User talk:Stepho-wrs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wbar purple.jpg
Crystal kmail.png Stepho's talk page

Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me.

  • To messages left on my talk page, I respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses.
  • Local time is UTC+8 in Western Australia (we get sunrise 8 hours before the UK and 12-16 hours ahead of North America). Please have that in mind if leaving time-sensitive comments.
  • All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large.
  • Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything.






Babel:

  *en, cn-1, ja-1

Wbar blue.jpg
Crystal xfmail.png Messages

Scion iQ EV[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Mariordo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Backtalk[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Stepho-wrs. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Problem Editor[edit]

I have noticed a string of highly problematic edits by user Carmaker1:[1]. As with Volvo V70, Nissan Murano, Audi 100 and Honda Odyssey (North America), he inserts the names of car designers based on missing, misleading or spurious references. In the Volvo V70 article, he inserted the name of a dubious designer into an article in such a way as to leave a direct and referenced quote by the actual designer attributed to his newly introduced spurious designer. And from what I can tell, he's pretty much blazing a trail through lots and lots of articles. His responses are... well... not helpful, to say the least. I notice that you ran into some similar issues with him recently. Is this something you could help with?842U (talk)

US$[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Idaltu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revert of Stout disambiguation tag[edit]

Hi! I saw that you removed my tagging of Stout (Disambiguation) with the WP:BEER tag. First, this isn't an angry note--I'm genuinely curious to know why you removed it. There are other pages that have multiple project tags. See Talk:Barrel_(disambiguation) for one. Is there a new policy regarding disambiguation pages and the still-tagged pages are remnants of some kind? Thanks for any guidance you can provide. Prof. Mc (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay in responding - life gets busy sometimes :( Obviously Stout belongs to the beer project and I have no argument with that. But I took the project tag off Stout (disambiguation) because I believe that most pages should belong to only one project - otherwise we get into fights when one project says things should be done one way and another project says it should be done differently. I haven't seen this in an officially policy or guideline, so I'm prepare to proven wrong. If it doesn't exist then perhaps it could be brought up at one of the policy talk pages so that a guideline could be added to say yah or nay.  Stepho  talk  00:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. My only concern is that there are plenty of other disambiguation pages that are tagged by multiple projects. In that sense you are correct, nobody "owns" any of them. The only purpose to keeping the disambiguation pages tagged is so that the beer folks have a sense of what's out there that relates to our project. I suppose it ought to be an all-or-none thing. Prof. Mc (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I've asked the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Can disambiguation pages be tagged for one or more projects. Perhaps wiser heads might be able to help. Please feel free to join in.  Stepho  talk  07:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

soarer[edit]

The U.S lexus sc400 is actually oficially designated UZZ30L. The L differentiates the JDM and USDM models. Therefore referring to U.S Sc400 as UZZ30 with no L is incorrect and does not make sense. You need to have a look at U.S eBay Motors and bring up a few SCs listings with pics of their Compliance plates. Same for JZZ31 and JZZ31L. Over to you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1kulture (talkcontribs) 12:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is for jzz31L but same for us uzz30 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lexus-SC-SPORT-COUPE-1992-LEXUS-SC300-PREMIUM-SPORTS-CAR-IN-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-INSIDE-AND-OUT-NO-/351083378179?forcerrptr=true&hash=item51be333603&item=351083378179&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

So you want to delete that parenthesis mention of uzz30 referring to u.s sc400 or throw the L back in there. Cheers

This is for jzz31L but same for us uzz30 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lexus-SC-SPORT-COUPE-1992-LEXUS-SC300-PREMIUM-SPORTS-CAR-IN-EXCELLENT-CONDITION-INSIDE-AND-OUT-NO-/351083378179?forcerrptr=true&hash=item51be333603&item=351083378179&pt=US_Cars_Trucks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1kulture (talkcontribs) 12:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! In UZZ30L the L means LHD, not US (and definitely not USDM because that only applies to vehicles both made and sold in the US, not vehicles made in Japan). I've been collecting Toyota technical material for the last 15 years and have listed a lot of the chassis codes at http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/ (look in the production data sections). There is a clear pattern that LHD vehicles have an L just after the numbers . RHD vehicles either have no letter or an R. Then there is a dash followed by the various build options such as engine type, transmission, trim level and finally the destination market - blank for Japan (RHD), A for the US (LHD), K for Canada (LHD), Q for my country of Australia (RHD) W for Europe (mostly LHD but UK is RHD).
The US ebay link says VIN JT8JZ31C4N0007995 - with no L. And US style VIN often doesn't exact match the chassis code anyway (in this case it dropped one of the Z's).  Stepho  talk  23:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lexus RC may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • coupe RC F |publisher=Lexus |location=Japan |language=Japanese |date= |accessdate=2014-06-09}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed  Stepho  talk  01:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AE86[edit]

Thanks. Was a bit unsure on how to add BHP to the mix. Hayato (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for pointing out the problem - there are a lot of articles that confuse JIS hp (ie PS) with bhp.  Stepho  talk  21:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
God knows. I used to try to work around it but have given up and now I just write "PS" everywhere, even though it looks odd in my eyes.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Toyota Sienna Production Dates[edit]

This is a really old edit, so I hope this doesn't come across as nitpicking. I guess that when you edited this page from the frivolous U.S. model year-based "production dates", the Sienna was rather foreign to you then (U.S. model) and you didn't realize that for Generation 2, 2004 was incorrect and that it was unveiled on January 6, 2003. You did thankfully also correct Gen. 1 from 1998 to 1997, but mysteriously added "Dec" to 2003.

I understand that some of this absurd U.S/ model year nonsense can be confusing (especially when listed as a production date), so I've done some research. This IP carelessly changed the original date to the 2004 NAIAS on June 26, 2009 from January 2003 NAIAS, which was 8-12 months before you edited. I have found that it was December 20, 2002 when Gen 1 production ended (started August 1997) and January 2003 start-up for the 2004 model. It's interesting how you came up with both December and January as the correct months, despite all that confusion. Good job, despite that IP editor muddling up the article. I am pointing this out, as we need to be careful with mistaking incorrect information in an article, as fact while editing and/or adding to it. It can rather waste our own good efforts, if a vandal tampers with an article undetected and leads us in the wrong direction to further muddle it up.––––Carmaker1 (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the hard work in getting the exact dates! I was baffled from the conflicting information I found online and the Wikipedia article for Toyota Sienna last week when I created the page Toyota K platform. I couldn't be bothered spending more time with silly dates to pander to the USA's obsession with model years so I relied on Wikipedia as gospel (now fixed [2]). Anyway, between us, we have corrected the dates and platform errors that existed (most sources online say the Camry and it's derivates use the Toyota MC platform which is totally wrong). OSX (talkcontributions) 11:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
To tell the truth, I don't remember those edits from 2010. Usually if I know the date myself then I add the reference directly to the infobox production field. More than likely I copied Jan 2004 from what somebody put in the main body text beforehand. And Dec 2003 looks like a guess at one month before Jan 2004 - I honestly can't remember. I prefer direct references instead of educated guesses by counting backwards/forwards from other known dates but sometimes we play with what we were dealt with and make the best of it :) Something to note though is the US model year 2004 can go from Jan 2003 to Dec 2014 if the manufacturer chooses - which makes like hard for us.  Stepho  talk  09:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Nissan Sunny[edit]

You're absolutely right, I was confused with the cab version.

I saw the picture of the C20 in the same section there, and jumped to the conclusion that it was the model the text was referring to. I should have read the whole thing before doing an edit, but honestly, I think that picture should be removed (or perhaps moved to a new subsection created for it) to avoid further confusion. It's closer to the text about the coupe ute than the text about itself, and there isn't a picture of the ute at all.

-TBustah 09:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My first car was a B110 Datsun 1200 ute, so I found out a fair bit of history on them, including the B10 Datsun 1000 ute that preceded it - I also had a string of 1000/1200 vans, sedans and coupes before I swapped to Toyotas. Anyway, when I first saw the change I thought "that's a bad change". Then I looked at the picture and thought "fair enough, he's got a point". Then I thought again, did some googling to confirm my often faulty memory and thought "that picture is confusing everybody". We got there in the end :)  Stepho  talk  21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toyota Tacoma may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{anchor{Baja}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed  Stepho  talk  00:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

use of bold in a lead[edit]

Hi Stepho-wrs, please read WP:MOS, only the article name is allowed in bold, all other bold is forbidden in the lead. if the redirect is the reason for EREV and BEVx then the article should have sections on both to allow inclusion in the lead. (the lead is a representation of the sections under it).Now for long time editors (i have 25k edits) we dont revert on AGF but on arguments (aldo its appreciated), MUST is not an argument, i think. We have a MOS so all layouts are uniform. If you have other arguments i would be happy to hear them. Cheers Mion (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mion. I should have pointed you to the WP:R#PLA and MOS:BOLD guides that supported my point. Redirects are effectively alternative article titles and therefore they should be in bold. WP:BRD says I get one revert for free (assuming I think it improves the article, which I do) and after that we discuss if there is still disagreement - we are discussing now. According to Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits, you have 17420. I have slightly less at 14,920 but I tend to bunch all my edits up into one edit session. So we've both been here long enough to know the steps but there's always room to learn something else (for both of us).  Stepho  talk  23:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hoi :) WP:R#PLA : Density of water redirects to Properties of water. There's no need to insert a bolded density of water sentence in the lead section; it is a minor subtopic of the article, now i wasn't aware of WP:R#PLA but still, i do see your point that it should be mentioned, i think it would be better to move the added text to its own section,title EREV-BEVx and based on that a short summary can be included in the lead EREV and BEVx are platforms with range extenders. (and use bold). The problem like with density of water is still valid. A range extender is a device to extend the range, (apple) EREV and BEVx) are platforms that contain such device (pear), WP:R#PLA states that pears dont belong in a lead :), aldo not relevant for this discussion, for edit counts, global count works, 11k on the nl wiki. Cheers Mion (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

RM notice[edit]

FYI: Pointer to discussion that may be relevant to you.

A requested moves discussion in which you participated in Dec. 2013 has been reopened, at Talk:Mustang horse#Alternative proposal.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

List of automotive superlatives[edit]

Hi Stepho - I have been browsing through the list and found a number of cars that don't seem to qualify - ie Koenigsegg One:1 (less than 20 made), Caparo T1, Hennessey Venom GT and the like. Can you take a look to confirm my thinking before I roll them back. NealeFamily (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you but you will have to make sure that the criteria is made clear in the article - eg 30 road legal cars built (as required by Guinness world records). Otherwise there will be endless debates on what is allowed and what isn't.  Stepho  talk  22:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll check out each one as I go. NealeFamily (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for giving me a heads up about the Infobox. I really appreciate it. JMB86 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome.  Stepho  talk  20:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Indian currency[edit]

Hello

Thanks for your feedback. I agree that Crore is not familiar to non-Indian readers, however, million is not very familiar to the Indian audience either. So i would edit it to include both. Hope thats fine with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metilda Benedict (talkcontribs) 06:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Again the lead pic for the electric car article[edit]

BMW i3 charging at an Autolib' carsharing station in Paris. The car in front is a Bolloré Bluecar, also an electric car

Hi Stepho. I have kept looking every week at Flickr! for a picture that screams electric without success. The problem with the current (Smart ED) and previous (REVAi) images is that they show small boxy electric cars, reinforcing the idea that EVs are golf cars. Today there are several EVs designed from the ground to run as electric car, the Model S and BMW i3 are the first to come to mind. So, I have concentrated on these two, and the one I added, is the closest to the guideline you set. I would like your opinion, and if not good enough, I will appreciate if you can drop by from time to time to the Commons to check for the latest pics of these two cars, and also the Zoe and the Leaf. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

At first glance it looks like a car parked between two concrete bollards. It takes a closer look to notice the blue charging cable.  Stepho  talk  22:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your honest opinion. I appreciated, and keep looking.--Mariordo (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I just wish I could be more positive :)  Stepho  talk  23:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
What about this one (1) (it can be uploaded in the Commons). It is similar to the existing one but much better quality. Perhaps some trimming? --Mariordo (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
PS: These two are similar and already in the commons (2), (3).--Mariordo (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I like those (subject to a little trimming, etc). All are modern cars, with bright yellow charging cords. The long line of Smart cars going into the distance has an artistic flair that I like too. Of course, the Americans might complain about it being a small, unknown car (unknown to them anyway) but I'm all for this.  Stepho  talk  10:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

please refrain from editing my comments in line with WP:TPO[edit]

Hello Stepho-wrs,

You edited my comment about ENGVAR on the wikiproject videogames discussion with the edit summary "Fixing sudden change from : to * for indenting - no change to actual comments. Please keep to the same style that the discussion started with". I think it is annoying that you edited my comment and I think it's against the spirit of WP:TPO; there was nothing incorrect about the way I formatted my comment. I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, I was making a new point, and there is no rule that everyone has to use bullets or nobody can use bullets. So maybe in the future it would be better to kindly ask people on their talk page to reformat my comment if you think it's warranted. Indeed, WP:TPO suggests this kind of collaborative approach. Thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 00:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Currency template[edit]

HI. I think I should explain why I'm still not convinced about "CN¥". It seems that was added to the Renminbi article in March by User:Jorge Stolfi. It got a cite needed, but none has been forthcoming since then. He might have more information. I couldn't say, not knowing Chinese.

Also, about the parameter bug that I mentioned on Template talk:Currency, now I see that on mw:mw:Help:Templates#Anonymous parameters it says "Note: identifying parameters by order (with {{{1}}}, etc) works only with anonymous parameters. If your page identifies any parameter by number or name, as shown below, this method will no longer be available to the template which receives them." So maybe it's not allowed to mix default and named parameters. I know very about that either, but it seems like a possibility. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I did not invent the "CN¥" symbol, but I do not recall where it came from. I edited two or three articles simultaneously at the time including renminbi and yuan. The symbol and its description may have come from one of those other pages. If no one can provide a significant source, it should be deleted. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jorge Stolfi: Thanks. I would be fine with leaving it up for a while longer, because in my experience things like this are usually true. But if we can't find a cite, maybe we should move it to the talk page and somebody might see it there. Unfortunately this is hard to search for on Google because to Google a character like ¥ is just a delimiter. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Toyota 4Runner[edit]

I realised what i've typed was unfair. So i've checked as many toyota country websites and related websites as I could. And the 4Runner doesn't appear in country websites such as Japan's, Pakistan's, and Brazils. And doesn't appear in any Toyota or affiliated website outside North and South America. Seqqis (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rimac Concept One[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edit on Rimac Concept One but the figures were obtained straight from the Rimac's website[3] which very clearly gives everything in metric. It's obvious that the existing primary U.S sources for that article distorted the original figures when the units were converted from metric to imperial and thus introduced a certain degree of false precision. For instance, 310 miles when re-converted back to metric gives 499 km and not the exact 500 km as stated by the manufacturer[4] in their press release. The same goes for that 304km/h (305km/h according to manufacturer) which was converted from 189mph and '0-97km/h' which should actually be '0-100km/h' as given by Rimac.

The first paragraph also states "With a total output of 1,088 hp, an acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h in 2.8 seconds" but the values present in the 'Specifications' section are misleading and inaccurate since they were converted back from imperial. Wouldn't it be better if official sources were used instead of relying on 3rd party references? After all, this is not an American car and metric units should be used in {{convert}} tags according to WP:UNIT. Yowanvista (talk)

It's better to keep the conversation in one place, so I've answered where we started on your talk page.  Stepho  talk  09:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toyota iQ may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20120223233351/http://astonmartin.com/cars/cygnet | Aston Martin Cygnet](U.S. Archive)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed  Stepho  talk  07:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Australian motorsport vehicles[edit]

There is a discussion at WikiProject Motorsport you may or may not have an opinion on. V7867 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.  Stepho  talk  21:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

GM Viva[edit]

You have no supporting evidence yourself regarding the Chevrolet Spark even if GM own the company.

If you look at MY blog post concerning the Suzuki Celerio launched in India, you will see the very strong similarities between the two.

http://www.treasurepen.com/the-hopes-of-a-new-viva-or-just-another-suzuki-alto/

Based on that evidence alone, can you now say that there is enough evidence to support that the Viva will be based on the Suzuki and not Chevrolet?

Above was added by Beingcorrect (talk · contribs), 16 November 2014

Well, on the one hand we have a proper news report by a professional journalist ( "Vauxhall Viva reborn for 2015". 20 May 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2014.  ) stating that the Viva is based on the Spark and the report contains many intimate details. On the other hand we an amateur's blog saying the pics look similar and offers no details. The pics do look similar but so do pics of almost any micro car from recent years. The rear corners are quite differ in proportion and shape around the C pillar and around the wheels (look at the crease lines). Whereas your right hand image matches the Spark almost exactly. I'm afraid the onus is on you to provide a more concrete source for your claims. By the way, forums and self made blogs are not allowed as references and original research is also not allowed (WP:OR), so you need to look for professional sources.  Stepho  talk  22:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove link to http://www.grcdi.nl/gsb/summary_%20date_time%20format.html[edit]

Hi,

You removed a link to my page at http://www.grcdi.nl/gsb/summary_%20date_time%20format.html with the message:

"Revert. That website makes no mention of its sources, is self published and is not authoritative in itself."

I admit to not knowing exactly what Wikipedia allows in its edits, though this is the first time a change I've made has been reverted. May I ask you:

1) "is self published" - well, every site is self-published. Even sites created by governments are researched by human beings. The page concerned is from a resource which I have researched for 21 years and is used by governments, organisations and companies alike for information. 2) "not authoritative in itself" - fair enough, though date and time format use is culturally and not centrally defined. It's an additional resource, provided free, which Wikipedia users may find useful. It is also a summary page - each country chapter contains the data and time formats information, sometimes in greater detail. Are links to pages providing additional resources not allowed? 3) "makes not mention of its sources" - no, true, I don't - otherwise the resources data would be longer that the informations pages - and I'm not Wikipedia!

I'm not criticising your decision as such - dates and time formats are a subsidiary part of my resource which concentrates more on postal code and address formats - but I am curious for some clarification of your policy/decision.

Cheers!

Graham Rhind

Hi Graham,
Thanks for politely asking for an explanation.
By 'self published', we mean an individual, as opposed to a government or a large company. The main difference is that a large organisation is likely to publish things that have been double checked for correctness to a level that would satisfy their lawyers to not get them sued. For personal websites, we have no way of knowing whether they are the gospel truth or just the rantings of mad men. Wikipedia can report only things that can be verified, so personal websites are ruled out as unverifiable. Exceptions are allowed for the websites of well-known experts in a given field but lesser-known experts sadly miss out. This is detailed in WP:Verifiability.
But there is some good news. Since you have studied the subject for so long, you should have many references to authoritative sources (e.g. government publications). These should be able to support your claims and would not be rejected.
By the way, on Wikipedia talk pages we can sign our messages by adding ~~~~ to the end. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  13:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Just for the record I make my living providing data, so it's pushing it somewhat to call it a "personal website". And the verifiability rule creates something of a Catch 22 situation if rigorously applied! In any case I'll accept that I'm just a lesser expert when it comes to this topic and withdraw gracefully ;-) Grahamrhind (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Pontiac g8[edit]

Why did u delete the pontiac g8 page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B107:F063:2465:A6A4:2826:B8E6 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete the Pontiac G8 page. Could you provide more details of whatever you think I did?  Stepho  talk  21:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

in reference to "Faun" entry... for your consideration[edit]

Hi there. Hope all is well. The "bot" used to edit "Faun" was last used by you so (I think??? I don't really get the whole "bot" thing... Sorry) I am hoping you might be able to assist me.

I was reading through the info on fauns and in the reference to literature and film I was surprised that the book The Circus of Dr. Lao by Charles Finney, the American classic film The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao with an amazinging performances by Tony Randall and the enchanting Fantasia which amongst its tales features Bacus/Pan (a faun) were not listed.

I have never been so compelled to address anything here so much as these simple facts which I sincerely believe should be included for reference.

I really do hope you might consider adding these to the "faun" section as all 3 are wonderful and true examples of the mythic creature.

Thank you for your consideration. Have a happy! :) Mettapax — Preceding unsigned comment added by MettaPax (talkcontribs) 14:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. I don't control any bots, I have never edited the Faun article and I know practically nothing about the mythology Fauns. Perhaps you can go to its talk page (Talk:Faun) and ask your question there. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  22:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Toyota Model Code[edit]

I claim no expertise - I am happy to contribute because I have just bought an old LHD Hilux Double Cab Pickup, which has UK government provenance.

The model code is LN165L-PRMSXW The columns described on the page for 1977 to present include two (optional) ones which may be confusing me about positioning. The M, X and W are consistent with the Meanings given on the page for Transmission, Engine Class, and Market. So R seems to be in the position for Body Type. But then P for Model Name seems wrong. Or is it possible that the P is the Body Type and there is an optional field after this? In which case what does the R mean?

Do you know what the Grade field Meanings are? There is currently nothing for them on the

P.S. The Plate has the VIN, this Model Code, various weight indicators, and two further lines. One is above the VIN, with format XXX X999. The other is below the Model Code, is labelled O/TR/A/TM and has format 9X9XX99X99XX99 Do you what they are called and how one can decode them?

Many thanks, Zsalya (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Toyota codes for commercial vehicles tend to have more fields than passenger cars and I have only decoded a few of these extra fields. The extra fields also seem to differ depending on which vehicle we are looking at - ie Hiace codes mean slightly different things than Hilux codes. And some fields disappear (in this case 'model type' has been skipped). Anyway, the P seems to be the body type for either double cab or 4 doors (which on the Hilux mean the same thing). I think the R is something to do with the number of seats. On the Hiace, R seems to mean seating for 3/6 people, so might have something to do with bench seats, rather than bucket seats - still working my way through this field. M means 5-speed manual, X means SR5 grade, X means diesel turbo, W means European market. Is it legal for you to have a LHD vehicle in the UK?  Stepho  talk  23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Toyota Stout information[edit]

I found your Toyota Stout page. It has a ton of good information. I have two stouts but I am only restoring one of them. I have been tracking down Stout literature (english). Here is what I have in my collection, If you are looking for information, I might be able to help.

Toyota Stout Parts Manuals

93349-64 - RK40-J, RK40 - This one has not arrived yet. The owner said it has additions in the back for the 65 model. 93351-64 - RK40, RK41, RK41L - 93336-68 - RK43, RK43L 93377-65 - RK43, RK43L No number - RK45, RK100 - This manual does not have a part number - 1964 93379-65 - RK100, RK100L, RK101-J 93332-67 - RK101-J, RK101L-J

Toyota Stout/Lite Stout Repair Manual - RK41 and RK41L Toyopet Stout repair manual - RK45, RK100 RK110 repair manual Toyota Stout owners manual - USA I think they were the same in international markets.

Manuals I am looking for include RK47 or any of the four door, van, wagon, etc. I don't even know if they exist. I collect odd Toyota literature.

Thanks Clint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustyra24 (talkcontribs) 20:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Clint! No time to answer properly now but here is a list of the Toyota literature I own:
http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/data.htm
Will answer more fully later on.  Stepho  talk  23:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I made an edit close to the broken link, but did not actually provide this link myself. Anyways, I updated the relevant section today, and removed that obsolete link

regards, markus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusaachen (talkcontribs) 15:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

mazda mx-5 page[edit]

Hi,

half of the links on mazda mx-5 are dead. I will update some of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusaachen (talkcontribs) 17:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. archive.org is useful for this.  Stepho  talk  21:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Morris Cowley[edit]

Hi Stepho. I've just inserted three Infoboxes automobile engine in a row on this page. Done to avoid a lot of white space and because they are variations on the one design. Do you think this kind of arrangement of infoboxes is a good thing? Happy New Year, Eddaido (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I think making a simple table would be a lot better. A lot of boring coding involved, but the end result should be considerably more elegant. Cheers, lots of very useful info there I am sure.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, tricky one. I do like templates but in this case they just aren't easy to read. Even if we make the 3 infoboxes line up neatly after the main infobox (ie all start on the same line), the individual entries within each infobox get out of alignment. Therefor, Mr Choppers suggestion of a table seems the only realistic way to go. Plenty of examples to copy from (ge Toyota Supra).  Stepho  talk  08:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Date format (again)[edit]

First, I am going to try to put this discussion back where I started it, rather than hide it where no one will see it, which you personally feel is appropriate.

At HEMTT I just posted six refs using a human date format. EDIT: This is the format used by the source, US Army documents. I intend to post more. There were three, one dead, there. I would appreciate it if you changed the them back. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I shifted your comment from my talk page to here. Much better to have a discussion in a single place instead of in two disjoint places.
MOS:DATEFORMAT says that reference dates are allowed to be in the yyyy-mm-dd format. References should use a single, consistent format. That format does not have to be the same as the format used in the source material (i.e. does not need to correspond to the format used by the army). This must be true because how can we have a consistent date format if we use references from multiple sources that use different formats.
WP:CITEVAR says that citation styles (including the date format) should not be changed according to editor preference. Instead, the first editor gets to choose from the legal formats (which includes yyyy-mm-dd) and future editors should respect his choice. In our case, previous editors had made the majority of references in yyyy-mm-dd format, so therefore we should use that same format for new references.
It is possible to change the format but only by gaining consensus on the article talk page to change it. Note that consensus requires a clear majority in support of the change - a deadlocked discussion means no change. Stepho talk 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. The correct answer is "Good point, I'll change them back". No wonder you don't want this on your talk page. Sammy D III (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, feel free to start drumming up some consensus on the the talk page. Stepho talk 05:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Let me understand your reasoning.

On 22 December 2005 the Army.mil site link was posted as an External link with no date. That editor’s last post was on 27 September 2006.

On 25 March 2007 the now dead Oshkosh site was posted as an External link with no date by an IP, their last post. That site is still up.

On 4 January 2010 the OD link was posted in a simple form with no date.

On 21 May 2010 these 2 External links and one simple ref were changed to refs with Machine date format. That editor’s last post was 11 Jul 2010.

Because of one long gone editor’s choice in 2010 this machine code date format is locked in. So my 6 good current refs, plus the others I was going to post, with a human date format consistent with the sources, have to be done in machine code?

The correct answer still is "Good point, I'll change them back". Sammy D III (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have a problem continuing a conversation on the same talk page that it started on. But since you have a bee in your bonnet about it we can continue here. Just as long as it's in one place and not scattered across multiple pages. I've relinked MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:CITEVAR above and suggest you read both of them.
Yes, one long-gone editor's choice back in 2010 dictates the default choice. A scenario that happened a lot in the early days of Wikipedia is that a Brit would make a page with references like 27 Jan 2006. Then a Yank would think it is wrong and change it to Jan 27, 2006. Then a Brit would change it back to 27 Jan 2006. Then a Yank would change it again. And so on. Lot's of time and effort wasted. It also made it hard to to keep track of real changes to the content because the page was forever changing in trivial details like the date. A similar thing happened for British spelling vs American spelling that is detailed at WP:ENGVAR. So the solution was for the first major contributor to get the choice and for other editors to respect that choice. But as I mentioned above, that choice is not locked in forever. If you can get a majority consensus on the article's talk page to change the date format then it can be changed. But be warned, a dead locked discussion means no change. This is how polite people get along with other people who have different opinions.
yyyy-mm-dd is not just a machine readable format. It is in fact the default format for many people around the world - just not for people in your neck of the woods. It is also explicitly allowed by MOS:DATEFORMAT. Just because it is not familiar to you or not favoured by you doesn't mean it isn't allowed. For instance, I think the Jan 27, 2006 format sucks raw eggs. It starts with the middle element, then goes to the smaller unit of time, then goes up to the largest unit of time. Much nicer to either go consistently from bigger to smaller (yyyy-mm-dd) or from smaller to bigger (27 Jan 2006). When I create an article I tend to use 2006-01-27 for engineering articles (including vehicles) or 27 Jan 2006 for other articles. But if an article is already locked in to Jan 27, 2006 then I continue using that format. I.e. if you want me to respect your choices then you also have to respect my choices. Isn't that what they teach us in kindergarten, to play nicely with the other children?
The date format used in the article does not have to match the date format used in the sources themselves. If I had 5 sources that used Jan 27, 2006, 4 sources that used 2006-01-27 and 8 sources that used 27 Jan 2006 then which format should we use? Remember that we only get to use one format in any given article - practically no professional publisher would mix them side by side on the same page and neither do we.
Lastly, to tell someone else that they are wrong because they don't match your personal opinion and to order them to change it is blatantly rude. The term Ugly American comes to mind but I hope I'm wrong. Anyway, you can ask others to discuss it on the talk page of the article. If enough people agree with you then we change over.  Stepho  talk  10:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Aw sepho, what are we going to do?
In the US they use mm/dd/yyyy. I have used dd/mm/yyyy because it seemed more international. It counts right, just like your machine code. Family tree programs here use it, even though it seems wrong to most people in the US. The US military, my source, the owners and users of these vehicles, uses dd/mm/yyyy. I know, as a former US Army personnel clerk, that this is because it counts right, but I can’t source this, other than personal experience.
English versions of major newspapers in the US[5], Australia[6], Brazil[7], Germany[8], Japan[9], and Mexico[10] use mm/dd/yyyy. Canada[11], England[12], India[13], Poland[14], and Spain[15] use dd/mm/yyyy. China[16] and France[17] use yyyy/mm/dd. Russia[18] uses dd/mm, I couldn’t find a date with a year.
I think that if I followed your links (I don’t) I would find that they are guidelines, open to interpretation, not carved in stone as you present them.
None of that really matters, though, does it? The bottom line is that your attitude towards the only person to post a link there in years chased him away. Seven refs, all solid, six of them good current links. Plus any other improvements that may have been made.
You don’t want me here, my talk page is a wasteland, so I am going to try something else, so your friends can see how you have kept this article safe from my edits.
The correct answer still is "Good point, I'll change them back". Now it should include “Sorry I put you through this chickenshit”. Sammy D III (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The correct answer is to go to the article's talk page (talk:Heavy_Expanded_Mobility_Tactical_Truck) and open a discussion. If your idea has merit and gains consensus then the date format will be changed. It would also help if you read those links I gave you so that you know how we deal with conflicting ideals at Wikipedia.
Alternatively, you can cry that the wicked Australia isn't automatically following the whims of the American, refuse to read the Wikipedia policies, refuse to acknowledge the reasoning and historical background that was patiently explained to you, order me to do things your way, and remove your own good work in a hissy fit.
Start the discussion on the article's talk page. If we don't get enough editor's involved then we can ask for more contributors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. And if you are still dissatisfied then I'll show you how to call in an administrator to judge whether I have done you wrong - but I'll only call one in if you at least start the discuss on the article's talk page.  Stepho  talk  03:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

GM Streetcar Page[edit]

I've made a few changes, and would like to have some input on it, if you are able to spare the time. (I'm also wondering if there is a mechanism to notify en masse contributors to the article.)Anmccaff (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my knowledge of the subject is limited. I have only done simple formatting tasks on that article. Mass notices are normally done by mentioning it at an appropriate wiki project. Possibly Wikipedia:AUTOMOBILE - it's a bit of a stretch but people in that project are generally interested in similar things.  Stepho  talk  22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've put out the word on the "tram" project page. BTW, there's a formatting problem I have on the GM Streetcar Page' the lede has a bunch of parenthetical facts and references which I can't seem to cram into footnotes where they belong for the life of me. Any advice appreciated.Anmccaff (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Bgwhite (talk · contribs) has fixed this.  Stepho  talk  03:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting those 3 edits that I made, I have no idea why the script thinks it is a good idea to change them. I try to look out for them as much as possible but as you see some slip by. (after doing 350+ pages) Redalert2fan (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no problem.  Stepho  talk  22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tuatara comment[edit]

Hi Stepho-wrs - I noticed in your comment about the Tuatara that you said Guinness requires 15 cars for production car status - do you have an RS for that as the best source I can find says they require 50. It would be useful in the definition of a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My number was from memory and may well be wrong. I'm happy to go with your number.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks NealeFamily (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Jeep[edit]

Hello, I would like your opinion on this template, I made the template similar to other templates like Template:Toyota Motor Corporation, but user:Aoidh belives that the edit is unessesary. Even though I told the user that other templates like the one I listed is supported by other users, as no reverts to them have been made. Do you think my edit is nesessary, rather than have page be just a redirect? Seqqis (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a template that would duplicate other Jeep templates and serves no purpose other than matching Toyota in the template name, which is hardly an appropriate reason. Just because other users haven't reverted other, marginally related templates does not mean your edit is "supported". As I said on my talk page, if you want to make the change, start a discussion on a relevant talk page (Talk:Jeep or more appropriately, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles) and get a consensus for your edit, and then make the change. - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that Template:Jeep Car Timeline is quite adequate for the job. Template:Jeep is quite fine as a timeline but it is mostly duplicating the existing template. Duplicates just double the workload and should be avoided if possible. There is no convention for timelines, so making them entirely consistent is an exercise in futility. You could always suggest a common format in the automobile project conventions section but it's probably low on the list of priorities.
As for WP:redlinks, I have no problem with them. They encourage editors to add new topics or redirects as needed. The timeline should show all the appropriate vehicles, not just the vehicles that have an article.
In terms of etiquette, being bold and making a change is fine. If another editor objects then it is time to discuss it on a talk page. Simply reverting each other just makes everybody angrier.
My suggestion is to leave Template:Jeep as a redirect and to fill in all the appropriate vehicles in Template:Jeep Car Timeline, even if they are redlinks today.  Stepho  talk  05:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cab-over v. conventional[edit]

Cab-over is "normal" or "conventional" where I am from as well. However, this article is cab over and the other one is conventional truck, so perhaps if you can find some WP:VERIFY then you should propose that cab over be renamed conventional, and that conventional is moved to whatever its other name might be. Otherwise you are skating towards WP:ORIGINAL. Limegreen (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in[edit]

Hi, I too find filling refs tiresome, which is why I don't do it, and focus on adding content instead. Thankfully, WP has other editors like you willing to do some of the the work. I hope you use Wikipedia:REFILL or some other tool. I plan to include that some time when I get around to it. TGCP (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the comment. Most of the time I don't mind it when others provide content and I just tidy up the format. I was just feeling a bit tired yesterday and finding it a little hard to keep up. I appreciate the work you do in finding the content.  Stepho  talk  22:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
All good. I think of it this way - all elements are eventually needed. TGCP (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.  Stepho  talk  01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)