Talk:Fiat 500 (2007)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fiat 500 (2007) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Automobiles Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engines

Does anyone have any information about the enginees to be used in the car? I want something with a small volume but turbucharged. ;) Kerem Ozgur 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want information to help you with a buy, this is not the place; this talk is intended to help to build this article, not to discuss about the car. If you want to search for more information to add it to the article, you can check some websites like World Car Fans. -- NaBUru38 20:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thougt discussion part was a fire free zone Kerem Ozgur 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

Tomorrow, FIAT will present the new 500.
However, answering to Kerem, the new 500 will probably use the 1.1 and 1.2 FIRE gasoline engines, and the 1.3 Multijet. But in 2009 there'll be a 900cc straight-two (back to the future, uh?) with 60, 90 or even 110 hp (turbo). The 1.4 liter turbocharged (120-150hp) is an exclusive of Abarth versions.
See you tomorrow! ;)
(and, as usual, forgive my English!)
Frihtrik

July 14

Under Competition, some parts of it aren't written the way a normal encyclopedia article is written, I'll take care of that. :)

Abarth 500

The 500 Abarth are no future, it's now! --Pava (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"3 MB is no big deal"

I'm not going to get into revert wars here, but 3 MB is definitely a big deal even on broadband connections. Someone browsing over cellular would find this "no big deal" extremely annoying. Further, the animation doesn't add any actually useful content. The "neat" and "for posterity" aspect can be entirely satisfied by linking to the image page. WP:NOTPAPER but it is a web page, let's try to keep some limits of web decency. Even NOTPAPER itself notes "Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers". --99.236.241.209 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the limitations of small bandwidth connections and you are raising valid points but I don't think that we should degrade the capabilities of the online version just so people with dialup or cell phone browsers, already slow as it is, can enjoy marginally faster downloads. I don't know what broadband you are using but mine loads it quite fast. If you look around you'll see many articles with panoramic pictures of 7, 8, 11 MB or more. My browser does take some time with them but when they are fully loaded and expanded they are spectacular. No need, in my opinion, to unnecessarily restrict the medium. Anyway even at 3 MB the picture you see on the article is just a thumb. Don't click on it if you have a slow connection. That's when you will receive a larger (but still not 3 MB) preview. Clicking on the larger preview will lead you to the 3 MB version. Moral of the story? Don't click on it, while on a slow connection, and you'll be fine. Anyway that's just my opinion because I like this animated picture which instantly reminds me of the potential of an online encyclopedia versus a paper one, but if a majority of editors expresses the opposite opinion I will not object. Dr.K. logos 23:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, viewing the article as a guest, without being logged in, the image being displayed is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Fiat500Presented.gif - the full 3123.62 KB animation, 12 frames. Desktop browsers are mostly fine, but just attempting to load the article on my internet tablet caused it to seize up for a good minute trying to figure out what to do with all this data.
I am fully in support of capturing a single frame from that GIF and displaying that, with a link to the full animation - but don't dump 3 MB worth of GIF data on unsuspecting users.
haven't seen articles with 11 MB images embedded directly as opposed to click-through to full versions (which again I am fully ok with), but if I did, I'd raise the same concern. --129.97.20.154 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (same person as 99.236.241.209 above)[reply]

No, I was talking about the click-through versions, not the full size ones. As far as the Nokia tablet difficulties I guess you are touching on a matter of policy. I am not aware about the policies covering small internet devices and similar and if there are any related restrictions on GIF size. I would guess there aren't any but I don't know for sure. Best thing to do is ask at WP:VILLAGE PUMP. Dr.K. logos 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am in full absolute support of keeping the full size animated version available somewhere on the server, but including a thumbnail which still ends up being 3 MB in an article - when a text link using a relevant template which I don't know off the top of my head - would suffice. I don't know of policies, but I don't think it takes a policy to be able to tell that including a non-essential 3 MB image directly in the article is silly. (Can you tell the 3 MB really grind my gears?) Is common sense policy now? --99.236.241.209 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your frame of reference. If your objective is to maximise the performance of the browsers of small devices at the expense of regular computers this makes sense. It's a tradeoff. That's why I'll ask at the pump. Dr.K. logos 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the question here Dr.K. logos 03:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly disagree with your implication that including the full GIF in the article maximises anything for anyone using any browser. I am going to let this drop now. --99.236.241.209 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the 3 MB image with one reduced to the size used in the article. The quality in the article should be the same (possibly better, if you're using a browser that doesn't scale GIFs well) but the image size is 385 KB. Its still the largest image to download with the article, but its a lot smaller. Mr.Z-man 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Mr.Z-man for providing the solution to this problem. The Nokia tablet must be working better now. Dr.K. logos 04:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Economy?

What is the fuel economy or efficiency of the various versions? -kslays (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. It seems to be a general problem with Wiki car articles, although it's the first thing I look for. 161.11.121.245 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]