Talk:Cardboard bicycle

This article received 23,245 views on February 3, 2013 during the 8 hours it appeared on the main page .

Citation overkill

12 footnotes for the first cited sentence are unnecessary. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. And those I checked all relied on the original Reuters report. Is there any reason why 11 of them cannot be deleted? Kablammo (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Didn't even bother reading the article and sorry I clicked on it at all. Overwhelmed by the citations, I assume it's just a wikiprank. --68.107.136.157 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Phil Bridge Bike: Waterproof?

The article states that his bike is not waterproof, but the source it cites for this actually says the opposite (despite making a lot of jokes about rain). Under the subheading "Won't it go soggy in the rain?" it quotes Bridge as saying "No it’s inherently waterproof at the point of manufacture and it's been used in outdoors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeimac (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

External links

• www.cardboardtech.com

Per WP:EL

• "What can normally be linked"

• "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." This is the official site of one of the two notable cardboard bicycle creators mentioned in the article.

• "Links normally to be avoided"

• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The linked site has a list of the most current news articles.
• No misleading
• No malware
• No petitions
• No sales
• No payment or registraion
• No browser limitations
• No plugins
• etc.

Please see Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING. The corporate site is advertising and public relations and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read the page to which Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING links, you will see that it is about article content, not external links. The topic of this article and its contents are notable, presented neutrally, and well sourced by independent third-party publications. Instead, the relevant guideline is WP:EL, to which I link above, and which states that "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." Thus, a link to a commercial website is clearly not "prohibited by Wikipedia policy," and since there are only two known notable examples of cardboard bicycles, it makes perfect sense that this article should link to the official site of the example that has one. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Type of cardboard used

The current wikilink to Cardboard (paper product), which defines it as "a heavy-duty paper of various strengths, ranging from a simple arrangement of a single thick sheet of paper to complex configurations featuring multiple corrugated and uncorrugated layers," is our best bet. I don't know what further clarification could be made, especially in the first sentence. Corrugated fiberboard is inappropriate because it is defined narrowly to consist "of a fluted corrugated sheet and one or two flat linerboards," and it can be clearly seen in Izhar Gafni's video that he is not using such a material, but he doesn't say what it is. Phil Bridges specifically states that corrugated cardboard "wasn’t strong enough." Also, it is clear from Izhar Gafni's video that he uses multiple types of cardboard: something structured for the core, and then something else for the edging. Thus, it is unlikely that a single word or even phrase will be more appropriate in the first sentence, even if the available sources revealed exactly what has been used so far in the existing prototypes, and the current, simple "cardboard" is the best. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)