User talk:OSX


User	Talk	Sandbox	Contributions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Toyota Aurion

Ah, I noticed that you have archived your page :). Looks alot better now, cleaner. Anyway, is there anything that we can do for the Toyota Aurion article? HarrisonB - Conributions 06:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I come to think about it, we could make a mention of the limited edition Touring version ([1]). I probably wont get the chance to make any major changes until next week. Until then, the bias towards the Australian Aurion will have to remain. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the bias towards the Australian Aurion will have to remain"? The Touring SE is for the Australian market, isn't it? HarrisonB - Conributions 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was talking about the whole Asian Camry vs Aurion issue. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I will edit on it tomorrow, I am quite tired. HarrisonB - Conributions 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have added the Touring SE section with three different references. I believe that it s satisfactory, however don't hesitate to correct, edit or fix it for Wikipedia MoS. HarrisonB - Conributions 10:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OSX, future images will be in full colour, I felt something eye catching and characteristic of the car's personality would make a nice chance from the rather dull lead infobox images. I should point out that the colour of the car in the image is fairly well unchanged (to the original in Silver Ash), only the surrounding areas of the image and the contrast of the tyres and windows is altered, so the vehicle is for the most part unaltered. I did see the 6th Generation Camry shot, speaking from a photographic view point, it breaks the rules of car photography. Wrong viewpoint level, no polariser used to remove window glare and the background is not controlled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 10:33, April 20, 2008 (UTC)

Not available from 14-11-07 to 16-11-07

Hello OSX, I will not be available to edit for the next couple of days due to being on a school camp. Hopefully the Toyota Aurion article will not pass for GA at this time ;) Anyway, feel free to leave comments but I will not be able to answer them until Friday night on the 16^th. Kudos HarrisonB - Conributions 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Oh my god, it passed :) Thanks OSX for all of your help to bring the Aurion article to GA. Kudos HarrisonB - Conributions 08:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GETRAG --> Getrag

I came across this today after the post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, and noticed your sensible edit was reverted. There's now the small mess of Category:Getrag transmissions and Category:GETRAG transmissions both existing, as well as the associated articles. If you're concerned enough to want to have another go at this I'll help you out. Two users talking to the editor in question instead of one will probably work better, and besides, apart from the basic copy/paste fixes, I think there's copy/paste page moves which need undone with admin assistance (see [2]). ---- DeLarge (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Acronyms as Registered Trademarks, GETRAG/Getrag

Please see Manual of Style (trademarks)discussion regarding issues such as GETRAG and SAAB, which are capitalized registered acronym trademarks, but are not strict acronyms. I'm starting a discussion to modify the manual to address the issue of these names. Too many people disagree, and it appears you have some interest in participating. BTW - I'm sorry about making such a mess of the above mentioned article :-/ . Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Images

Sure. Sorry it took a while to get back to you. HarrisonB - Conributions 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Laser

Regarding the Aussie Cars portal, would you say that this car could be included in the 'group'? HarrisonB - Conributions 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No because it is really a Japanese car that was made here, so it's hardly "Australian". That would be like saying the Mercedes-Benz M-Class article could be apart of the "American cars portal" because it is built there. For the "Australian cars portal" I think the vehicles should actually be "Australian". With a little bit more work however, the Ford EL Falcon article could make GA status. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but as you said it was built here and is considered an Australian car. HarrisonB - Conributions 04:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New pics are coming

I have aquired a new digital camera so there will be some good pictures coming in. Check harrison's talk page for two pictures I have already added. Also my family is getting a brand new 2007 Holden VE Commodore SS and there will be many good pictures coming through from this car. If you want any picutres of my car please tell me.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good-o. I spent a while trying to photograph one of the VE sports models, but only recently got the opportunity to photograph and upload this one Image:2006-2007 Holden VE Commodore SV6 01.jpg, which does not look very good from the thumbnail. When you do get around to photographing your SS, do it outside on an overcast day, in my opinion, those kind of days produce the best looking car images. I look forward to seeing lots of new images from you, but make sure you upload them to the Commons and use a descriptive file name (see: User talk:HarrisonB/Archive2007/November#Images). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still maybe about two weeks until we get the new commodore. The colour black is highly sought after, it is so rare that the moment it rolls off the production line in south Australia it will already be purchased.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holden

I will try to give it a look, but it will probably be another 36 hours or so before I can comb my way through the entire thing. — TKD::Talk 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worked through the 1960s. I'll try to finish after work tonight (UTC-5 time). — TKD::Talk 10:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done part of it and will finish up sometime today. Dylan (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cheers to you both. I really appreciate your work. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still working through; unfortunately, I've been a bit busy in real life. Thanks for double-checking my work. I often cut a lot of perceived redundancy on my first pass, and sometimes err a little too much. Plus, automotive matters are not my most familiar topic. :) — TKD::Talk 10:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done finally working through the entire article. — TKD::Talk 11:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! — TKD::Talk 13:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! I appreciate it. Dylan 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OSX, I have a few suggestions on this article. I won't have time in the next couple of weeks as work pressure is taking all of my energy (this is written while waiting for the coffee to cool !). After my experience with the FAC for Trams in Adelaide earlier this year I think what is most needed is strategic distance as anyone who is as close as you are to the article may not see the forest for the trees. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a has some very good tips, particularly those on redundancy and the value of strategic distance. I'll see if I can get some time this weekend for a full look through but not promising anything. Perhaps you're best to work on something else for a while then come back to this with fresh eyes ? Peripitus (Talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good news

I have finally got my SS and the pictures will start coming through, also my focus on Wikipedia is changing to pictures although I maybe only adding 2 - 3 in a two week period the pictures will still be very much need for what ever article they are in. Just check my contributions for what pictures I have added. Also have brought foward a potential problem with the VE Commodore article, I have adressed the problem on the articles talk page.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also devoting myself to adding news articles to the Australian Cars portal. Also I will be on vacation for two weeks in the start of January (Check my userpage for more info on my vacation). I will be changing the news articles once a week, maybe twice a week.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

HarrisonB - Conributions 04:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OSX, I've non-wiki'd Harrison's Christmas Card for now because (you might have noticed when your above "Thanks" note failed to show up) it's causing problems with the pages and causing messages left after it to be hidden or something. Cheers, Sarah 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

An IP user keeps editing the Toyota Aurion article and changing it to say that it is a full-size car, when a consensus was reached to classify it as a mid-size car. I know that the user comes Jakarta, Indonesia because I used the IP tracing tool, but each time he/she edits the page they use a different IP address (I have had to revert at least ten times). This means that I can't even try to talk to them about it on their talk page. Would it be possible to lock the article from being edited by IP users to stop this from happening in the future? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Requests for Page protection is used for getting pages 'locked' (stop either IPs/new users from editing or all users below admin). I would not recommend placing a request there, as the changes are not frequent enough. If it becomes more frequent, you could place a request there. Remember not to break the three revert rule. Thanks, Tiddly-Tom 09:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but how am I supposed to restore the article without breaking the three revert rule? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets to the point where there are three reverts in a day, take it to WP:RPP. If I were you, I would write something on the talk page about it, citing the consensus reached. If you have to revert again, in your edit summery write something along the lines of Please see talk page for discussion before reinstating edit Tiddly-Tom 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian cars Portal

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Category:Australian cars Portal. The reason is:

a newly created category isn't speedy deletable because it's empty; CSD C1 requires that it be empty for 4 days. Give it a chance.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedit request

On 8 October 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Holden Commodore. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN

Hi OSX, long time no see. Do you know where the ISBN is located in Wheels magazine? HarrisonB - Talk 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN numbers are used specifically for books, but some publications similar to Wheels magazine hold an ISSN number, but I unsure what this looks like. It could be the barcode on the cover, but I can't confirm this. It is most probable that Wheels magazine does not have a publication I.D. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACID

I need you to vote in support for the Ford Falcon article in Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. I am sure that you would agree that this article is in need to become FA status not just for the fact that it is a very important Australian car but for the portal's sake too. Thanks HarrisonB - Talk 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daewoo Kalos "generation" discussion

Would you consider giving your feedback on the discussion happening at Talk:Daewoo Kalos? Your advice and council would be most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... conceptually I wonder if that whole list under T200 doesn't actually belong under both... since T250 dash and skin were "all" that changed?

842U (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crewman redirect

Hey, could you please check out the discussion page for the Holden Crewman, regarding your recent edit to that page. Thanks Tinkstar1985 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Ute

Hi OSX, in your recent edit you removed the whole paragraph concerning the VE Ute. Any particular reason for this? Thanks, --328cia (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right I did too. Thanks for pointing that out, as I didn't even realise I had done so. I've fixed it now. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BA Falcon image

You may want to edit your BA Mk2 Falcon image (Image:2004-2005 Ford BAII Falcon XT 01.jpg) and cover the number plate. Someone could use that to get your details. Mister macphisto (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving things about

No problem. Infact you were lucky to catch me because I've been very busy lately and not had much time for Wikipedia. I've never heard of the Daewoo Royale and a google search brings up only 2310 results. There are several sources that indicate that it's not a hoax though. Perhaps this article won't be anything more than a stub although I'm sure someone who owns/owned one will eventually expand the article. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 10:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there were two different Royales, the first Opel Rekord D-based (1977-1982) (http://www.autoreview.ru/new_site/year2002/n23/seoul/1.htm , bottom of page) and the later car based on the Rekord E (or maybe the Commodore C; but as the Royale only had four cylinder engines, I doubt they used the longer Commo front clip). Also, I doubt that the Royale had any Holden genes; if you take a look at available data (carfolio.com for instance), you´ll note that the engines seem to be Opel engines). No "hard" sources for all of that, though, only web sources. Regards, --328cia (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: http://galeon.hispavista.com/clubdaewooracerchile/album1001591.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 328cia (talk • contribs) 11:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded and referenced the article based on the information you've given me. You wouldn't happen to know anything about the Daewoo Prince would you? Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 12:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you´re really fast! The only reliable thing about the Prince I could find is an entry in Automobile Revue, catalogue edition 1995, p. 224: "Four-door saloon based on the former Opel Rekord E, with Opel Senator body and 2 liter engine. Debuted in 1993." Actually, it doesn´t look like a Senator at all, although it has a 6-window glasshouse. http://daewoo.pro-motors.ru/car-1115.htm , http://asiaauto.ru/index.php?name=Catalog&op=SMIP&m_1c=86. Nobody seems to know much about these cars, and unfortunately there are no entries on them in the Korean WP, either. I´ll add a data table on the Prince page later. Regards, --328cia (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been away for a week and catching up now with what has been going on on wp in the meantime. Please let me say that I greatly appreciate your work on Australian cars! I do have a knack for them although, being German, I won´t ever set eyes on one, sadly. Cheers, --328cia (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment 328cia. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Done, done and done. The old title is used throughout the Toyota Kluger article but I don't have much time right now so I can't fix it. I will get around to it fairly soon (next week) however if it isn't done. already checked for double redirects and changed the lead sentence of each article though. James086^{Talk | Email} 01:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've fixed up the remaining "Highlander" titles that should have been "Kluger". OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tags

I noticed you tagged Image:Mitsubishi 9th gen lancer.jpg by transcluding {{copyvio}}. I've removed the tag because it's the wrong tag and the linked page appeared to have been created after the 2006 upload of the image. For future reference, the tag you wanted is {{imagevio}}, which is transcluded. {{copyvio}} is for articles where it is used by replacing the entire article with the template and due to recent changes must now always be substituted. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full-size image can be found here or by clicking the thumbnail on the original webpage. By the way, just because the article the article is titled "2008 Mitsubishi Lancer" doesn't mean that it was published in 2008. In fact it was published before the image was uploaded talking about the upcoming 2008 Lancer. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busy

Sorry but I can not help you with the Holden article primarily due to the fact that I have been very busy lately with my last year of high school.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the Holden article is featured now anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the Holden Barina Safety Ratings

Do you really think it's NPOV to take once source of safety ratings and pump it through the article? Your POINT is less than transparent, and somewhat... er... biased, perhaps? 842U (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not POV doing this, because all I did was disperse the information already in the "Safety" section and place it under the correct model sections. How is this POV? The same thing is done on the Holden Commodore article, and that is listed as a good article. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Camry

The Toyota Camry is a car sold in America, the Toyota Scepter is the car made identical to the Camry in America, but sold in Japan. The Toyota Camry was made in America and sold in America. The Toyota Scepter is made and sold in Japan. If anything the Toyota Scepter should be redirected into the 3rd generation Camry section on the older revision of the Toyota Camry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camryluvr (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles states that articles should bear the name used in the original country, which is Japan in this case. Yes, the V20, XV10, XV20, XV30 and XV40 Camrys have all been manufactured in the United States and Australia; every Camry model has been produced in Japan. That comprises of the Celica Camry, V10, V30 and V40 models not produced in either Australia or the Unites States, and the XV10 Scepter. So with this information at hand, it is beyond doubt that Japan is the original market. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Toyota Scepter was the 3rd generation(1992-1996) Camry that was made in the United States and can't be used for all the Camrys made in the United States because there are more models than just the 3rd Generation years. We could make two different pages for the Camry, one for the Japanese Camry and another for the one made in America. Also, if you look at the Toyota Scepter ads their slogan is "The Camry from The States".Camryluvr (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Scepter wagon was made in the United States. The Scepter sedan was manufactured in Tsutsumi, Japan, and both were designed in Japan. The only thing "American" about the Scepter Camry is the name and factory where the cars came from. The car itself is Japanese, and thus the Japanese naming system should be used as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles guidelines. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the "Toyota Camry (US Version)" article alone. It is not yours, and i am in the process of updating it over the next month to be a different article with US-exclusive information. It is difficult to find this information in your article, and I do not see any harm in having a second article that is more direct Venomnitto (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag on Holden Royale page

I added the tag as the page doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) style. However I do realise that there are some pages for which the style manual doesn't apply (e.g Lists of ships of the same name) but I don't know whether that applies in this case. As it is clearly all your own work I'll let you decide what changes need to be made, if any Tassedethe (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VE Commodore running changes

Hi OSX. I've had a look at your sandbox's collection of info on the VE's running changes. While I agree a series II of the VE is unlikely to happen, I'm not entirely convinced the model year system is the best way to explain it. The dates on which the changes are introduced seem random. I also suspect there's been a few changes that haven't been included on your list (e.g: Calais with new lip spoiler on boot). The MY system is mostly a North American system and adding 0.5MY at different times makes things a bit messy in my opinion. As far as I know, Holden hasn't publicly announced what their plans are with regards to updates, so it makes things a bit difficult to ascertain at this stage. I think more information would need to be gathered. VectorD (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The model year system is in use by Holden, and has been for along time in Holden VINs. Holden has adopted it "officially" instead of "Series II" and "Series III" et cetera. I know the MY system is an American thing, but GM is an American company. I few other automakers (Subaru) also use it as well.

Also VectorD, if I have made any errors or left out any content, please feel free to update my list. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time, I'm still not entirely sure if Holden has officially adopted a model year system. The evidence is inconclusive. Model years are a part of VIN numbers whether the manufacturer has officially adopted a MY system or not. Redbook appears a bit schizophrenic in this regard. Some are listed as having MY like here but other years then subsequently don't here. It would be interesting to keep up a list of running changes as you have already done, but I think we should wait for more substantial proof direct from Holden before coming to any conclusions within the main article. VectorD (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurion

Interesting, so comparisons were OK until it was no longer the leader? laughs Greg Locock (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you remove information from an article which is glorifies the Commodore, but don't like the same to be done to Ford articles (the company you work for). If you take a look at some of my other edits you can see that I am trying to remove bias from articles (e.g. "It found ready acceptance in the market as many buyers steered away from the disappointing Ford AU Falcon" --> "It found ready acceptance in the market as many buyers steered away from the slow selling Ford AU Falcon" (Holden Commodore), "for dramatically improved ride and handling" --> "for improved ride and handling" (Holden VE Commodore). I may prefer Holdens over Fords, but I am not trying to denounce Ford either. If our readers are interested in Commodore/Aurion crash ratings, they would go to the respective articles for that. No need to say the same thing five times, when once will suffice (Commodore v Falcon v Aurion v 380 v Accord). Also, if you look at the Ford articles I have significantly edited (Ford EL Falcon, Ford BA Falcon) you will notice that those articles are not written in an anti-Ford manner thank you very much. As for the VE Calais comparison, all I can say to you is "grow up". No need to be so immature and go rampaging through Holden articles to voice your anger. Think first before you act, because doing stuff like "oh we must adhere to OSX's grand new policy" crap when I never said anything does nothing to increase your standing. Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 09:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So please can you explain your new policy? Why is it acceptable to include comparison in the Calais article, and not OK to update them as in the Aurion case (Note the comparison had been there for a while, I merely updated it)? I smell hypocrisy here, either comparison, backed up by sources is acceptable, or it is not. I don't mind which way it goes, but the same rules will be applied to all. Greg Locock (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to answer your question because your immature response is ill-informed and wrong. I put up my case for you and all I get is another one of your "10-year-old child"-style responses. All you did was rephrase what you've already said. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have asked you a direct question. Either answer it in a satisfactory fashion or accept that other people's judgement will be used instead. As I said, I don't mind what the conclusion is, I just think you need to define a defendable solution, since you seem to think you can decide each case on an ad hoc basis, which is definitely not acceptable. The question is "Are comparisons between the relative attributes of cars acceptable in articles, if they are backed by reliable sources?"- Yes or no.Greg Locock (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop exerting your anger on Holden articles thank you very much. So you are telling me it's alright to remove the word "superior" from an article, which in a way glorifies the VE, but heaven forbid if there is any sort of criticism directed to the AU Falcon ([3])? Lets end this saga here, before it gets out of hand. My patience here is running very thin. Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 03:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question, or I will decide. Greg Locock (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind (Oh no, your patience is wearing thin. Tremble tremble. Just answer the question)? You don't have to be so rude about everything. Now what is the "question"? And no you won't "decide", because Wikipeida is built around consensus, trust and rules. Three things you don't seem to grasp or hold. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother telling me about your mental state, can't you tell I am not especially interested? The question I asked is "Are comparisons between the relative attributes of cars acceptable in articles, if they are backed by reliable sources?" Yes or no. Note that I did not introduce the comparison in the Aurion article, I updated it. I find it bizarre (that was sarcasm, actually it was entirely predictable) that when the comparison was favorable to Aurion it was OK but when I updated it and put in an equivalent to the Falcon article you deemed it unacceptable, despite WP:RS. You might want to check if other car articles include comparisons, my guess, is that by and large they don't. So, if comparisons are acceptable, then my well sourced comparison should go in, if not then all the various comparisons can come out. Like I say, not a big deal, but let's be consistent and encyclopedic. Greg Locock (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian dates

Looking at this edit, you are in error if you think your changes conform to WP:DATE. Firstly, Australia uses the day-month-year International Dating format, second, linking dates is now deprecated by the Manual of Style. Please check before edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It frustrates me that user:Skyring(Pete) is again edit warring over date formats, like has happened so many times before. I have sent a warning to his talk page.--Lester 05:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia actually uses both.

As can be seen in the articles by these major Australian publishers, the MM-DD-YY format is used. Also thank you for sending a message User:Lester, saves me from doing so. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - sorry to but in here but I don't think you are correct. I have noticed the newspapers using American style date formatting, but I think that is their attempt to conform to international (dominated by US conventions). There is a style guide for Austrlaia - used to be published by the AGPS and has now been taken over by Snooks &Co. I can't find a freely available internet verions. The best I can do is http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/info.aspx?page=766 -

Shortened forms on the Web
Abbreviations, Contractions, Acronyms, Initialisms, Symbols and other things.
by Dr Sofia Celic, Web Accessibility Consultant, Accessible Information Solutions at National Information Library Service.
Introduction: The impetus for this study was the result of observations made during user-based screen reader accessibility testing and from recent studies in technical writing.
Unexpected or undesired pronunciation by screen readers of some web page content was identified. This was mainly in regard to contractions and initialisms because these are rarely desired to be pronounced as a word.

When she gets to date format, sheis quite specific on the use of dd/mm/yyyy - I think there is no question that that is the format used by convention in Australia. Should you wish to dispute that format is the convention, I think this should be promptly escalated to a wider audience, for example at WP:AWNB to get more diverse views. --Matilda ^talk 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever made Snooks & Co the industry standard? That is one person's/organisation's opinion on how dates should be presented. Since the dates are changeable in the user preferences, they should remain linked. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Mosnum and consider what is the Australian standard --Matilda ^talk 09:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out The Times. Month day year format for England's best-known newspaper. Does this make England the home of American Dating? Of course not. --Pete (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the others - Australian date format is dd-mm-yyyy, it's the only format taught in schools here, and when one selects "Australian" settings on Macintosh or Windows, one gets that order of date format. The American date format actually looks "foreign" to most Australians, just as international dates looked "foreign" to my Canadian friends when I was over there. Orderinchaos 10:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised those observing have not commented on the futility of starting and continuing an edit war over date formats, actions which are antagonising people all over Wikipedia.--Lester 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note re 3RR

I note you have made the same revert three times in a 24-hour period (Holden VE Commodore: [4] [5] [6]; Ford Falcon (Australia): [7] [8] [9]). Although I believe you to be wise enough to avoid making a fourth, perhaps you should consider whether it is worth getting blocked over a matter so trivial. It is worth noting, also, that three is not an entitlement. Orderinchaos 12:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of Holden in Commons

Hello OSX, first of all many thanks that you categorized the Holden photos in Commons according to model names. As I just spent 4 weeks in Australia I noticed but that in some sources Holden cars are referred in model generations (FB, FC etc.) rather than in model names (Special, Standard, Commodore etc.). Yesterday I categorized the Holden category according to model generations in surplus to your categorization because I think that some users will find the desired photo better like this. Today I found that you removed my categorization again without giving any reason. I suggest that we should keep both types of categorization for better service to the users and therefore ask you to revert your last changes. Many thanks in advance. --MartinHansV (Germany) (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Only 48-215 (FX) to WB models are actually referred to this way, and it is not really an "official" system. For example, a Holden WB, is actually a Holden WB Kingswood (with WB referring to the model, like W204/W140/W220 et cetera used by Mercedes-Benz). On Wikipedia, we use the <make> <model> format, hence my revert. I didn't bother leaving a talk page message because I assumed your were an irregular editor due to the use of an IP address.

I would not support the revert of all these categories. For example there are two Holden LCs, the Holden LC Torana, and the Holden LC Astra. Only FX-WB can really be categorized this way, so maybe we could make a category like "Holden vehicles by model designation"? OSX (talk • contributions) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the category "Mercedes-Benz vehicles". There you find the subcategory "Mercedes-Benz vehicles by type" which I completed now. I would strongly support your suggestion to add a similar subcategory to "Holden vehicles". As you seem to know much more about this item than I do I would be glad if you could add this subcategory. Many thanks in advance. --MartinHansV (Germany) (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That is really good thanks. I have always hated that cluttered Mercedes category. I will definitely work on a similar thing for the Holden models (in the next week). Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And done commons:Category:Holden vehicles by series. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --MartinHansV (Germany) (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

I am beginning to draw a close to the end of the year so my workload at the moment is probably, without doubt, the highest it has been the whole year. When my holidays start (November-December) I am thinking of returning to Wikipedia for some small to moderate edits. So if you need any help (probably on a LOW PRIORITY automotive/aircraft related article) please tell me now it would be greatly appreciated. I will start editing now then eventually my edits will start to rise as the holidays draw closer. --Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not editing any article in particular at the moment, but here are some articles that could use some work:

Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- OK then --Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holden VE images

Hi OSX,

First off thanks again for your help in identifying my shots, but I would like to discuss a little the image usage in Holden and Holden Commodore. Let me explain why I think my image makes a better illustration:

1. Better Perspective: My image was taken with a 400mm lens. This creates an image with vastly improved perspective. If you look at your image (which by the looks was taken at a relatively wide angle) the nose of the car is heavily accentuated and the proportions of the car are consequently distorted. My image, with the benefit of being taken at a long focal length, has no such perspective issues and the car appears well proportioned.

2. Better Composition: Your image, which appears to be taken at a carpark, has many other cars in the background (and indeed four cars in the foreground). This distracts from the focus of the image (the VE) and hence makes a worse illustration than my shot which shows only the VE.

3. Improved Interest: Flowing from my previous point is that your image shows a very stagnant and somewhat dull scene of the car parked. In no way do I wish to insult you but it's somewhat of a "snapshot". My image on the otherhand shows a much more dynamic scene, showing the car in it's primary function: driving. The sense of motion is enhanced with well controlled motion blur. This (IMO) creates a far more compelling illustration.

Hope that explains my reasoning --Fir0002 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fir0002, as a photo your image runs rings around mine. The reason why I reverted was because:

1. Motion blur: in your shot the moving vehicle does not show the design of the wheels. To an ordinary person that may seem like a pathetic excuse, but the wheel design is a feature that can make it very easy to identify the particular model. That is, in the case of the VE Commodore, the base model (Commodore Omega), the sports models (Commodore SV6, SS, SS V) or luxury models (Berlina, Calais, Calais V). The word around Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles is that vehicles should have the wheels/hubcaps fitted by the manufacturer so the vehicles are in "original" condition. In think we can reasonably say that a wheel in motion and thus blurred can be linked be looked at similarly.

2. Variant: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles also states: "Avoid pictures of heavily customized cars as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance, unless the text in context to the picture is dealing with the customization of the vehicle." The Commodore model in question is the sports-oriented SV6. Compared to the base line Omega (my image) this car has very loud body kit that separates it quite distinctively from the Omega. While the body kit is officially a part of the SV6 model, many others and I tend to favour images of more common variants, or those in a more basic form. These images better epitomize the basic design of the vehicle. However, I have absolutely no problem with having this image in the "SV6" section of the Commodore VE article and also as a featured picture at Portal:Australian cars.

3. Crop: your image has too much background. Any infobox/main image of a car needs have a tight crop so that maximum detail can be seen at only 250px. This one is fairly easy to rectify, and I'll fix it up later. However, the same needs to be done with all your other car images too. If you don't your only giving other editors another excuse at reverting over the motion blur stated above, and the drivers in the cars.

What I would encourage you to do is go to your local Holden dealership (there are plenty around) and use your superior photographic skills to get the "perfect" shot. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm OK - I guess motion blur is an area where aesthetic value may clash with identification. Are the cars sufficiently distinct in the body work or is it primarily the wheels which separate them? I can shoot with a faster shutter speed (I deliberately created the motion blur) so that the wheels are frozen but photographically speaking the motion blur is a strong point. Can you link point me where you got the variant quote? I can't find it on the homepage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles... I did notice the Wikiproject has a featured picture section - in which case you might want to include Image:Mazda RX-8 on freeway.jpg. Finally with the crop this is similar to the motion blur - photographically it is encouraged to have some "breathing space" in the composition - an ultra tight crop just looks awful. And to be honest I can't see what extra detail you expect to see at thumbnail size which justifies degrading the photographic quality of the image by cropping any tighter. Also why would the car's drivers be a detrimental attribute of the images? As you might have noticed I very carefully took the shots so that the faces of the drivers would be obscured by the right door frame (and further blurred where necessary to preserve anonymity of the driver). Thanks for the suggestion, however I specifically chose a freeway to avoid several of the factors which your image suffers from: distracting background and cars, use of wide angle lens, and stagnant scene. So the only real improvement I can see would be removing motion blur (if indeed this is such a significant issue). However since you are obviously heavily involved in the Automobile project I'll respect your reversion and image choice --Fir0002 06:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Below I will best try to answer your questions.

The SV6 and SS are identical except that one has a V6 engine and the other a V8. The SS V however, is only really differentiated by its unique wheels. All three models have the same body panels, like sports bumpers and bonnet.
The exact location where I got the quote from was: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images.
With the crop, I agree images look better with "breathing space", but because this is an encyclopedia, it is the subject that is most important. The crop doesn't have to be "ultra tight", but it does have to be smallish - if that's a word.
As for people within the car, this is discouraged for a few reasons. Firstly, for privacy, but in this case I think anyone would have a pretty hard time identifying the person. And secondly, because automobile articles are about the car, and not owners/drivers. People are considered distracting and not a part of the subject.

At the end of the day the perfect photographic situation is hard to obtain: car in original condition, clean, wheels aligned to body sides, front 3/4 view, natural, and but subtle background. Other locations that would be "close" to this are car parks: if you can find a car park with very few cars within it, distractions shouldn't be a major issues. Also, vehicles parked on roadsides bordering trees have limited distractions. I hope this helps, and keep snapping pictures of cars - especially Australian cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUS 200 GA drive

Hi OSX. Per last year, we are now closing in on another milestone for AUS, with 178 current GAs. Well, since you participated in the GA drive last year, perhaps unwittingly, by contributing some Australian car articles, you might want to participate again. This is another rallying cry to WP:AWNB/A. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concept cars

Hi,

I'm dropping you a line because I notice you originally began Category:Toyota concept vehicles. I've started a personal mini project of moving cars from Category:Concept automobiles into a relevant manufacturers subcategory. I did Holden some months ago, and have done Toyota and Honda this week. I'm bringing it to your attention on the basis that you look like you'd have an interest in this direction (and so might help out ;) --.../Nemo (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cadillac concept vehicles, Category:Mercedes-Benz concept vehicles, and Category:Opel concept vehicles done. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Category:Audi concept vehicles and Category:Pontiac concept vehicles now also done :) --.../Nemo (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Category:Chevrolet concept vehicles. I think I'm done for today ;) --.../Nemo (talk :: Contributions) 03:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrollable template

Hi - At least with my window width (and browser) the current version of Template:Holden timeline ends up with two horizontal scroll bars - one for the browser window and the one embedded in the template. This is really, really bad web page design. If you can't get the table to be the same width as the browser window (which I suspect is not possible with IE if you're actually using table markup), I suggest you not use an internal scroll bar in the template (I mean, rely only on the browser scroll bar). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jbarta has tweaked the template some more. Should work now. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I submitted it to browsershots.org and (not sure how long they'll be there) there are screen shots from a variety of browsers here. Looks like at least some don't show a scroll bar (e.g. Opera 8.54 and IE 6.0), which results in a wide table scrollable with the browser window scrollbar. When I implemented Template:LargeCategoryTOC I didn't know about this site so don't know for how many of the browsers it can generate screenshots this template works. I'm not aware of a specific list that en.wikipedia.org is "required" to support, but I think the general goal is pretty much every browser (see Wikipedia:Browser notes). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well I would not woory above Opera 8.54, as Opera has a really low user base as a whole let alone version 8.x. Although Internet Explorer 7 reveals IE 6's market share at a frightening 21.53%. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added lines to the template... see the template talk page. JBarta (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

In light of the recent deletions of Category:Large family cars and Category:Small family cars, I've been having a discussion with User:PrinceGloria recently about sorting out our car classification categories; see User talk:PrinceGloria#Car classification categories for more details, and some of the many problems that need sorted.

Since car classifications are region-specific, I plan on creating a parent heirarchy based on areas, and then daughter categories for North American, European, and Australian classes. But looking at the FCAI's website, their "official" classes don't tally with how I've heard Australian cars referred to:

Light
Small
Medium
Large
Upper Large
People Movers
Sports
SUV Compact
SUV Medium
SUV Large
SUV Luxury

I'd like to get everything organized before I go to WP:CARS with my proposals, so could you give me any info on whether these would be the right class names to use for Australia? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these classes are the "official" titles, but the situation here in Australia is mixed. Publications interchangeably use Australian and U.S terms in the same sentence. For example, "light" is almost always used, "small" used more than "compact", but "compact" still gets its fair share of use. "Medium"/"mid-size" seem to be interchangeable, "large" is generally used as opposed to "full-size", however, GM Holden frequently use "full-size" in lieu of "large" (subsidiary of GM U.S). I don't think I've seen the term "upper large" used outside of FCAI before, and the remainder of the FCAI terms seem to be used exclusively. That is however, except for SUVs, which are often called 4WDs (and occasionally 4x4s).

Historically (1960s and prior), Australia was tied very closely to the U.S. in terms of the automotive industry. The U.S. classification system was probably used here and hence its modern-day use. FCAI would not have come about until the 1970s at least, and the FCAI vehicle classifications are also very vague. There does not seem to be any particular criteria in classifying vehicles, hence why I use the superior U.S. system. Please if you must standardise classes, choose the A-segment, B-segment format. This seems to be the least region-specific solution. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. OK, there's no problem simply omitting the FCAI classes if they're too vague or undefined, or insufficiently used. The A/B/C-segment stuff would be good except for two problems: (i) I can't see any American editor accepting them as a replacement for their existing US EPA-based classes, which are much more widely used, and (ii) the segments are really more marketing-speak instead of being strictly defined by a single body (US EPA, EuroNCAP, etc), and in these days of niche marketing I think a lot of cars straddle multiple classes. For example, I've heard the Nissan Note Mini MPV referred to as a "B+ segment car".

Nothing is stopping us creating categories for A/B/C-segments in the parent Category:Car classification though, which are independent of the regional stuff. --DeLarge (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting the FCAI classes completely would be a bad move, but mentioning them would suffice. I had a look at the discussion at your talk page and at PrinceGloria's and would like to build onto it having article on:

Car classifications
- North American car classifications (with a link to the EPA and/or the relevant car class article)
  - Mid-size cars, Compact cars, etc (sections, not sub articles)
- European car classifications (with a link to EuroNCAP)
  - Small family cars, Large family cars, etc (sections, not sub articles)
- Australian car classifications (with a reference to the FCAI)
  - Light, Small, Medium, Large, Upper Large, etc (sections, not sub articles)
- Japanese car classifications (with a link to JAMA)
  - Kei cars, etc (sections, not sub articles)

Then have articles as following:

A-segemnt: incorporating light, subcompact etc.
B-segemnt: incorporating small, compact etc.
C-segment
...

Doing it this way would avoid region issues; Americans will still have an article (one) detailing each of the classes, with main articles pointing to the individual segment articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess I wasn't looking to touch the articles, only the categories. They're in a bit of a state, but that's a step too far for this editor, who's not sufficiently enamoured with WP in general and WP:CARS in particular to want to help out. I do agree with the idea about mergin though; I thought the best approach with EuroNCAP would be to redirect each individual car class article to a section listing all the classes in a table. --DeLarge (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holden VE Commodore

Do you know the type? File:AFP - Holden VE Commodore.jpg and File:AFP - Holden VE Commodore (front view).jpg. Bidgee (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are both 2008 Holden VE Commodore (MY09/MY09.5) Omega sedans. I have edited the image description pages accordingly. For future reference, all VE models with the steel "chaser" wheels are Omegas with the Police option package. The continued use of steel wheels on Omega Police models is somewhat surprising, given the standardisation of alloy wheels on the Omega in March last year. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article Isuzu Amigo incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Isuzu Amigo to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. Aervanath (talk)

Ident needed

I'm in need of the year and generation for this Toyota Corolla Ascent WT-i. Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bidgee, this is a 2007-2009 Toyota Corolla (ZRE152R) Ascent sedan:

File name: File:2007-2009 Toyota Corolla (ZRE152R) Ascent sedan 01.jpg

Image description: "2007–2009 Toyota Corolla (ZRE152R) Ascent sedan (with optional 17" × 7" Kappa alloy wheels)". OSX (talk • contributions) 05:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bidgee (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you please delete the white Holden Nova/Toyota Corolla that I accidentally uploaded over the top of File:1990-1991 Holden VQ Statesman sedan 04.jpg? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bidgee (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is possibly unusable for Wiki but do you know what type of Porsche it is? Bidgee (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1997-1999 Porsche Boxster (986) convertible. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific dates

Thought I'd discuss here a bit before we get revert-crazy..

My feeling is, adding specific dates puts too much focus on announcements and press releases and not on what actually happened.

For example, which is more important, this:

On May 13, 2008, CarCorp announced that it would close down the Gadget plant later in the year.

or this:

On September 13, 2008, CarCorp closed down the Gadget plant.

I've seen a lot of car articles lately turning into news blogs. As soon as a press release comes out, someone adds a new paragraph, starting with "On Exact date, year, CarCorp announced that..". This is not how encyclopedia articles should be written. Notable events should be summarized into paragraphs by topic, and focus on what actually happened rather than when someone announced that it would happen. Not saying you do this, but it tempts a lot of people to add every news item they find because they feel the newest events are the most important, when WP:NOTNEWS.

Dates are useful to create a timeline of related, closely-occurring events (e.g. On May 13 the Space Shuttle launched, on May 15 they changed the Hubble's oil). But really, is the exact date that an award is given important? Nothing is happening before or after the award, so no context needs to be established by the date. Saying every date is inherently important is like saying every car specification is important so they should all go in the article. Besides, that's what references are for. They usually contain the exact date of a news article or a review, so if the reader wants to know the date, they can click on the reference and read more there. --Vossanova ^o< 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I want to click on the references to get the dates? Including dates does not turn an article into a news blog. If someone was to write a book about the Chevrolet Cruze, the dates would be their, just as they are in Autobiography, a book about the Holden VE Commodore. If the Holden section of the Cruze gets too lengthy, then the dates can be safely removed and the section summarised and the original content can be moved into the Holden Cruze article (currently an SIA). Until such length is present, I stand by my edits of including such information. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 04:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm bringing out a bad-case example. Check this out: Chrysler#2008 financial crisis. Now, the Holden Cruze section is not close to that, but, it's an example of what happens when people add every news item and a specific date to it. It resembles a news blog to me. Yes, dates are somewhat valuable in that Chrysler section, but to me, starting a new paragraph with every event, and starting each one the same way, is just bad writing to me. WP:PROSELINE and WP:RECENT have some guidelines and tips. --Vossanova ^o< 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Chrysler page been poorly executed, but that does not make the information unnecessary (as you said), as it correlates with events similar like GM and other financial crisis-related issues (remember, if done properly it would work). It provides context, which in the case of the Cruze is less important, but nevertheless still so. I counted just three dates in the "Australasia" section, and information regarding the unique-to-Australia/NZ Cruze-based car will most likely have its own article, just like the new Astra does/will. Hence, I do not believe that this section going to become overkill anytime soon. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Apollo

Congratulations :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account

Well, I don't know about all my edits being useful. But thanks, I really do appreciate the offer but I don't plan on editing articles on wikipedia much longer. It's just I have an injury which forces me to be fairly sedentary, but that'll change as soon as I can get back to whatever it was I did before. But I really do like what wikipedia is and am very thankful for the people who make it what it is. Thanks again though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.224.246 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki Ignis

I reverted Ignis back to full article. It cannot be a redirect to Suzuki Swift, it was developed by Suzuki Europe to be sold in Europe and was never sold in Japan with a Suzuki badge, as the Japanese Chevrolet Cruze was a rebadged import. --Pc13 (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original 2000 Ignis was developed by Suzuki in Japan and sold as the Swift (it was in fact the first generation Japanese Swift, as the previous generations were sold as the Suzuki Cultus). The Ignis name was only used in Australia/New Zealand/Europe (maybe others as well). The updated Chevrolet Cruze-based Ignis was only sold in Europe as a Suzuki, but this is not enough to warrant a separate Ignis article since we already have the Ignis and Cruze articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure the Ignis Mk.II was the Chevrolet Cruze? The Gen.II model was 15 cm longer than the Gen.I (377 cm vs 362 cm). Wasn't the Chevrolet Cruze still 362 cm long? --Pc13 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Suzuki Ignis MK.I in Europe [10]. Suzuki Ignis Mk.II in Europe[11]. Suzuki Swift SE-Z in Japan [12]. Chevrolet Cruze in Japan [13]. The Japanese models retained dimensions from Mk.I while the European model was enlarged. That means the Mk.II was European exclusive, not a Japanese model. And a history of the Suzuki Ignis in Europe [14]. --Pc13 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have thoroughly looked at all those links trying to work out where the 15 cm difference is. Basically, the original Ignis formed the basis for the Cruze, and the Cruze formed the basis for the updated European-only Ignis. However, it appears from photos (updated Ignis, Cruze) that the updated Ignis has an extra 15 cm at the rear (compare the size of the side-rear window). To me (and by project standards), this is not enough to warrant a separate article. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it more thoroughly, I agree. However, it needs a few corrections: the 15 cm enlargement was a European exclusive, it was not made available for the Asian models or the Holden Cruze. I'm still unsure whether the Ignis Mk.II should be a subsection in the Chevrolet Cruze article instead of the Suzuki Swift. --Pc13 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lexus LS GA nom

Good day, OSX, and greetings to you. At your suggestion, I have nominated Lexus LS for GA status at WP:GAN#Transport. If you have the time, your input and suggestions for the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

You're doing a nice job on the Holden VE Commodore‎ article. I've tried heading to the local Holden dealership but all of its new vehicles are in the show room now. Today I tried to get a photo of a Holden VE Commodore‎ V 60th Edition but the damn battery in the camera died! Bidgee (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bidgee. You're right, probably best to avoid indoor photos, they never look very good under the artificial lighting. Any way keep up with your excellent image uploads at Commons. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea!

Thanks for your great research. Help me get it done!! Please vote to support change.Vegavairbob (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to two Support the change.(Inline-four engine) anyone you know? ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't, but even if I did, "vote baiting" is very much disliked (Talk:Straight-four engine#Canvassing). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kia Optima Page Change

Hello OSX. I have noticed that you have edited the Kia Optima page and removed much content that has been worked hard on by several people. Just to get things straight, The new Optima and New Magentis are a continuation of the previous Optima and Magentis. It is true that its name was changed in Korea, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the same in every other market. A name change in one market doesn't necessarily mean that it is not just the next generation. The 2005-6 Optima was just a generation change, not a vehicle change. Please do not remove the information again. Thank You.Lovemykia (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Titles. Even if we went by the new proposed changes here, original market name would still qualify. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the current situation, since the vehicle is sold as the Optima/Magentis in all markets but Korea, there is nowhere else to allocate the information for the "MG" Optima. I will make some revisions. Lovemykia (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we cannot have duplicate information either. It is not about what name most markets receive the car as, it is original market name. If the Lotze was called either Optima OR Magentis (only one) in ALL English-speaking markets, the proposed policy would allow that name as the title. But this is not the case, and too avoid arguments about which market is more important, we go by original market name. If you don't like the policy, my user page is not going to change it; at WP:CARS you may have chance. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kia Motors, the Kia Lotze IS the second generation Optima, renamed in the Korean market. Lovemykia (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link? OSX (talk • contributions) 02:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, OSX. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scepter reply

Rather than continue off-topic in the main discussion page, I'm bringing this here:

I'd think the most elegant solution for both the Accord and Camry pages would be splitting the articles by generation, a la Subaru Legacy. As it is, the Accord page is a bit long and the Camry page is very confusing.

I wouldn't want to see them as truncated as the main Toyota Corolla or Volkswagen Golf pages, but that would seem to be the best way to put each generation and version in a place it can easily be found without stretching one article too far. IFCAR (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, both the Accord and Camry articles are far too long, and a split is definitely required. But, that still wont solve the problem (of the wide-body Scepter Camry and narrow-body Camry). "Shoving in" the American/Australian Camry (1992-1997) is confusing; there are two generations of narrow-body Japanese models compared to one single International wide-body model. The only way that I think this might work is if it is possible to split part of the article into two columns (unlikely):

Second generation (1986-1991) ... ... ...
Third generation
Japan (1990-1994) ... ... ...	International (1991-1996) ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Fourth generation (1994-1998) ... ... ...
Fifth generation (1996-2001) ... ... ...

Can you think of an easy way to represent both in ONE article, without causing confusion? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Honda Odyssey article incorporates different vehicles simultaneously using the same name. All we'd need is a section following the JDM Camry generations called "1991-1996 Toyota Camry (International)", same as the other generations, so it's easily locatable from the main Camry article. As it is, the Toyota Scepter is mentioned in only a small link on the main article, and it's very easy to miss. IFCAR (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Odyssey is poorly set out in my opinion. A better solution would be to have a common Odyssey article with just the 1st generation, then sub Odyssey articles (international, North America). Getting back on track... how about a compromise: we keep the Scepter article as is for now (it's too long to merge back) and split the Camry article's third generation section into Japan and international? The international will only be brief (two or three paragraphs), and retain the "Main article: Toyota Scepter" tag. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's what I had been suggesting, but I guess I wasn't very clear.

Of course, the Scepter article will need to be re-named if the WP:Name suggestion goes through as currently proposed. IFCAR (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I"ve decided to leave out the infobox, because when the article is split, these will be removed anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The model I was hoping to see this article follow, the Subaru Legacy, does include infoboxes for each generation on the main page. It's just the more extensive details of what the car and what it is like in all of its various markets that could be split off. I really wouldn't want to see a repeat of Toyota Corolla where there's nothing left on the main page. IFCAR (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the infoboxes on the Subaru Legacy page (except for the lead)? By the time you've finished pruning the boxes back, what is left? Name, image, aka and production. I don't want a repeat of the Corolla page either; two or three paragraphs per section, a couple of images (galleries may be needed again) and a Main article: Toyota Corolla XV... link at the top would work well. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was misremembering infoboxes. Hm.

However, there is precedent for boxes in articles on various cars from the BMW and Mercedes lines. An infobox plus three paragraphs on the main article plus all the other information on Camry in different countries and so forth in the generation article. IFCAR (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. I will get around to splitting the Camry article eventually (I have tagged it though). So long as the infoboxes remain very basic, and they do not overflow into other sections, I have no issue with retaining them. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mazdaspeed Axela

I think this should use the "Mazdaspeed 3" name- the name "Axela" is not used in English-speaking countries. See a similar discussion at Talk:Mazda_Axela#Requested_move. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than making bold changes, I think we should wait for the final decision at WP:CARS. I agree, Mazdas should be titled, 3, 6, 626, etc; but by moving them at the moment I think you are inviting other users to propose moves that should otherwise not be done (i.e. Daewoo Kalos ---> Chevrolet Aveo). So please, let's wait for the official word. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why not use "Mazda 3", the "make, space, model" format is used by all others automobiles? Yes, I know Mazda markets their cars that way, but still. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose either Mazda 3 MPS or Mazda Mazdaspeed3 would be suitable names too. I don't care at all about WP:CARS - I care more about the project-wide practice of using the most common name for things. Friday (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAME

Dear OSX,

Since I believe little attention is being paid to the fait accompli tactics being used in the frontal assault at our dusty little naming convention, we absolutely need to formalize it. OTOH, I believe I might be alone among the disputants in seeing the systematic bias in those discussions, and I am very said to be in this position. To cut a long story short - I am considering suspending my participation in Wikipedia, but it would be totally wrong if the issue of naming convention would just fall through. I believe you are capable of forging a consensus, and have proved to be a very committed, professional editor and a dedicated community member of both Wikipedia in general and the WikiProject. Could I thus ask you to try and gather our capricious brethern around this idea to get this formalized? Thank you in advance - I hope you will continue to have a lot of fun with Wikipedia! PrinceGloria (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I felt the same way some time ago, but just either take a break or edit articles that do not have controversial names (am I right that your considerations are a result of the discussions at Mazda 3 and Mazda 6?).

But do not feel alone; I feel that nothing is going to happen either. I believe our WikiProject is only taken seriously by a few users, the rest do not have any real participation in discussions surrounding policies/issues. This is not the case in other WikiProject factions. PrinceGloria, the only way I feel we will get anywhere is if we write down the proposal the way we want it to be officially (and by that I mean properly written). Here is mine:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (automobiles): For article titles, use the original market name (automobile's country of origin), except where the original, non-English speaking market is isolated in using that name. For example, the Mazda Axela (like most Mazda automobiles) is known as the "Mazda Axela" only in Japan, the automobile's country of origin. All other international markets use the "Mazda 3" name. Therefore, the naming conventions favors the Mazda 3 article title. Lexus vehicles follow a similar convention, until Lexus's 2006 introduction in Japan, Lexus vehicles were branded as Toyota, despite the utilization of the Lexus name in all international markets. If the automobile is known under a number of international names, then original market name takes precedence. For example, the Daewoo Lacetti in South Korea is known elsewhere as the Buick Excelle, Chevrolet Lacetti, Chevrolet Nubira, Chevrolet Optra, Chevrolet SRV, Holden Viva, Suzuki Forenza and Suzuki Reno. To avoid systematic bias in choosing the "most common name", the original "Daewoo Lacetti" name shall be used.

PrinceGloria, please make any changes that you feel are necessary to my above proposal, and then we shall submit this to WP:CARS for approval. If successful, I will take this to WP:Naming conventions. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in from the sideline here, I'd like to say I have given the matter a great deal of thought over the last couple years, and I have come to agree in large part with PrinceGloria. The text ↑proposed↑ by OSX resolves just about all issues I have with project naming coventions, and I would strongly support its formal adoption. I would copyedit it for flow and readability, thus:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (automobiles): Each article shall be titled with the subject vehicle name in its original home market, except when the name is unique to a non-English-speaking home market. For example, the Mazda Axela is known as such only in its original home market of Japan. In all other markets, the car is called the Mazda 3. Therefore, the article would best be titled Mazda 3. Similarly, vehicles badged Lexus worldwide were branded as Toyota in Japan until 2006. Under this naming convention, the preferred article titles would be Lexus. If the automobile is known under different names in various markets, the original market name takes precedence. For example, the Daewoo Lacetti in South Korea is known elsewhere as the Buick Excelle, the Chevrolet Lacetti, the Chevrolet Nubira, the Chevrolet Optra, the Chevrolet SRV, the Holden Viva, the Pontiac Wave, the Suzuki Forenza, and the Suzuki Reno. To avoid systematic bias in choosing the most common name, under this naming convention the original Daewoo Lacetti name shall be selected for the article title.

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that Scheinwerfermann. That sounds much better; it usually takes me a couple of copyedits to get the wording right, but you've done that for me. Cheers. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OSX and Scheinwerfermann,

Thank you for taking interest and constructive action. My personal feelings and opinions aside, here's a proposition of the structure that would make it easier to apply for somebody not really interested in the current debacle and the history of the issue:

In case of automobiles marketed under various brand and/or model names, the article should be titled with the nameplate used in the automobile's original market. Exceptions to the rule is made when:

1. There is a common name used in all markets but the original market AND
2. The original market is a country where English is not an official language

Then, the name of the article should be the one used in all markets but the original one.

Clear and concise, isn't it? I would refrain from referring to any examples or reasons - we'd leave that for the discussion on the convention.

Having said which, we need to precisely define what constitutes the "original market":

The automobile's original market is the market the automobile was originally designed for. Unless a source can be found with a statement from the manufacturer directly identifying the market, it is assumed the original market is the market where the vehicle was made available for purchase first. In case this cannot be determined, the country where the manufacturer's headquarters are located is assumed to be the original market.

Off the top of my head, this definition and the above rule should cover for all cases.

As a sidenote, the reason our project is not taken seriously is exactly because we have never got down to submitting this to WP:NAME, and a lot of parallel conventions to appropriate WikiPlaces, and also that such discussions are taking place in your ~~backyard~~ talk page, OSX. The participation in the WikiProject is spotty (yes, I am among those who have little right to throw stones here), and we're hardly constructive and coordinated in our efforts. In order to be taken seriously, we need to change that, and I hope this is the first step. As in - the first, but not the only.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Please note we need to deal with the issue on what to include in one article and what "merits" a separate one in another convention (i.e. the never-getting-old Mercury Sable vs. Ford Taurus or Toyota Voltz vs. Pontiac Vibe stuff). I am not sure what is the "mother" convention/guideline/policy for that (corresponding to WP:NAME in case of article titles).

Sounds good. PrinceGloria, Scheinwerfermann, to speed this up I have submitted PrinceGloria's proposal to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello OSX, it has been a long time since drinks hasnt it? I'm interested in editing again after my extended period of absence (due to study and also social commitments) but I am not sure where I can focus my attention. Is there anywhere in particular that you need help with? HarrisonB - Talk 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]