Talk:Indian Motorcycle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Great

Manufacture of all products was halted in 1953.

Yep, for no reason everybody jest said “F*** it!”, and the company disintegrated. —12.72.71.51 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New Chief

The article states that while nearing completion of the all new engine the company ceased prodution in 2003. The company had already completed a new engine with round cylinders like the original Indian v-twins, and had released them to some of their dealerships in the spring of 2002.

Replaced 101 Scout picture

To Cheesy Mike: The 101 Scout picture shows up fine to me, so I have reverted the page to undo its deletion. Respectfully, SamBlob 13:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It didn't show up for me. Maybe there is a problem because the file has spaces in its name?--Cheesy Mike 13:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to article before you cut the Scout picture out, showing the Scout picture still there

Link to the Scout picture at Wikimedia Commons

Or, better yet:

Can you see it now? Because it's there! Respectfully, SamBlob 13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article. This is what it looks like now, at least from where I sit. Respectfully, SamBlob 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Something still strange. The problem seems to be linked with the thumbnail size. At 250px I cannot see the image on the left, but at 300px I can see the image on the right. Very strange, have never come across this with other images. Will do some investigation.

--Cheesy Mike 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed strange. I guess it could be a problem with the interaction between Wikipedia's system and yours. It doesn't seem to affect me; I see all of them just fine. Respectfully, SamBlob 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do American names have umlauts?

I have never seen Oscar Hedstrom's name spelled with an umlaut. For that matter, I have never seen the name of any American spelled with an umlaut. Can the person who added an umlaut to the "o" in Hedstrom's name verify that there was an umlaut in it at the time he co-founded Indian, or is this just someone thinking it should be so without any proof? Respectfully, SamBlob 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the reason for putting the umlaut there is the fact he was born Carl Oscar Hedström march 12 1871 in Sweden, but after he immigrated with his family to the United States in 1880, the spelling was changed to Hedstrom.

Indian MOTOCYCLE Manufacturing Company

The name of the company that made Indian motorcycles up to 1953 was the "Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company" That was the name under which they were incorporated, therefore that was their name.

According to the source:

Originally manufactured under the corporate banner of the Hendee Manufacturing Company, which was later reincorporated as the Indian Motocycle Company (an apparent Americanization of the European style of hyphenated motorcycle company names -- i.e. Moto-Guzzi), early Indians were inspired by Hedstrom's work with "pacing" bicycles.

Will people PLEASE stop "correcting" the name of the company?! The name of the company is correct as it is! Quit assuming that the company was named according to convention!

Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I reverted Deedeebee (talk · contribs) addition of his own picture to the article. I don't see how it adds value to the article. It just shows a building with an Indian logo on it (and an Aprilia logo, and a Victory logo, and a Big Dog logo). It doesn't have any Indian motorcycles though. If the dealership were open and it had bikes outside it might have some interest, but just a building adds no value to an article about Indian motorcycles. I can think of no other motorcycle article that has a dealership pciture - probably for good reason. Of course, WIkipedia is based on consensus so I'm open to what others think. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite common in Wikipedia articles on vehicle manufacturers to include pictures of a dealership of the vehicle and is therefore an accepted practice. There is nothing inherently different about motorcycles that would preclude such a picture. The name on the dealership that is prominently displayed is 'Indian.' It is self-evidently an Indian dealership. Your removal of the picture seems to be based on an indiosyncratic esthetic.Dwight Burdette (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is sad to see you edit warring - especially pushing your own photographs. Let's see what other editors have to say. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a Red Robin to me. Or possibly a converted Grease Monkey? In other words, it looks like any other uninspired, generic suburban retail structure. I don't see what it adds to the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My contribution of the photo was made after doing research and made in good faith. I refuse to respond to sarcastic remarks. Dwight Burdette (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic. The building is boring. It's generic. Anonymous. It could be anything, anywhere. It is therefore not interesting and not informative. It's just some building somewhere that has a logo on it, which you can make out only if you blow it up to full screen. I would allow that if there existed a reliable source who thinks Indian's dull looking dealerships contributed to their poor sales, that would merit the need to show the reader what their dull dealerships looked like. But since we don't have sources expressing any commentary good or bad or indifferent on what their dealerships look like, then we have no justification for the picture.

One of the things that prevents articles from reflecting nothing but the casual whims of editors is that we follow our sources. If the sources talk about it, it's goes in the article. If the sources give us nothing, then we have nothing to put there. Again, unless a source tells us an Indian dealership is something worth looking at, then delete the photo. Why pictures of car dealerships started accumulating on automotive Wikipedia articles, I do not know and I don't want to chase down that rabbit hole. It's a bad precedent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By implication, the fact that there exists dealership photos on Wikipeida articles is empirical evidence that there is acceptance of such photos. You offer only a subjective hostility to such pictures. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand how such a photo is not relevant. A dealership network is indispensable to marketing motorcycles and a photo of such a dealership allows the reader to make a judgement as to the brand's marketing efforts. I could argue that just showing photos of different models of Indian motorcyles is irrelevant. Dwight Burdette (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists explains why we are not in a strait jacket just because somebody else made the same mistake before. There might be some acceptance of dealership photos, but that does not make it policy, and it certainly doesn't make it correct. What might be relevant is if you could cite why some other editors started putting these photos in automotive articles. We are guided by reason, and so we have a right to ask what reason they used. I suspect they don't have a good one.

Second, storage closets, bathrooms, and office chairs are also indispensable to a dealership network. Why do we not want photos showing what Indian's closets, bathrooms and chairs look like? Why is their building so important?

The rationale that we want readers to jugde their marketing efforts is not encyclopedic. Going back to Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:PRIMARY, we do not just serve up primary source material and leave it to readers to interpret. An encyclopedia is based on secondary and especially on tertiary sources, meaning that it is pre-digested for the reader. The experts make the judgments and interpretations, and we follow what the experts tell us. Leaving it to the reader to decide is not a valid reason to keep a photo. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently we will not come to an agreement.Dwight Burdette (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But consensus against the photo is starting to emerge. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at about 30 automotive manufacturers and the only one with pictures of dealerships was Ford Motor Company. You do see a lot of photos of the corporate headquarters, but not dealerships. And Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions makes no mention of dealership photos. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Show me you have the courage of your convictions-remove the photo from Ford Motor Company, and while you're at it, you can remove the photos form Honda and Toyota too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeebee (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 April 2011

To do that would be to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, which I never do. Almost never. I have more than enough to do in the motorcycling space. I'm aware of dozens of problems with automobile articles, not to mention many other Wikipedia articles. I avoid getting drawn into fixing every problem I see because I have a hard enough time staying on track with my motorcycling projects. WikiProject Automobiles can work it out for themselves, and I'm not going to go and get them riled up to prove a point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this image adding to the article? What is it showing the reading about Indian motorcycles? If we can't identify a positive contribution, it should come out. That other articles have other pictures has no bearing. A lot of articles have misspellings, but that doesn't mean this one should. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have explained the addition of the image. The reasons given for removing it are highly subjective. I don't care to argue about this further.Dwight Burdette (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The main argument in the comments above seems to be that such images are included in other articles. I cannot see any mention of what such an image adds to this article. If there was a section discussing the brand's marketing effort, then perhaps perhaps it could illustrate a point, but there isn't. The only mention of dealers at all is in the section on WWI, and there is no mention of marketing. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

indian chief

You need a picture of the classic chief with the covered front fenders. I had two of these. They also had a hand shift and foot clutch. Also the engine was a flathead ( Or L head) used one cam per cylinder with a roller follower that would open first the intake and then later the exhaust valve I have a advertising sheet with a picture ( of as model) but the copyright people probably would not allow it. Arydberg (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There are already several images we can use of Chiefs with the large valenced fenders at Commons. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I propose that this article should be split in a similar manner to Triumph Motorcycles. The largest and most notable of the three resulting articles would be about Indian Motocycle Company, the original concern founded by Hendee and Hedstrom and which was taken over by Brockhouse in 1953. Another could be prepared for Indian Motorcycle Company of America as the Gilroy concern, from the events leading to the formation of this concern to its liquidation. A third article could be about the current concern at King's Mountain. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I further propose that this article be kept as an archive of the changes up to the point where the split occurs and as a disambiguation page pointing to the four articles that would be created:

Indian Motocycle Company, about the company and the motorcycles from 1901-1953,
Indian (motorcycle brand), about the Indian-badged motorcycles from 1953-1999, and about other users of the brand worldwide,
Indian Motorcycle Company of America, about the Gilroy-based concern from 1999-2003 (California Motorcycle Company could be moved to this name and the article be built on that), and
Indian Motorcycle Company, about the Kings Mountain-based concern from 2006-present.

This would be a very big task and require a lot of resources that I wouldn't know where to begin to look for.

Is anyone else interested in doing this? Can a team be formed?

No signature (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd be happy to help. I am particularly concerned that the article have a clear separation of material between former Indian companies and the present one. There is a danger that the article may become used for commercial advertising purposes if this is not done. Previous versions of this article at one time had implied that the present Indian company is the same as the company founded in 1901, for example.

I've seen your sandbox article about Charles Franklin. It contains a number of errors as a result of taking some of Harry V Sucher's "Iron Redskin" statements verbatim. From my own researches, I can assist you to set this record straight.

Regards

TIM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.104.63.104 (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be grateful for any help, including correction where I am wrong or misinformed.

As I see it, the article is strongest where it concerns the original company; the biggest problems will be with creating the other three articles. The worst one might be the interim between the end of Indian manufacture in Springfield in 1953 and the consolidation of ownership of the trademark with the Gilroy concern in 1999. I also remember hearing about people making four-cylinder "Indians" in Scotland and Sweden, but I don't remember where (or whether) I read, heard, or saw this.

I stopped work on the Franklin article a few months ago because I thought it was based too much on one source. Since reading your comment I started the article as a stub based on the introductory paragraph, so that anyone with reliable sources of information may contribute to its development.

Thanks again!

No signature (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Blob

I am a wikipedia newbie who has no idea how to make changes, or the protocol involved in getting proposed changes accepted without starting a flame war. Maybe you can coach me offline on how to do this. Alternatively, you and I can work together on changes off-site and you can then implement our agreed changes. I am researching a book on Charles Franklin and was doing this with Harry Sucher before he died, so am aware of some errors he inadvertently made when writing his book in the early seventies. Your Franklin article appears to be excerpts from my geocities website, where I tried to make available anything at all ever in print about Franklin (errors and all). But I haven't yet critiqued any of that website information to guide readers as to which facts are reliable and which still need corroboration. I was saving that exercise for the book. I can, however, assist you with a short article about him that will serve the purposes of the wikipedia Indian entry. If you want to get me off-site then try charles_b_franklin_2 (AT) yarrhwoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.22.143.76 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - As for splitting the article, I am not in favor. Having read what was written I think the string of information needs to remain unbroken. I would suggest organizing showing a better relationship between sections(flow)and organizing the order. Chronology is good. I know chronology is there but with section for the Scout interupts the string. What I would break out are things such as the Scout. Though a hugely importamt product for Indian, the Scout I do not believe to require its own section - a link is good. This is just food for thought. I respect your knowledge on the company. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.185.229 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by the split between 1901-1953 and from 1953-1999. I believe Indian existed in name only from 1953 to 1999 and a separate article would make things murkier, in my opinion. I am in agreement for a separate article on the new Indian concern.Orsoni (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with splitting

As a disinterested casual editor, I immediately saw (and acted on) the lack of proper sectioning for the history of the subject. Having spent lots of time on Studebaker, I have previous experience of newcomers taking over a famous name (in this case Avanti) and incorrectly claiming for themselves continuity with the quality associated with their predecessor. The Indian article could well include brief mention of unrelated corporate successors, but it should not have present-day entrepreneurs hanging on its coat-tails. The present-day company of 50 employees should re-establish its own notability for a separate article. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose split. Splitting the article because of editors' opinions about the merits of successors to the Indian name is a WP:POV fork. From a neutral point of view, the casual encyclopedia reader who knows little about Indian is best served by a single article that tells the whole story -- both the primordial past and the messy present. If you give the reader the best verifiable information on the old Indian and on the successors, you shouldn't worry that they will form incorrect opinions. Notability is a red herring -- all of the incarnations of Indian pass WP's bar for the existence of articles.
The only good reason to spawn more articles on the newer Indian companies is if the main article is simply too large and must be split as per WP:Summary style. --Dbratland (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty fair, so I'll butt out now. Fortunately Avanti's Michael Kelly wasn't the inheritor of the Indian name. ('Scuse my pov) :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No consensus to split. Tag removed. If there is a new proposal to split, then a new tag with a new date should be used. SilkTork *^YES! 16:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

== German Indian ==

The Indian V8 ("Big Buffalo") is handmade by the brand owner Güstrow Motorcycle GmbH at a price which is not affordable for everyone. They use a small block Chevrolet V-8 engine on that gas guzzler. More info: http://www.igeawagu.com/news/bike/1001338511.html http://www.oma-live.de/de/aktuelles/indian-v8-208.php Picture: http://pieker.de/Motorrader/motorrader.html (first row, at the right) http://www.richmondlabs.com/Automotive/RichmondV8/V8-Links.html (scroll down to "Big Buffalo") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.202.78 (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be included in the article. At that time, Gustrow Motorcycle were the legal owner of the brand name and trade mark. That bike was one hammer from hell and it was the only German made Indian bike ever. At the time being, afaik Polaris is the current owner of the brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.62.97 (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The maker of the V8 Indian, Christian Timmermann, is still alive and well, building useful things for Indians https://www.youtube.com/user/franklinsghost/videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.47.120 (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos of the only legally German built Indian ever: https://www.indianmotorcycles.net/threads/indian-v8.248040/ Even if you can't afford one ever, gotta include it in the article.

1995-1999 trademark court battle

Section copied from article. This needs to be rewritten and cited better in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Labriola and Eller Industries, Inc., 1995 - 1999

File:Eller Indian front three quarter.JPG

Indian Motorcycle designed for Eller Industries by James Parker and Engineered by Roush Engineering

In late 1998 and early 1999 magazines around the world were abuzz with pictures and stories about the new Indian Motorcycle designs and the team brought together by Leonard Labriola, president of Eller Industries. In April of 1995, Leonard Labriola and his company petitioned the US District Court in Denver to put what was left of Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing Incorporated into receivership to protect the assets, the investors, and this iconic American Brand. The events leading up to and into the receivership itself were researched and chronicled in great detail by Easy Rider Magazine's exhaustive two part story, "Mile High Mutiny", so titled because the receivership was filed in the Denver District Court.

Once the Receivership successfully identified all of the men and women who had a legitimate interest in this venerable trademark, and after it had consolidated all of the various and legitimate trademark claims, Leonard Labriola stepped away from his work with the Receivership and submitted a bid for $20 million to buy the Trademarks from the receivership estate. In addition, his bid also included a 40% ownership stake in the Indian Motorcycle Company to be shared by all of the people who had contributed to the survival of this venerable American brand over the years.

The team assembled by Leonard Labriola included James Parker for his innovative design, Roush Industries for their NASCAR proven engineering, Bob Lutz for his legendary Corporate and Marketing guidance (he was the visionary behind Chrysler's Viper is often credited with saving Chrysler from bankrupcy together with Lee Iacocca), Jeff Karr, the 10 year Executive Editor of Car and Driver Magazine was managing Public Relations, Tattoo was brought on-board for Brand Management, top Investment Bankers on Wall Street brought virtually unlimited financial resources, the Cow Creek Band of Umqua Tribe of Indians -on whose land the manufacturing plant was to be constructed - brought immediate financing and authenticity, and a couple of dozen top motorcycle dealers, including all of the surviving Indian Motorcycle Dealers from across the country, formed the original dealership network.

With respect to how Eller lost the trademark, the story was submitted under oath in excruciating detail to the Denver District Court and can be read, along with other supportive documents, at http://www.bitesthehand.com

List of sources

Here's some sources that can be used to tighten this up and ensure it is more balanced. I haven't had time to review all of it myself yet.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Early Sales

My grandfather told me that when he and his brothers bought Indian motorcycles around 1910, in Penang of the then Straits Settlements now Malaya, they were shipped parts and plans. He said they got motors and wheels and things like that plus blue prints for the frame. Is that just a confusion, or is something like that possible? Colin McLarty (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of the CZ Indian 125 from approx 1949?

http://www.quido.cz/objevy/motocykl.a.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.49.144 (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox heading -- Motocycle vs. Motorcycle

According to Template:Infobox company the name parameter should be "The full, legal name of the company". From what I can see "Motocycle" ceased to be the name of the company in 1953. The current name of the company is "Motorcycle". Unless someone can show why a historical and obsolete company name should be used as a heading in the infobox, it should be changed to the current name and the word "Motocycle" relegated to the History section. – JBarta (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I see the article is basically about the defunct company with the current company later on. Confusing as hell, but whatever. – JBarta (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Units

Currently the article has a mixture of unit formats. The main problem is with cubin and CC. As the subject is about a US motorcycle company I suggest that the format CubIn (CC) be used throughout. There may be some slight complications with the imported Brit Enfields because their model names tend to include the engine capacity in CCs but his shouldn't be a major problem. I've already changed a few of the formats as above. CPES (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company, interested editors are now free to deal with coatrack and split issues Mike Cline (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Indian (motorcycle) → ? – I would suggest titles such as Indian (motorcycle brand), Indian (motorcycle company) or even Indian (motorcycles). IMO, Wikipedia has a fixation with WP:CONCISE in association with disambiguation while other encyclopaedias such as Britannica are more generous in their use of subtitles. Why not provide a descriptive title. Suggestions have previously been made regarding splitting the article but, until this is done, a sensible title should be used. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Greg Kaye 07:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Question - I fully agree that there are local pockets in en.Wikipedia which show too much emphasis on WP:PRECISE / WP:CONCISE at the expense of all other WP:CRITERIA, but I'm perhaps missing something in the nom. Greg: Tehuelche (motorcycle)? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi I would appreciate emphasis on WP:PRECISE if the guideline was worded so as to encourage precision. The example Mother Teresa is presented early in the opening paragraph while the example of Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) is presented low down in the bullet points. IMO, the effect is that WP:PRECISE becomes a reiteration of an already overemphasised WP:CONCISE and genuine precision gets lost. There is a related discussion currently at WP:AT if you are interested. I am open to the use of any of the suggested titles with preference for either of the first two. The Tehuelche seems to be a type and/or design of motorcycle. Indian was/is a company and/or brand. Greg Kaye 09:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment why not WP:NATURAL title Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company ? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- This would allow the originals (including those made by the Hendee Manufacturing Company before the 1928 restructuring that renamed them Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company) and the chaos era to be put under Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company and the new era (beginning 1999 or 2006, depending on whether IMCOA is considered chaos era or the beginning of the new era) being put under Indian Motorcycle Company, the current manufacturer (now a subsidiary of Polaris Industries). Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  - The new era should not be in the same article as the original company. WP:NOTPAPER, the new era should be a separate article, being WP:COATRACK material in the way it is in this article. Indeed all the revival attempts can be split off to a "brand" article that you wish to build, to cover the brand name evolution. While the new production era should be an article for itself, being the current Indian. Thus the only consideration should be for the original company and its origins. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting; because what we have now is a "brand" article covering motorcycles made under the Indian make. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I visited the Indian dealership owned by Arlen Ness the other day, and expanded that article. Yes, if an editor wants to create well developed and well referenced split and separate articles about the old Indian company and about the newer incarnation, then do so. Until that happens, I see nothing wrong with a combibed article about the entire history of the brand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

65.94.43.89 at the bottom of various of their website pages it says, " © Indian Motorcycle International, LCC". Maybe: Indian Motorcycle International or similar would do. Greg Kaye 14:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That would have the same WP:COATRACK problem I mentioned earlier. However, a split to Indian Motorcycle International for the modern "new era" information would be a good idea, and moving the old era information in another split to Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company ; as the two are unrelated companies where the brand IP ownership changed from one to the other. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If I have got this right, on that reasoning there might need to be a third article to cover the era "US. Hendee Manufacturing Company". I have no objection to a split if that is what you would like to do. However I think that many organisation in Wikipedia are listed under a recent name but with historical content of the organisation being fitted into well titled subsections. Greg Kaye 12:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisting Comment - This RM should be addressed in concert with Talk:Indian_Chief_(motorcycle)#Requested_move_24_March_2015 --Mike Cline (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cultural (mis?)appropriation

Does the Native American mascot controversy have any bearing on the Indian Motorcycle company? LeeColleton (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Might want to read WP:NOTFORUM. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft article on post-Springfield Indian

I have drafted an article mainly about the current company but also including the chaos era. It is at User:SamBlob/Indian Motorcycle Company. I need to know how best to introduce the article and pare down this one. Are the article and the idea behind it even any good? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be move to Indian Motorcyle International

Company website below says © 2014 Indian Motorcyle International, LLC. (http://www.indianmotorcycle.com/en-in). Motocycle is never used by company. As the company is growing, providing the right name of the brand is necessary. Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 16:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Scroll up. This was just discussed. We don't run out and rename articles every time a company changes it's legal name. Articles follow subjects, not companies. But if you want to go over it again I guess you should submit another requested move. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

How to request again? Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 20:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone still interested in splitting the article up?

I mean, in a similar way to how Atari is a brand name acquired and used by different entities over the years. I'm not sure if the successor firms using the Indian IP are notable on their own, but it seems better putting them on separate pages similar to what I mentioned earlier. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company. 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/20080913162912/http://www.indianmotorcycle.com:80/History/HistoryHome/tabid/78/Default.aspx to http://www.indianmotorcycle.com/History/HistoryHome/tabid/78/Default.aspx

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} 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Which model is the Indian Prince?

Which model is the Indian Prince? 350cc single circa 1926 perhaps? --Bridge Boy (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that the one Prince used for his movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.42.108 (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Most likely the second handed one that Arnold Schwarzenegger recently bought.

New thinking about this situation. It should very well be the jumping motor from Sean Connery in Never Say Never Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.42.108 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Or more serious, the Indian Prince was a former model in New Zealand Burt Munro threw away because the bike was a bit to high. The bike is simply not existing anymore. The year is 1922 with 291cc. The US army was interested in this bike, because cycling became very expensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.42.108 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160201194715/http://www.motorcycle.com/features/indian-motorcycle-history.html to http://www.motorcycle.com/features/indian-motorcycle-history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

why did the indian motocycle have the throttle on the left side instead of the the right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.17.121 (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. There was a suggestion for Indian motorcycle instead, but no definite consensus for any one title. Other title can be explored separately if desired. — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company → Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing Company – Spelling. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

See earlier posts on the talk page and the article. The company name was motocycle (no "r"), and the majority of the article is about that earlier company. Bahooka (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This is an umbrella article that covers multiple different companies during a period from 1901 to the present. Some of the more recent companies were spelled Indian Motorcycle Company, but for most of the time period covered by this history, the name was 'motocycle'. Right now we have but two paragraphs on the latest incarnation, the one owned by Polaris since 2011. That's only the last 5 years of the 115 year scope of this article, or maybe 17 years if you go back to 1999 when the previous company began using motorcycle instead of motocycle. If the content in the Polaris-era section grows significantly larger, then a separate article can be spawned per summary style guidelines, using the existing redirect at Indian Motorcycle Company. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that the split discussed in the previous RM has not occurred and doesn't seem likely to, I'd suggest going with a more generic name that can cover the whole history like Indian (motorcycle brand) or Indian motorcycle. "Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company" is a fair name for the original Hendee/Indian company that existed from 1901-1953, but it's not a great title for subsequent uses of the brand, which have been made by various different companies. "Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing Company" doesn't appear to be a common name. Another option would be to finally engage in a split and create a new WP:BROADCONCEPT article on the Indian brand, with this article focusing on the original company.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Companies change hands all the time it is still the same company though when they acquired the rights. The brief time the name was used and they did not acquired the rights. It is still part of the history as well being they were trying to represent the original iteration. Even if the name is slightly different I believe this is still all the history of the original company when the product I.E. the motorcycle was made to represent the original. Especially being that all the bikes made by resent companies were trying to reproduce the last bikes produced by the original company. This is all the history of indian especially being by large part the rights were acquired and the bikes they produced were all trying to represent the original.72bikers (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216134845/http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/halloffame/hofbiopage.asp?id=95 to http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/halloffame/hofbiopage.asp?id=95

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Motocycle?

Repeated typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.47 (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Indian FTR 1200... "LITTLE?" (YouTube)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsHceq4tpE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company → Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing Company – likely typo per [1] Jax 0677 (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Opposed – At least read the article. It's right the second sentence: "Hendee Manufacturing Company initially produced the motorcycles, but the name was changed to the Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company in 1923". And maybe notice the discussion in the two formal move discussions right here if you scroll up a bit, not to mention the 3 or 4 other threads on the motorcycle vs motocycle question on this talk page, and another one in the talk archive. The current Indian, the company that is the present-day owner of the Indian brand, is only one of the companies covered in this article. As with Chrysler and several similar articles such as Kawasaki motorcycles, we don't automatically rename articles just because a company or a company division is renamed. We don't normally put llc or inc or gmbh on the end of corporate article titles, even if those are part of the official name. Official names matter, but common names matter more, per WP:COMMONNAME. This article is about the topic of Indian, which for most of its history was Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company. Some of this article is about the most recent incarnation of that company, but most of it is about entirely different, now defunct, companies which were the previous owners of the Indian brand. We take a broad historical perspective, looking at the entire 118 years of this topic, not just this year. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Abandoned user draft

User:SamBlob/Indian Motorcycle Company is a shortened version of this article prepared in 2015. Please would an interested editor assess what is useful in the edits on that page, replicate them here, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

2016 indian roadmaster

it has been in the shop for the same thing, wasn,t stay running with hand off throttle, all controls lights goes, off and on again, Indian hasn't fix my biker at the dealership in McKinney TX, it been 2 month no repaired, yet they working on it all summer this on has 13686 mile on it,I call the shop, checking on it, 95% of time the don't call back, looks like I need to lawery up on my 2016 Indians master, any one can notifty me 214 908 5430 woodie 50.84.41.133 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)