Talk:Honda CB250N/CB400N

I was too young at the time to be able to comment for sure, but I think these machines were very common motorcycles in the UK at the time. Whoever tagged the article as being of dubious notability probably did so in ignorance.92.237.44.248 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Revisions for the Super Dream article

Hi, just wanted to introduce myself and say that I hope the reworking of this article meets expectations.

I am a fan of the Super Dream models, having owned both the 250 and 400 varieties. I learned a lot whilst restoring my 400 and hope to pass on the knowledge gained from that project.

I would like to know people's opinions on the paragraph about BSA. As commented on already, I don't think the reproduction run ever happened so believe that paragraph could be removed without any detriment to the article

I responded to the above post on the user's talk page (on the reasonable assumption that it was MAbbey who has been editing the article recently) with a welcome message and the usual tips and links. Some power and torque figures were then added citing manufacturer brochures which would not be acceptable, so I removed them and left a friendly explanation on the user's talk page. However the figures were then put back again citing sales literature, so I'm afraid I had to revert it. Eagleash (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The article at time of writing has too much tech. detail for a general encyclopedia. I have left an appropriate message on the editors talk page, pointing this out and asking for it to be re-edited. (Trying to avoid reversion of a keen, new editor's good faith edits!) Eagleash (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have simplified the page back so it better fits into the guidelines set out by the WikiProject Motorcycling. Thank you Eagleash for keeping an eye on the page and for all of your helpful messages. I think the page is pretty much there now, although any suggestions will always be appreciated. Two questions, have the edits allowed for the "page issues" banner to be removed? And finally, there is a very good forum dedicated to the Super Dream, would a link be appropriate for those looking for further information? MAbbey (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@MAbbey All the points which may be controversial now have refs. but the article is still lacking in some respects. I think overall, it still needs more in-line citations so unless another editor who hasn't worked on the article recently decides otherwise, I think the 'refimprove' template should remain, at least for the time being. As for forums, they should not be used for reference...nor any of the 'open-wiki' type sites but an external link to an official owners club site, for example, would be OK (IMO). But personally I avoid linking to forums. Eagleash (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the article with several new references. Sorry to have made so many individual edits, the Wikipedia smart phone app does not seem to allow previews of references to be displayed before saving the edit.

On a more positive note I may have not noticed before but has the article's quality rating gone up one? Hopefully the extra references qualify for the refimprove template to be removed. MAbbey (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@MAbbey I think it's improved now to the extent that the template can be removed, although some may suggest that you can never have enough refs., — in which case the tag would never go away!! And yes I re-assessed as start class — it's much better than many motorcycle stubs and with all the extra work by yourself I think it warrants it. Maybe a bit of a "liberty" as I've worked on the article myself in the past few months but another editor has the right to change the assessment if they so desire. Eagleash (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

superdream balance shafts

In the engine of my 1978 250N, the balance shafts are parallel with the crankshaft, but one is in front of the crankshaft, the other behind it. Not quite as per the current article. A reference confirming this is the 250n/400n Haynes manual ISBN 0 85696 540 5, section 41 - with pictures.

Hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.27.29 (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. If you have information which can contribute positively to the article please feel free to add same and cite your sources. See here for the guide to adding references, or adapt one already contained in the article. Eagleash (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

250 bore

If this was 62.6 mm, as the article says, the capacity would have been almost 255 cc, and the machine would not have been street-legal for learners in the UK

Many links are available indicating that the bore was in fact 62 mm.

Does Ref. 1, the Owner's Manual, really say 62.6?

86.141.61.137 (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed With a reference. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)