Talk:Bicycle mechanic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on January 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

	Cycling Portal This article is within the scope of 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Weren't the Wright brothers bike mechanics? Eugman 02:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed they were. Of course, that was like being a personal computer hobbyist circa 1975. At the time when they were doing it, bicycles were advanced technology. Not that they aren't now, of course... but when you say the Wright Brothers were "bike mechanics," think "like Steve Wozniak," not "like the Geek Squad." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this may be a little toward pushing a POV... "If you want to know absolutely everything get Barnett's Manual... or Sutherland's Handbook.[4]." (humm...? really? Everything?) --CyclePat 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a quotation. I'm not saying this, my source is. The language is clearly understandable as being hyperbolic, not literal. Wikipedia can and does contain "facts about opinions." In this case, this is a fair statement of what I believe to be an opinion widely held among cyclists, namely that Barnett's is to other books on bicycle repairs as the Oxford English Dictionary is to other dictionaries. If I'm wrong, and you know of references that rival Barnett's, then by all means add them to the article. Note that the only obvious rival, Sutherland's, is apparently no longer in print. Nope, I have no connection at all to Barnett's, except that I purchased it as a gift for someone I know who coveted the set and regarded it as the ne plus ultra. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But, yes, I should have cited my source. I have now. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category.

I had though about what category we should place bicycle mechanic. Should it be a under category:cycling or category:bicycle manufacturer? (should we ask for outside opinions on this one?)

• vote/comment: A mechanic could be, and would be more considered the final making process of manufacturing. Hence I would vote include it in the category:bicycle manufactuer. --CyclePat 23:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Category:Cycling because Category:Cycle manufacturers deals with articles about companies that make bikes or bike components. Course, a new category for cycling-related occupations might be a possibility. --Christopherlin 02:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think Category:Cycling. There's plenty of material to add regarding the role of the mechanic in a cycling race, etc. That will be outside the immediate scope of category:bicycle manufactuer. --Julius.kusuma 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)