Talk:Bicycle mechanic

This article was nominated for deletion on January 16 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Cycling Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

Untitled[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Category.[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bicycle mechanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160105210830/http://www.nycareerzone.org/RenderProfileServlet;jsessionid=673501102294965518?onetsoc=49-3091.00 to http://www.nycareerzone.org/RenderProfileServlet;jsessionid=673501102294965518?onetsoc=49-3091.00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]