna, Italy, since 1993. It is a naked bike, characterized by its upright driving position. [10] [11] [12]
References
The original 900 cc Monster was introduced in 1993, soon followed by smaller-engined versions; over the years, some writers have referred to the larger variants as "muscle bikes".
Other examples of this POV-pushing straight into the lead are here (permalink) (associated Talk here and here), and this change, where an editor had been edit-warring with Dennis Bratland in 2014 (see talk page) and had later found an unreliable source at an episode of made-for-entertainment Jay Leno's Garage, where Primary source COI Kawasaki employee Rick Herzog in 2016 quipped-in with some unencyclopaedic street-hommage perpetuating folk-lore, adding he was 12 years old at the time of the alleged-event(s) in early 1970s. Very recent 'talk' of it from the same editor is here (permalink). There is increasingly too much of this tacky nonsense on WP, deliberately using keyword searches to find modern unregulated websites that are promoted as acceptable reliable sources, being 'published' (very much in inverted commas - they can write whatever they want) ergo acceptable under WP:Verifiability, not truth. This is perhaps another opportunity for another essay, covering the rise of post-Wikipedia websites with no tangible archive resources or known affiliations, so presumably plagiarising content from elsewhere, including anecdotal accounts through email interactions, and similarly at video-sources where individuals assert their opinions-only.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 23:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It's like dying on the hill of saying a song is rap-metal and definitely not metal-rap and anyone who can't see the difference between rap-metal and metal-rap needs to go back to school. Seriously? It's just a thing some people call it. It's not an objective reality. You can't prove it one way or the other. If we can agree on anything we should agree to stop taking this terminology so seriously and present it to the reader as the nebulous, context-sensitive opinion that it is. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Even limited to one time period and one market, there are variances. Motorcycle Consumer News is reserved and serious in how it categorizes bikes, while Cycle World and Motor Cycle News are more fanciful, and relatively more willing to go along with manufacturer hype in giving "new and improved" names to old bikes. If you want a source with gravitas similar to a proper encyclopedia, I'd follow Motorcycle Consumer News's lead on these categories, by the way. But that only gets us so far.
Or forget about motorcycles. Look at all the Featured Articles about music. Musical genres are not absolute laws of the universe. They're descriptors attached to their context. "Pop" in 1960 is not pop in 2010. Not that science like Genetics or Astronomy give us absolute, neat categories to place everything in.
What weakens the encyclopedia is taking the uncertainty found in our sources and shoehorning that into certainty for the sake of having neat and tidy articles. It violates the core policies of verifiable and no original research to deviate that far from our sources. If you want to be able to stand up to anyone who challenges a motorcycle article's reliability, then that article needs to have a tone which tells the reader that categories should be taken with a grain of salt. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I am admittedly new to editing, but I uploaded a photo of an S4R, which another editor just deleted shortly after my addition thereof to the Monster page. My question is simple: Why delete it? What is the standard for keeping vs. deleting?
Other than the fundamentals (meaning: the photo is a decent image, in focus, not altered or retouched, properly cropped, and there is no underlying copyright violation of the image (as I took it myself), etc.), I notice three basic things: (1) for the Monster to be such a popular and high-grossing bike for Ducati, its Wikipedia entry is fairly short, limited in substance, and lacks the wealth of photos etc. that many other bikes' pages have -- given that Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, more information, greater coverage of sub-models and specifications, engines, color schemes, etc. is therefore welcome, together with more visual support such as photos of various models for identification; (2) there is currently no image of this model of the Monster range (the S4R), so there is value in having it depicted, especially in the (rare) blue-and-white color combination; and (3) the user who deleted the photo has one of his own photos uploaded that forms part of the Monster article (namely the 1200 Monster).
I don't have an issue with the deletion per se (especially if its rationale is well-founded, or I am missing some major Wikipedia guidance here); I would just like to get some other editors' input on the reasoning for this edit / deletion, perhaps even the deleting user's own explanation for it?
Thanks. SeriousContributor ( talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)SeriousContributor
"Muscle" is an opinion. It's relative. It depends a great deal on what your local region, your generation, your period in history, thinks of as a "normal" power output for a "normal" bike. It varies widely by market and over time. Some models of Monster that were made over the years can be said to have had a disproportionate amount of power, but not all, and not even that many. It's definitely a "standard motorcycle", and you can call it a "naked bike" if you prefer more esoteric terminology 9that cries out for a lot of unenlightening explanation), but not everyone calls it a muscle bike, and nobody can call all monsters muscle bikes. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I bought a load of UK magazines, mainly 1980 to 2004 a few years back. Looking at Motorcycle Sport and Leisure (which morphed from the 1962-originated Motorcycle Sport, a two-wheel companion to the four-wheel Motor Sport (magazine)) for September 2000 - the early days of internet and pre-Wikipedia - and the buyer's guide section lists the following as Muscle bikes:
The other categories are:
-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 01:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The Monster as a series of bikes has plenty of models that would fall well outside any reasonable "muscle" category(m620, m400, etec. 696), all of which aren't listed in this source. Given these examples that fall within the scope of this page, but outside the source,I think this source is insufficient to lable all monsters as "muscle bikes". Mustangs6551 ( talk) 01:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some people seem to confuse Ducati's calling the Monster a naked bike. "Naked Bike" is not a class of bikes, it is a description of a style of Sports Bikes.
Touring Sports Racing etc
all refer to FUNCTION not the form. A Monster is naked in form, but its function is a sports bike.
best,
izaakb ~talk ~contribs 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet there is a difference. Lots of people shop for motorcycle based on looks. It should stay "naked"
Mustangs6551 (
talk)
21:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's true that sometimes bikes are classified by function, sometimes by mere appearance, some times by lineage, and sometimes by horsepower, or engine displacement, or wheel size. It depends on who is doing the classifying, and why. The article Types of motorcycles goes into a lot of detail about these contradictory classification schemes, and how ultimately they're in the eye of the beholder. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
But moving beyond that, Wikipedia's definition of a muscle bike is a motorcycle "that puts a disproportionately high priority on engine power". Ducati Monsters come in engine size ranges from 400cc up to 1200cc. The monster 400 has 43 horsepower and weighs 384lbs. If anything, that bike is putting a disproportianately LOW priority on engine power. Over 2/3rds of the bike made have been under 900ccs and under 70hp. This is not a muscle bike.
I really like your idea of saying some sources give it all those deifnitions, and if we expanded it to say that, I'd accept saying that label could apply to a Monster 1200 or S4R, though I personally wouldn't call it that. Honestly, the whole page would probably be most accurate if it refered to the bike as a family or series of motorcycles. After all, a GSX-R 750 has a seperate page from a GSX-R 600, and they always have far more in common than say a M696 had to the M1100 or M900 had to the S4R.
(Sorry about the frequent edits, it's been awhile since I've written HTML and I'm remembering all the in's and outs as I respond here. Mustangs6551 ( talk) 15:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
But it's not wrong to call the Monster a muscle bike. It's just incomplete. I would use the basic wording "The Ducati monster is a standard motorcycle" and then follow that up later in the lead, or down in the body that standard can be a synonym for naked or roadster, and the Monster is often called a naked bike, as well as sometimes being called a muscle bike. All true. The sources verify that it has been called these things. Are the sources wrong? Sometimes. But we can't prove them right or wrong. But we can be sure they said it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
side note, would you have any objection to additional phrasing to reflect that Monster better reflects a family of bikes than individual?
Izaak, the DML is not merely a "fan site" (I can't find anywhere in the policy pages stating that fan sites are not allowed to be posted), but a community of people (forum) in addition to an informative website with a lot more relevant information that is posted on this wikipedia page. Many other pages have similar links (see Yamaha_Motor_Company and Honda_CB450 for example). I'm sorry you aren't allowed to post there (the DML) any more, but I feel like you're gaming the system because of personal feelings towards the administrators on that site. I placed the link in a "related links" category in the links section. I believe that would be in the spirit of the wikipedia guidelines. Dragsterhund 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Dragsterhund, links to forums such as enthusiast/fan sites are excluded under
WP:EL and
WP:FANSITE and specifically this guideline:
LINKS TO BE AVOIDED Specifically #s four and eleven, to wit:
4 Links mainly intended to promote a website.
11 Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.
Expect more expansions in the next week or two, this article is a collaboration for the James Madison University Student organization, Sadads ( talk) 13:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There is information re the Ducati Monster in an archived page of the Miguel Galluzzi article, linked here. The information was too specific to the Monster for the Galluzzi article, but anyone interested in improving the Ducati Monster article can find valuable information here. 842U ( talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As the source stated " indicates to the observer that some deliberate thought has been given to the transfer of loads" - it does not however state that the use of the trellis frame was deliberate - it doesn't have to. It wasn't an accident, someone didn't start making a frame and suddenly say "ooops I accidentally made a trellis frame without any intention of doing so" You need to understand the meanings of the word "deliberate" before using it. 1. With intention. (ie. not an accident) 2. Carefully and slowly. 3. Not impulsively.
none of the above apply to this situation/article.
What the source is trying to say, is that the trellis frame has a structural function, but it also gives people an idea of it's stress bearing qualities, by way of the aesthetics. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Structural purpose, knows what they're doing. And later he says: "One of the better examples of deliberate use of a trellis as a styling element is found in the Ducati motorcycle frames." which is mainly what the lead sentence is saying, that the frame isn't just there for function, but to intentionally further the stylistic goals. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 06:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that while the source is in English, it is unlikely that the writer is a native speaker of English and is not fully aware of the subtle nuances of certain words. "Deliberate" can be considered as a synonym of "calculated" in some cases, however in this situation it implies a slightly different meaning. "Deliberate" does not imply consideration of the consequences - ie. the aesthetics giving an image of strength. Anyway, the current version is good. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 07:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ducati Monster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have never seen the monster referred to as a muscle bike. The cited source is very weak, Torque is a general motorsports magazine, not a specialized motorcycle magazine. I cannot find any other good sources reffereing to the monster as a "muscle bike". This category would define something like the Ducati Diavel, or the V-maxx, not a Monster. The Monster is widley considered to be the first production naked bike. I am going to insist on removing that citation on this page. Mustangs6551 ( talk) 21:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
To continue, the book Ducati Monster Bible the Monster community considers to be the go to guide for all things Monster does not use the term "Muscle bike" [1] or even the word "muscle" once. Link bellow:
The wikipedia page and associated articles define a muscle bike
Types_of_motorcycles as "derived from either a standard or sport bike design, that puts a disproportionately high priority on engine power.". I would add that they're all engine and little suspension. Drag machines. Most Monster models, particularly pre-2007 produce around 80HP on a good day and are equiped with two valve, air cooled engines under 1000cc. This is porportionate with it's size. Even the highest performance models, like the S4R would only produce around 120HP, which is very fast, but not "muscle".
If we go to Motorcycle News' webpage, they classify the Monster as a "naked" [2]. Mustangs6551 ( talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
My edit was reverted, I have again removed the phrase "muscle bike". The additional refference:
[3] actually supports what I am saying. The phrase "muscle bike" is used in that article to describe the Kawasaki Z1000's tribute to "muscle bikes of the 70s". The article explicitly refers to the Ducati Monster as a "Naked Bike" and nothing else. I believe this change should stay.
Mustangs6551 (
talk)
15:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It is a moving target: in 1990 a middleweight bike might only have 60 or 80 hp. In 2017 middle displacement can mean more like 100 or 110. But that's mainly in the US and Europe. In India, China, southeast Asia, and Africa (i.e. most of the world) far less displacement and horsepower is "standard".
The article only needs to say that the bike is called a naked bike, another word for standard or roadster, and sometimes it has been called a muscle bike to highlight that (some models) of Monster are kind of overpowered. In the opinion of whoever is using the term. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If we look at weight, yes there are a places out there that will define models of Monsters as Muscle Bikes, can't refute that, but sources like this book that has a clear focus on understanding the bike never refer to it as such.
Look, I know it seems like I'm being pedantic here, but I have a special love for Monsters, I own one and have ridden a half dozen of them. I think this term is a misuse by people who aren't familiar with the bike. The term really should apply to the Diavel, Vmax, the Vrod, maybe the Streetfighter. Mustangs6551 ( talk) 21:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Ducati Monster be primarily described as a standard motorcycle, naked bike or muscle bike? Or none of the above? Example approximate phrasing options:
Actual wording and article layout and organization are left to later editorial discretion. The RfC question is only which term to emphasize. Please read the sources cited in the lead of the current version, and the footnotes at standard motorcycle ad Sport_bike#Variations. Copies of offline sources can be emailed upon request or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The Ducati Monster (called Il Mostro in Italian [9]) is a motorcycle designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi and produced by Ducati in Bologna, Italy, since 1993. It is a naked bike, characterized by its upright driving position. [10] [11] [12]
References
The original 900 cc Monster was introduced in 1993, soon followed by smaller-engined versions; over the years, some writers have referred to the larger variants as "muscle bikes".
Other examples of this POV-pushing straight into the lead are here (permalink) (associated Talk here and here), and this change, where an editor had been edit-warring with Dennis Bratland in 2014 (see talk page) and had later found an unreliable source at an episode of made-for-entertainment Jay Leno's Garage, where Primary source COI Kawasaki employee Rick Herzog in 2016 quipped-in with some unencyclopaedic street-hommage perpetuating folk-lore, adding he was 12 years old at the time of the alleged-event(s) in early 1970s. Very recent 'talk' of it from the same editor is here (permalink). There is increasingly too much of this tacky nonsense on WP, deliberately using keyword searches to find modern unregulated websites that are promoted as acceptable reliable sources, being 'published' (very much in inverted commas - they can write whatever they want) ergo acceptable under WP:Verifiability, not truth. This is perhaps another opportunity for another essay, covering the rise of post-Wikipedia websites with no tangible archive resources or known affiliations, so presumably plagiarising content from elsewhere, including anecdotal accounts through email interactions, and similarly at video-sources where individuals assert their opinions-only.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 23:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It's like dying on the hill of saying a song is rap-metal and definitely not metal-rap and anyone who can't see the difference between rap-metal and metal-rap needs to go back to school. Seriously? It's just a thing some people call it. It's not an objective reality. You can't prove it one way or the other. If we can agree on anything we should agree to stop taking this terminology so seriously and present it to the reader as the nebulous, context-sensitive opinion that it is. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Even limited to one time period and one market, there are variances. Motorcycle Consumer News is reserved and serious in how it categorizes bikes, while Cycle World and Motor Cycle News are more fanciful, and relatively more willing to go along with manufacturer hype in giving "new and improved" names to old bikes. If you want a source with gravitas similar to a proper encyclopedia, I'd follow Motorcycle Consumer News's lead on these categories, by the way. But that only gets us so far.
Or forget about motorcycles. Look at all the Featured Articles about music. Musical genres are not absolute laws of the universe. They're descriptors attached to their context. "Pop" in 1960 is not pop in 2010. Not that science like Genetics or Astronomy give us absolute, neat categories to place everything in.
What weakens the encyclopedia is taking the uncertainty found in our sources and shoehorning that into certainty for the sake of having neat and tidy articles. It violates the core policies of verifiable and no original research to deviate that far from our sources. If you want to be able to stand up to anyone who challenges a motorcycle article's reliability, then that article needs to have a tone which tells the reader that categories should be taken with a grain of salt. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I am admittedly new to editing, but I uploaded a photo of an S4R, which another editor just deleted shortly after my addition thereof to the Monster page. My question is simple: Why delete it? What is the standard for keeping vs. deleting?
Other than the fundamentals (meaning: the photo is a decent image, in focus, not altered or retouched, properly cropped, and there is no underlying copyright violation of the image (as I took it myself), etc.), I notice three basic things: (1) for the Monster to be such a popular and high-grossing bike for Ducati, its Wikipedia entry is fairly short, limited in substance, and lacks the wealth of photos etc. that many other bikes' pages have -- given that Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, more information, greater coverage of sub-models and specifications, engines, color schemes, etc. is therefore welcome, together with more visual support such as photos of various models for identification; (2) there is currently no image of this model of the Monster range (the S4R), so there is value in having it depicted, especially in the (rare) blue-and-white color combination; and (3) the user who deleted the photo has one of his own photos uploaded that forms part of the Monster article (namely the 1200 Monster).
I don't have an issue with the deletion per se (especially if its rationale is well-founded, or I am missing some major Wikipedia guidance here); I would just like to get some other editors' input on the reasoning for this edit / deletion, perhaps even the deleting user's own explanation for it?
Thanks. SeriousContributor ( talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)SeriousContributor
"Muscle" is an opinion. It's relative. It depends a great deal on what your local region, your generation, your period in history, thinks of as a "normal" power output for a "normal" bike. It varies widely by market and over time. Some models of Monster that were made over the years can be said to have had a disproportionate amount of power, but not all, and not even that many. It's definitely a "standard motorcycle", and you can call it a "naked bike" if you prefer more esoteric terminology 9that cries out for a lot of unenlightening explanation), but not everyone calls it a muscle bike, and nobody can call all monsters muscle bikes. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I bought a load of UK magazines, mainly 1980 to 2004 a few years back. Looking at Motorcycle Sport and Leisure (which morphed from the 1962-originated Motorcycle Sport, a two-wheel companion to the four-wheel Motor Sport (magazine)) for September 2000 - the early days of internet and pre-Wikipedia - and the buyer's guide section lists the following as Muscle bikes:
The other categories are:
-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 01:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The Monster as a series of bikes has plenty of models that would fall well outside any reasonable "muscle" category(m620, m400, etec. 696), all of which aren't listed in this source. Given these examples that fall within the scope of this page, but outside the source,I think this source is insufficient to lable all monsters as "muscle bikes". Mustangs6551 ( talk) 01:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)