User talk:OSX

User	Talk	Sandbox	Contributions

Mitsubishi Outlander "good additions"

This edit simply took the page exactly back to where it was at 19:27, June 26, 2010. If it was intentional it was unhelpful, and that is why I felt and still feel it merited a full revert rather than picking and choosing among various changes made over the last three months. There were no "additions," just a revert. IFCAR (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi IFCAR, I did not realise that 인간극장 had restored a previous version of the article. To me, it appeared that the user in question had added some additional information (while unjustifiably replacing/rearranging images at the same time). In spite of this, I feel that the additional infobox content is useful and should remain. I don't know why this was removed in the first place. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Chariot

Thank you for your work, long overdue!  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fiat Tempra in the movie The American

I've re-added the part that you erased. I think it's important to cite the fact that the Fiat Tempra has been used in a major Hollywood production. If you want me to adjust the form or the position just tell me, but that part must stay. Thanks, Funzi Funzi159 --Funzi159 (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:WPACT. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read the convention. Even though I generally agree, I think in this specific case the thing must be cited, I only want to know how. We can remove the Tempra in media section, but somewhere in the article it must be written that the car was used in a major Hollywood production. Let me know. Funzi159 --Funzi159 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Many cars play a role in film. Unless the film had an verifibale effect on sales or reputation (for example, the Mini in the The Italian Job), then this information is generally excluded. The fact that the Tempra happened to be shown in the film is not all that notable. Should we also list every building, every brand of mobile phone, et cetera that is featured in every film? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but this is the very first time that a Fiat Tempra is used in a major role. It's not to cite every stupid appearances, but in this case is part of the movie, and I think it's important for the car to be linked to the movie. Funzi --Funzi159 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you leave it in the article, I am not going to revert it back. It is not an article that I am terribly interested in; I only reveretd the edit because it came up on the automobile watchlist. WP:WPACT is what we go by, and it is highly likely that another user will remove the film reference some time in the future. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will work on the thing. For the moment maybe I will remove it by myself. I think it's only matter to find the subject a right position, or to prove the interest of the thing. --Funzi159 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PRC "China"

You are quite correct in saying that the PRC is commonly known as China. However, as to your reasoning in which you say that nobody spells out USA= United States of America or "the Commonwealth of Australia", it is quite incorrect to apply those situations to the PRC/ROC argument, as those countries' titles are not politically ambiguous, whilst the ROC/PRC are. As per WP:NC-CHN#Political NPOV, I only wanted to apply the term PRC in the first instance, so it's absolutely clear that they're talking about the PRC, whilst leaving the remainder of the section as it is, per common name.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Model info in short

I have a specific question: would it be ok to use a wikitable to display model/engine info instead of Infobox vehicle? For example, the Grandfather clock here. ResMar 02:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that information is too detailed for the infobox. A separate table is best. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll use that, then =) ResMar 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the end result will be Mercedes-Benz or History of Mercedes-Benz: it all really depends on what length it comes out to. Looking at the current FA (which I see is your work ;), it is mostly "History." Speaking of which, the Daimler website has a treasure trove of material regarding the company's history. ResMar 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Q: Is the subdivision of its vehicle line into 3 separate templates proper? ResMar 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Every other automotive template follows this standard, except for template:Holden timeline which I organised into a single 1948–present timeline. Feel free to do this with the Mercedes-Benz template. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Auto/WP:Animation

Hi there, I saw your query to Tim about the WP:Automobiles watchlist getting film articles too. I've seen it in other autogenerated lists too. I ***think*** the problem was due to a mistake someone made to the {{WikiProject Animation}} template where they put {{{auto}} into the template code (missing a } at the end) so the template read it as {{auto}}, which has recently been created as a redirect to {{WikiProject Automobiles}}. Why it is still an issue a week later I don't know, but I do know that updating transclusions can take a looooong time around here - the software ain't that quick. I've just commented out the {{auto}} redirect to {{WikiProject Automobiles}}, so it might resolve itself sometime soon. I don't know who to ask if it doesn't fix itself... bugzilla? Village Pump (Tech)? The-Pope (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that. The film articles still show up in the watchlist, but as you said the software is slow. I guess we'll just have to wait a few days and see if it catches up. If it is not resolved within a week or so, then someone at the Village Pump (Tech) may need to be mustered in to help out. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved with the DASHBot Unref BLP tracking this year, and if you change a project banner template, such as when they moved the banner from {{Football}} to {{WikiProject Football}}, it took over a week for the transclusions to all flow through properly. They still display correctly on the talk page, but if you look at the "what links here" or use AWB or a bot, they are just lost. Very strange. The-Pope (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing with navbox templates. When I removed the "Lexus RX Hybrid" (Toyota Harrier Hybrid) link from Template:Toyota cars it took at least a week for the links to disappear on the "what links here" page (which included every Toyota vehicle-related article listed). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Compression ratio

Hi OSX, today you reverted an unexplained edit to Compression ratio. The original edit changed two numbers in a table.

I noticed the original edit but when I investigated I convinced myself that the changes were correct. A little below the table there is the following formula:

${\frac {P_{2}}{P_{1}}}=\left({\frac {V_{1}}{V_{2}}}\right)^{\gamma }$

The two P terms represent the pressure ratio. The two V terms represent the compression ratio. Please check the numbers. I think you will find the original edit changed two incorrect numbers and made them correct. Dolphin (t) 07:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. IP editors often change numbers as vandalism, so it is often difficult to distinguish between bad and good edits, especially when unexplained. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 08:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

MacBook Pro edits

Hi OSX. You recently changed the numbering format for pixel resolution, RAM speed, and everything with 4 digits on the MacBook Pro page. The added commas are unnecessary and, in my opinion, make the spec charts look worse. Then, you cited your reason for reverting my reedit with this reference to the Manual of Style. But, the Manual of Style states that it doesn't matter whether you delimit numbers with four digits. Here is what I found: "Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250)." Since it doesn't matter whether we delimit the numbers, all it really comes down to is which format we prefer. Please let me know what you decide. Horserice (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I prefer "1,250" over "1250" for consistency. If the rule is to include a comma after every three digits, why exclude four digit numbers form this rule? If the number is "12,500", it is incorrect to format it as "12500". OSX (talk • contributions) 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I undid your reversion before I saw this, so if you want, I can revert myself. I didn't see any five-digit numbers in the article, so I am holding back on reverting right now, but I would have no problem undoing my undo. Sorry again for the confusion, Airplaneman ✈ 02:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion at WP:Automobiles a few years ago. Automotive magazines often follow a common (but not universal) convention to exclude commas from numbers (i.e. "4750 mm" as opposed to "4,750 mm"). Because general-purpose style guides tend to include these commas, we decided that it is best to follow the Wikipedia-wide convention of including a comma after every three digits. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cruze

I have a question and comment on one of your recent edits. For the Cruze page, shouldn't the image for the (top) lead infobox be of an actual Chevrolet Cruze? You reverted an edit and placed a photo of the Holden Cruze instead. I understand they are rebadged cars, but since the article is speaking mostly about the Chevrolet badged version, wouldn't it be proper to insert the actual Chevrolet model as the lead image? Besides, there are other images of the foreign badged cars throughout the rest of the article. DeWaine (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a matter of debate. If two photos of equal quality were available, I would definately say, "use the Chevrolet version". However, as "...the article covers all versions of the vehicle. We have Chevrolet Cruze as the title for reasons of simplicity, not because we want to exclude the Holden." OSX (talk • contributions) 15:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose it's subject to debate. Although the Daewoo Lacetti Premiere has it's own article page, the Holden Cruze does not. Or at least not yet. DeWaine (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

hello - back on

Hello OSX

You may not remember me but have returned to editing wikipedia articles after a long break. I am happy to provide you with minor help regarding any articles you might suggest. At the moment I am working on three articles Cadillac Fleetwood, Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham and HSV Senator (Yes I know these articles are in bad shape).

My main focus will be the HSV Senator article as I believe it needs a major overall because to be honest with you it is in quite a bad shape.

Thanks Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi and welcome back. I will be happy to help you out with suggestions for the HSV Senator article. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi I probably don't need any suggestions I know what is wrong with it. I am also looking at other articles for examples. So thanksSenators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hyundai Elantra pic

Just a question, why did you not consider the picture that was recently put up on that page in the infobox as of equal quality to the picture you reverted to? Gateman1997 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Y2
• 
  MD

The MD image is less sharp, has rain droplets on the hood/bonnet and roof, has blue foam side protectors on the doors, and has a less attractive background (the Y2 also has a better contrasting background). Also, the MD image is repeated again at the bottom of the article in the MD section (it is never beneficial to repeat the same image twice). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While on the subject, I reverted Shimman lasted effort to change the image (with the lack of discussion) and took it to 3RR Noticeboard (diff incase the link doesn't work) but now I've got a bulling Admin and I really couldn't be stuffed to deal with them now. Now off topic, I've uploaded a few photos of the 50th Anniversary Falcon (sorry they are not the best but was in the area as I was photographing flooding near-by [which I've yet to finish processing]). Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am tired of arguing this as well. Thanks for the 50th Anniversary Falcon images. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth

I've seen your comments at Talk:Plymouth so I thought you might like to opine at Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move? Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards list

Hi OSX, since you helped with the related GA review, and are very familiar with WP:CARS guidelines, I'd appreciate your advice on the recent proposed deletion of List of awards won by the Lexus LS. That list article was created following a 12/2006 GAR, where it was suggested. However, I realize that it has gotten quite long, despite a focus on facts and not praise, and perhaps should be summarized back at the main car articles. Thanks for any guidance. SynergyStar (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that you have already performed the merger—which was probably the best way to go. I would avoid the "awards" section in the Lexus LS article and list the awards given to each generation in their own generation section.

"List of awards won by ..." articles are contentious because without a corresponding, "List of criticism received by ..." one could point out the possible POV issues. These criticisms should probably be included alongside the awards. Here is Australia, the motoring media love to criticise the "sub-standard" handling of LS compared to the S-Class and 7 Series. Another common complaint of the XF40 is the similarity of the interior design to the Toyota Camry (XV40). Maybe this kind of information should receive a mention to balance the lengthly awards list. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks OSX for the advice, many good points to consider. Thanks again. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

u dot s dot

Well yes, it came as a surprise to us all that CMOS did a complete back-flip on this: before you had to insert the dots; now they're evil, so to speak. It's about time. The question is whether it was a sudden push or had been building in their committees and boards for years. There has been great awkwardness in, for example, "U.S. and UK participation", and "... of the U.S., including the USA and the USAF" (USA standing for US Army)—and in the dropping of almost all other dots in US-related acronyms years ago, including the country-name abbreviation "USA". The tension is also present in modern-day American usage: many Americans have been dropping the dots in "US" in their casual writing, and many, although probably not as many, in formal writing. WP supplies good evidence of this. Tony (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC) PS And let's not forget the tension between the American and Canadian usage of dots in U.S. and the near-universal US in the rest of the English-speaking world. Tony (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request. Your opinion welcomed

Here: User talk:Catabv23/Renault Symbol —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Mazda Titan

Re this, [1], you said yourself that you added the content by machine translation, which we don't allow, and have made no effort at all to improve the article yourself after listing it after PNT, please revert yourself--Jac16888^Talk 23:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, please revert yourself, this is getting quite annoying--Jac16888^Talk 00:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is better than having no information. You have reverted my edit and removed perfectly good and legible content with it (such as section generation titles and images). I can understand almost everything that is written there. It is however, worded awkwardly due to the translation. I will fix it up when time permits, but in the mean time there is no need to delete perfectly good information. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The article as it stands is a complete mess, and much worse than a stub, legible or not. Adding machine translations to articles is not permitted, and by using another wikipedia's content without attributing it properly you have broken copyright policy. If you want to work on the article, do so in your own userspace, you cannot expect other users to clean up after you--Jac16888^Talk 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

timelines

Considering your excellent effects on the Camry timeline, I thought you might like this template: Template:Timeline of Apple II family Do you think it would be worthwhile to change the Toyota timelines to be similar?  Stepho  (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think the current timeline looks a lot nicer, but those Apple ones have the years split into quarters. I guess it comes down to how much you value such date precision (to be honest, I think half-years are enough). Can "narrow-" and "wide-body" be incorporated into the style utilised by the Apple articles? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the source code of the template and the years can be divided into arbitrary amounts - eg half years. Just thought that it might make maintaining our timelines easier because we only have to enter start/end dates instead of counting cells. I have some time coming up for the Christmas holidays, so I might create a throwaway template for the Camry and experiment a bit.  Stepho  (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Plastic window-covers

I was noticing in a couple of recent photos cars with large plastic pieces over the side windows, such as in this Hyundai Excel. They seem like aftermarket accessories to me, but I was wondering if they're in fact OEM equipment in Australia. I'm also slightly curious what they're used for. IFCAR (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

They are an after-market accessory. It is so you can have the window down some what (few centimetres) and it is meant to prevent rain/wind from coming inside the car (though they are called "wind deflectors") while driving (IE: meant to help prevent the windows from fogging up), some also have a tint. Bidgee (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, often they are in fact OEM equipment (see: Hybrid Camry Australia website, third and fourth thumbnails). They originate from the days when air conditiong was not standard equipment; very few 2000 onwards cars have these fitted.

They are used in other countries as well, especially those with warmer climates (including the United States: [2], [3]). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll see the style Toyota calls "slimline" on that link in the U.S. with some regularity; I'd just never seen anything as big as on a couple of recent Australia photos. IFCAR (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We love to be different. ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

MINI (BMW) de-capitalization

Hi OSX,

I am writing out of concern for your decision to revert my 19 October 2010 revision to the Mini (BMW) page. If you recall, I had cleaned up the article by carefully replacing all references to the new MINI with "MINI" instead of "Mini", yet leaving all references to the Classic Mini as "Mini". Your revert comment stated: ""MINI" is not an acronym, it is just a stylisation, and thus, we do not follow it.".

I fully admit I am not as well versed in the policies and procedures set forth by Wikipedia as you may be - however I believe, at least in this instance, that this decision does a disservice to owners of both types (classic and new). Every single reference to the new BMW-manufactured MINI put forth by the company themselves uses the capitalization. All major MINI enthusiast websites respect this distinction and always refer to the new ones as MINI, and the classic ones as Mini.

I believe this was not just to "stylise" (i.e. "look cool"), but rather to deliberately and distinctly separate the new ones from the classic ones. It is also a sign of respect, as a large percentage of Classic Mini enthusiasts are not happy with the direction that the marque has made since BMW took it over. It's a very clear separation which the Wikipedia page only serves to confuse. Most new members in the MINI community are unaware of the deliberate distinction and usually need to be informed, and pages like Wikipedia's exacerbate the issue.

Perhaps the rules are so strict that this is beyond discussion. However, if it is possible that an exception to the "non-acronym" policy can be made, I believe this is a worthy exception. I have been a very active member in the MINI community (in the USA) in the last 6 years (since I bought my 2005), I am very much aware of how it functions, and I did not make my edit arbitrarily. After all, the proper name of the brand is MINI. Why aren't we simply respecting that? EdgeDC (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concern but I am simply following the guidelines expressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). "MINI" is a word, and not an initialism or acronym, so it should be written as "Mini". I cannot grant an exception to this rule; it may be possible to gain an exception by consensus to do so if you bring up your case at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 23:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hybrid and Performance pages

Hi! Rembering the huge discussion over weather or not to mearge the Toyota Camry and Camry Hybrid articles, I've seen more pages for hybrid versions of regular ICE vehicles. So far I've seen pages for the Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid, Ford Fusion Hybrid and the Ford Escape Hybrid. Should these me merged with ther relative pages?

On a similar note, I've notices many pages for in-house tuned versions of cars, like the Subaru Impreza WRX STI, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and the Proton Satria R3 and I was wondering if they're there because they're treated in the same light as aftermarket tuned versions of cars, like the Shelby Mustang or Saleen S281. Thanks --Pineapple Fez 21:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I do not regard those other hybrid models any differently to the Camry Hybrid. The main reason why I have not initiated merger discussions for those articles is due to the opposition that would come as a result (like what happened with the Camry Hybrid).

Regarding tuned versions of cars (in-house or otherwise), such as the Shelby Mustang, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Subaru Impreza WRX (and WRX STI), these should again be treated no differently. The 2007–present Lancer Evolution X has much in common with the 2007–present standard Lancer, but would share very few if any components with the 1992–1994 Lancer Evolution I. Lancer Evolution I and Evolution X are related in name and concept only.

My intention at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid was not a vicious attack on hybrids, but a goal to separate vehicles by generation not powertrain/trim level; this is what differentiates these cars from the run-of-the-mill varieties. Thus, the current generation Lancer would have its own article, with a section dealing with the Evolution. In other areas, I believe that the contents of Holden Ute should be moved over to the respective Holden Commodore articles. The pre-2000 utilities and the Ford Falcon utilities do not have separate articles, and this works very well. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. But shouldn't we do something about it? I assumed that the Hybrid Camry discussion covered all articles of a similar nature, or at least hybrid versions of ICE cars. Having gone through all that and just merging the Camry articles makes the other articles seem random and like they don't abide by the standards. If there isn't really a standard for this yet, one should be proposed. --Pineapple Fez 00:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I am happy to do something about, but I am not all on my own. If you are prepared to vigorously support the change, then I am with you. The Camry Hybrid merger discussion did set a precedence, but Mariordo and company will never allow other articles to be merged based on that discussion. It appears that he also has little regard for the Automobile WikiProject conventions/procedures, as seen in comments such as this (regarding an excessively lengthy list of independent fuel economy figures by motoring journalists).

We will need to initiate a multi-page merger discussion, probably at WP:CARS (the hub for all major automobile-related disputes). I'd probably take it one step at a time—that is, just discuss hybrids first, then after that discussion is finalised start a new one based on performance cars like the WRX.

In addition to Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid, Ford Fusion Hybrid and Ford Escape Hybrid, there is also Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid. So far, we have purged "Toyota Camry Hybrid" (now a part of the Toyota Camry (XV40) article), "Lexus RX Hybrid" (converted into the Lexus RX (XU30) and RX (AL10) articles), and "Lexus LS Hybrid" (converted into the Lexus LS (XF40) article).

Question: what is your stance on EVs such as the Mitsubishi i MiEV and Toyota RAV4 EV? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely willing to help you! This kerfuffle must be fixed. As for the Mitsubishi i MiEV and Toyota RAV4 EV, I think they should be merged in theory, but these articles, mainly the i MiEV, have a lot of important information which I think would be omitted in a merge. I can live with it though, as long as the section is relatively large. On that note, I feel the same about the WRX STI and Lancer Evo. --Pineapple Fez 04:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you wanted to initiate the discussion at WP:CARS based on the above, then let's see what response we get. I will then notify all editors who voted in the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I also added a few more cars to the list. --Pineapple Fez 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've started a case-by-case discussion. --Pineapple Fez 01:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ford Ranger move

Hey, OSX, I was just wondering if there was a discussion on the Ranger move? I can't seem to find one. Thanks.--Ridge Runner (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The move was based on the precedent set by Ford Falcon and Ford Fairlane, and also the convention listed at Wikipedia:CARS/Conventions#Disambiguation. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf GA review

First I want to tank you for contributions in the Leaf GA review, and ask you to continue working on the reviewer's request. I just skim through the improvements you made and I believe you have already address several issues ( but please do not forget to flag the reviewer on the changes made here:Talk:Nissan Leaf/GA1). I already posted a notice in the WP:CARS requesting help from editors as a second article I nominated is now up for review and right now I simple do not have the time to face both reviews. As you can see in the Talk:Plug-in electric vehicle/GA1, this one will require a lot of work. I will discuss first with the reviewer some structural issues to decide if I drop the PEV nomination and also about the timeline for the improvements, since there is a time limit to complete the changes.

Considering the bad timing of these reviews(from my POV) + the merge discussion, I would appreciate if you reconsider your vote to my request and grant me the hold for discussing the PEVs, PHEVs and EVs articles later. I think there are plenty of articles in the list to chose from so we can begin in January the discussion of the electric-train vehicles. I really would like to devote enough time to improve my arguments for not merging several of those articles (some might even require just a change in the article name). Thanks again. --Mariordo (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to work on the Leaf article and will make a start on the Chevrolet Volt article if someone starts to review that article. However, my interest does not extend to the plug-in electric vehicle article, but I am willing to give a second opinion in the review.

I stand by my decision to oppose the "motion of order", but I will make sure none of the mergers proceed until after January 10, thus giving you a chance to improve your arguments. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy. Also I would like to clarify that only the general PEV article is up for review now, not the Chevy Volt. But now that you mentioned it you can see in the history that I have been improving it for several months now, I cleared it of a lot of flop after it was launched to the history section. Notice also that there is a lot of editing traffic (which as you know if controversy begins automatically fails the GA review) so I am waiting for the launch hype to settle to go for further cleaning, copyedit and updating before nominating it for GA too. You are welcome to contribute.--Mariordo (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I would appreciate your contribution at the section I opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Nissan Leaf compact or mid size?. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

McMansion

I removed the photo you added, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because its inclusion on that page and with that caption would slap a pejorative label on the fully-identified house of a private individual. If it weren't for privacy/neutrality concerns it would be easy to fill the page with hundreds. Basically, to include a specific house you would have to find somebody calling that specific house a McMansion in print and then put in a full reference so it's their judgment not ours. Xanthoxyl ^< 16:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of "Ford Motor Company"

Nope, what happened is that the "invert selection" button caused IE8 to hang (I didn't have this problem with IE7). Restoring the page with Firefox seems to have done the trick. There's still more work to do there. Graham87 05:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Toyota dates

Thought you might be interested in these links for checking Toyota dates.

1. My own site: http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/crllaprd.htm
2. Farpost: http://jnc.farpost.com/data/framno/longindex.html  Stepho  (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Was this Mariordo?

This autoblog green article talks about the discussions to do with merging articles. --Pineapple Fez 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mac=Mariordo?

See the block here: Sockpuppet investigation

User:Mac also first introduced the word Glider to the Mini E article here. Mac is a primarily Spanish speaking user with a love of electrical cars, which sounds a lot like Mariordo. I am a little loath to have found and then shared this sort of info, but am quite disgusted with Mariordo and others' complete disregard for conversation and unwillingness to listen. Me and you may not entirely agree on which articles should be joined together (Mitsubishi Celeste!), but at least we're both willing to listen to the other side. Furthermore, I would never trade my supporting vote for yours, and I feel that you wouldn't either. Apologies if I'm rambling...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a minute of further research eliminates the possibility of mariordo being Mac's sockpuppet. Both hold spanish language accounts, Mac since 2003 (!), and mariordo since waaay before Mac's being banned here. Nonetheless.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about Mac. The deeper I dig into Mac (and other similar sock puppets, including BennB4, Nrcprm2026, Nopetro), the more similarities I see. Please see: this ANI thread for more information. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI see here.--Mariordo (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP: Cars talk page

The following is part of my comment at the WP: CARS talk page regarding setting up of an 'Electric car' project or task force, quote: "BTW, OSX, you either take direct quote from me that can support your statement: 'this project has any vocal anti-green members as [...] and North wiki claim', OR you carefully review everything I said and revise your statement above accordingly. This surely does not make a good impression to me of your behaviours." May be you have to remind me where did I say there are 'anti-green members' in WP:Cars. I hope you can clarify and make a speedy resolution. ---North wiki (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Specific reference to you has been removed. The fact that you have taken offense to this shows that you don't consider this to be an anti-green push, so thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Vaucluse

IMO, your edit summary rationale here is attractive; but the argument is unpersuasive:

• See Flemington, Victoria#Demographics?

Explanation: The image shows representative buildings which are presumably conventional in a part of Melbourne I have never visited.

• Compare Geelong#Geography + Grovedale, Victoria#Postwar housing boom?

Explanation: The image shows representative homes which are presumably characteristic of a part of Victoria.

• Additional "food for thought" — Park Slope, Brooklyn#External links

Explanation: The external links feature random images of buildings in this New York neighborhood, presumably with the intention of conveying something which words along cannot achieve. and :fr:Habitat japonais?

IMO, the edit by Timmccloud is credible and appropriate here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't consider it unpersuasive at all. Also, I am not sure what you were trying to achieve with those links either (sorry). I said in the edit summary, my concern is that by only showing images of heritage listed homes, et cetera, we are not accurately illustrating the article. Now obviously we can't include a photo of every building, but if we can at least attempt to show a somewhat broader cross-section, I think that is better. If only mansions or heritage listed homes can be shown, where does the leave us with the newer suburbs? In Sydney, the suburb of Kellyville is almost entirely comprised of new development houses, none of which have heritage value or are "notable" aspects of architecture as standalone dwellings. But this is the predominant architectural style, so do we just not include any photographs illustrating this article? With Vaucluse, should we only show manors built prior to the 20th century? If this is some kind of policy, it needs to be changed. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My intention was simply to suggest plausibly helpful links.

If this modest effort was ineffective, please give it no further thought. --Tenmei (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming an edit war, you have been reverted multiple times and still persist. Please stop, or your activity will be reported to the adminstrators. 1) This should be discussed on the article talk page, not in your private pages, I will be copying this conversation and continuing it there. 2) Thank you for your fine photographs but Wikipedia is Not a forum for your photography portfolio, and wikipedia has Notability Guidelines for inclusion into articles - your examples aren't notable. Further discussion will be on the article talk page. Timmccloud (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Timmccloud, your rudeness and act of bad faith simply made my day. I reverted once—yes once—not "multiple times" as you suggest. If you are talking about this edit as well, then take a look at the IP involved, 137.82.200.96 who is a vandal who has went through and mass-reverted several edits for no reason. I reverted your edit once, certainly not edit warring, but wait you reverted twice. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mazda 121 DA

I agree that the "DB" quote on that webpage is wrong - it doesn't seem very reliable altogether. AFAIK and as far as I can tell, all Mazda 121/Ford Festivas were built in Korea and never in Japan. Unless you have contrary information I am going to go ahead and change it. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Daimler roadster

Hi, Sorry I missed your edit to the image in the article Daimler Conquest. I'm writing to tell you the car in this picture is a Daimler Roadster and very far from a Conquest Century Coupé. Its about two feet lower and as you will have seen even less easy to look at than a Dart or SP250. Both (Roadster and Dart/SP250) were promoted as apprentices' projects that were 'so good we just had to put them into production', ha ha. I think there may first have been a version of the roadster without tailfins or gaps for air-conditioning but maybe that (no tailfins) was just the way the apprentices wanted it and the somewhat arrogant MD of the day over-ruled them. According to Daimler Century by Montagu and Burgess-Wise the Roadster engine was the Century later put into the Conquest so I will accept the description/name for the car and the image of Daimler Conquest Century Roadster but not 'Daimler Conquest (Mark II) Century drophead coupe' which may or may not (I can't tell) belong to the image of the green and white car above the Roadster. OK if I change the caption to the Roadster image back to what it was before you changed it? Have a very nice Sunday and please find some more interesting pre-1960 Daimlers for Commons. Thanks Eddaido (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Starwagon (L300)

Hello OSX, I see you created the " Starwagon (L300) " category in the Commons. These actually appear to be L400 Delicas (fourth generation) and I think they should be categorized as such - unless you have some information unknown to me? Starwagon was only used on the second and third generation Delicas. My only question is what these cars were labelled when sold new in Australia (not grey market ones)? Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the "L300" tag appears to be wrong, but the "Starwagon" name is correct as that was the name used in Australia. The "Delica Space Gear" models have been imported second-hand from Japan in recent years, but as far as I know, the "Delica" name has never been used on any Australian-specification models of any generation. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 11:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh, didn't know that. I know that the earlier ones (3rd gen at least) were known as Mitsubishi Express, but a bit of quick googling shows that this was only true for the Cargo version. I will definitely update the Delica page - there are enough names, markets, and models to require a table, I should think. Nonetheless, as all the other iterations of the fourth gen Delica (Euro market, JDM etc) are all grouped together, would you mind if I put these back into that category? I reckon an explanatory hatnote should take care of the rest.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just stick them into an existing category without the hatnote. I won't be offended, promise. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello again

I am very happy to see that you discovered and saw fit to use the Chevy LUV photo I found while "flickr mining".  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Once we've got the Isuzu Faster page up to a reasonable standard what should we work on next? I have a thing for the Subaru Alcyone SVX and am thinking about working on that page next. Does the Alcyone interest you at all, or is it not "old, odd, tiny [... and] pre-1990" enough for you? Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 10:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're sort of correct - Showa or no era. Luckily, the SVX is French enough for me to love it (sort of like a Citroën SM for Tokyo's bubble era), but I am more interested in the Alcyone XT (received the Japanese motoring journalists' Lemon Reward for Worst New Car 1985). I am enjoying this collaboration though, it almost feels like a form of peer review. Btw, the XT article is most likely misnamed: because of the Vortex it probably should be at Subaru Alcyone rather than Subaru XT. I will see what I may have on the SVX, get cracking!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the 1985 original as well, but the SVX is much nicer I think. While we both (but you in particular—no offence) seem to have a strange liking for some of the crapiest cars ever made (like the Ford Festiva), for me the uniqueness and attractiveness of the SVX trumps the honour of being granted the "Lemon Reward". The two pages must be without argument should be merged as one, as "Subaru Alcyone". I couldn't possibly cope with the "Alcyone SVX" article being retitled to the bland "SVX" name, the "Alcyone" part is just too good! What were these orthodox Western Subaru subordinates thinking? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Way to go, Fuji Heavy Industries

Proposed merger fully seconded. As for the XT, I have these joyous memories of disbelief from my halcyon days as an eight-year old: recollections of Subaru introducing the almost entirely senseless XT. Complicated, slow, ugly, gangly, and expensive (in Sweden at least), the XT must have been one of the silliest cars ever to be marketed. The SVX is actually an attractive and desirable proposition (aside from the slushbox), but I cannot imagine who exactly Subaru thought they were targeting with the XT. The XT6 is even more amazingly illogical and complex - thank god I didn't buy the used one I was looking at maybe ten years ago... and yes, I do have a particular affinity for Badly Thought-out Cars, of which Subaru is a past master. Rex Van, anyone?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha, it's one thing to have an interest in clearly terrible cars but to consider buying one, now that is certainly deranged. And take it easy on us poor automatic drivers. You know those annoying American car buyers that insist cars must: change gears automatically (along with every thing else like engaging the wipers, lights, door locks), be unnecessarily large, not make any noise, never break, have really really ultra soggy/marshmallowy suspensions? Well that's sort of me, minus the size prerequisite (so long as it's not Mazda MX-5 or Rex Van squishy) and certainly the non-negotiable mushy suspension tune. Hence why I like Lexus, which generally have an acceptable if not wonderful cornering ability and granny-specification stability controls (a good thing). Yes, Vehicle Dynamics Integrated Management (VDIM) is exciting.

By the way, the reason why I decided to edit articles such as Ford Festiva was not because I like them or am attracted to them in any way, but because I was interested in the story behind them. Ford had the Festiva, Mazda had the 121, and Kia had the Pride. Before I started, this was my theory:

Mazda designed the 121 for itself which Ford as usual said "Hey, we need a version to rebadge as well because we couldn't possibly design a car any smaller than mid-size without it being really really crappy and a major loss maker." After Mazda reluctantly obliged because of Ford's ownership stake, Ford therefore had another Mazda clone to join its Laser (Mazda 323), Telstar (Mazda 626), and Courier (Mazda B-Series) models. Then Ford's South Korean affiliate Kia said it needed a small car that was at least sellable at a global level (this was 1986 remember). Ford instead said "no" and told Kia to built their Festiva version on the cheap, promising Kia it could take the hand-me-down model global (or to Europe at least) when Ford didn't want it anymore.

It turned out I was sort of right, but off the mark a fair bit as well. The same goes for the Kia Sephia. I wanted to find out the relationship between the second generation Kia Sephia sedan and the seemingly related hatchback version known as the Spectra, and this resulted in a lot of mergers and reorganisation of articles on compact Kias. My interest in the Daewoo Royale came about because it was based on the Opel Rekord and Senator, just like the first generation Holden Commodore, so I just had to get to the bottom of how it came about and which versions actually existed. And lastly, when I was working on the Chevrolet Cruze article there was a preceding and unrelated Cruze hogging up page real estate, so I therefore had to find out the history of that model and "set the record straight". This one was a bit of a mystery as Chevrolet (or Holden more correctly) had used the Suzuki Ignis as a starting base (which I already knew), but the mystery was why Suzuki of Europe had also been churning out an Ignis of its own that looked just like the Cruze but longer.

So that's my justification for editing articles on lousy cars. Whats's yours? I don't however, have an excuse for editing the Toyota Camry article though, as I have a strange fondness for Camrys (a heinous crime in the automotive circle I note). While the Camry is not lousy as such, it is just bland and about as unexciting as they get. That said, I could have easily used the confusing relationship with the almost identical Toyota Vista models and the incongruent international and Japanese generation structure as a scapegoat but I won't. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And back on topic, here is an Australian-specification Subaru Vortex, with an accompanying blurb that nicely sums up what you said above:

Subaru is more or less a mainstream brand now. But back in the 80s they were a much weirder and more eccentric company. You'd have to be a bit of an alternative type to buy a Subaru in those days.

And if you were really mad this was one of the more unusual cars they came up with. These were a flagship model for Subaru. It came with a 1.8L turbo engine and front or four wheel drive. Not many around and apart from the distinctive looks and general weirdness they aren't anything special to write home about to actually drive.

P.S. FotoSleuth, the author of that image, has heaps of freely licensed car photos mostly taken right at the top of Sydney's northern suburbs and also the inner city suburbs. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Last things first: I have already uploaded some of FotoSleuth's very useful photos to the Commons - I live in New York and only get very limited chances to see cars of any interest. Just taxis and Camrys around here (sorry). What's funny is that your original idea on the 121/Festiva/Pride is pretty much how I thought it all hung together. I remember spending a lot of time (pre-internet) trying to find out what Mazda had called the car in their domestic market, as those three-digit numbers were for export only. For a while I thought the car was called the "Mazda Festiva". I'm still a bit weirded out by the entire Asian Ford lineup, with all its rebadged Mazdas.

I don't really have an excuse - I adore weird and unlovable cars. I'd pick a four-cylinder VK Commodore over an SS, and I'd take a Daewoo Royale Diesel over either. I like my cars tiny, light, and equipped with nothing - I drive this Chevrolet Turbo Sprint. Actually, I live in NYC, so I ride a bike to get places while I pay insurance &c for a car which sits in my in-laws driveway. As for my fondness for keis, it springs from seeing photos of them in my dad's German Auto Katalogs that I read to pieces as a kid. I still remember the first kei I ever saw as a child, a Daihatsu Cuore in northern Germany in 1989 or so. Also, the Swedish motoring magazine that I read when I was a kid was very well populated with eccentric journos, and I think this may have rubbed off. As for the paths you take in your editing, mine are largely similar although often something is fired up by finding a photo of a particular car while Flickr mining - which is how I ended up spending hundreds of dollars on reference material for the Delahaye 135. In any case, I feel that we did a very good job both with the Isuzu Faster and the Festiva, so let's keep it up.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Daewoo Royale Diesel... that would barely even move as three of the four whole kilowatts would be used making lots of NVH in true 1980s diesel style. You should put the the correct hubcaps on your Sprint to suppress the allergies some of us experience with non-stock "upgrades". And only taxis and Camrys in NYC? In the main part of Sydney (around the bridge and Opera House), it tends to go something like this: Mercedes-Benz, Ford Falcon taxi, white delivery van, bus, BMW, Ford Falcon taxi, non-prestige car, delivery van, Bentley, bus, Porsche, non-prestige car, taxi, van, taxi, BMW, non-prestige car, BMW, Audi, non-prestige car, Lexus RX, taxi, Lexus IS 250, van, taxi, taxi, something rare and expensive, non-prestige car, et cetera. The price of parking in the main part of Sydney, which is higher than even New York, probably explains this. The rest come in by rail, as the Sydney train network is great for getting from the suburbs to the city and that's about it. Ten years ago, fleet cars used for private use were king (Commodore, Falcon, Camry), but the transition to car allowances has changed things quite a bit. The C-Class is now only second in the mid-size segment to the Camry (and those C 63 AMGs are everywhere), with the Mazda 3 the private buyer's favourite. Don't go near a school or you might get run over by an SUV (one in two cars at school times are raised and off-road capable). The favourites seem to be the Toyota Kluger (Highlander), Lexus RX, Toyota Prado, BMW X5, Holden Captiva, Toyota RAV4, Mercedes-Benz ML-Class, Ford Territory and Volvo XC90. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I sort of miss those ridiculous hubcaps, but it is near impossible to find 12 inch tires in America. Even the thirteens are hard to source. Our car population here in NY is similar, except much fewer nice cars because the streets are of third world quality - I do see Maybachs nearly every single day, though. They're quite astoundingly unimpressive. The car population on the streets does change considerably with the time of day. Here it is taxi, taxi, lincoln Town Car, taxi, cop, SUV, taxi, taxi, Town Car, SUV, taxi, taxi, taxi, Camry, taxi, cop. There is a streetparked Maserati Quattroporte III in my neighbourhood which makes me happy every day - as it accumulates battle scars.

Yesterday it occurred to me that in today's world, what with the pollution and all, only the wealthy can afford to travel far enough to be birdspotters. For the rest of us, there will be carspotting. Some might find this dystopic, but I am quite content.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

When you mentioned the Maserati Quattroporte I thought "nice", but then I discovered that the third generation Quattroporte is not the current model but the astoundingly unimpressive Leyland/Fiat hybrid-esque model from circa 1980. And what are all those Americans thinking by blowing money on the lamentable land yacht with leather that Ford forgot to stop producing in 1979?

There are not very many of the astoundingly unimpressive Maybachs here at all (I've seen one on the road) as we definitely prefer Rolls Royce Phantom sedans and dropheads instead (seen occasionally). In the main part of Sydney (called the CBD) there are lots of S-Classes and 7 Series BMWs, but anything over about $400,000 is a rare find. Even though the Australian dollar is naturally worth only a little less than the US equivalent, we pay significantly more for luxury cars. The Lexus LS 460 is $60,000 in the US, but $200,000 in Australia (about the same as an S 350 or 740i). The US$300,000 Rolls Royce Phantom is just over $1,000,000 here, and towards the lower end of the luxury spectrum the ubiquitous X5/ML/RX models start at $90,000 compared to $50,000 in the US (about $10,00 less for the RX in both). That said, what the US calls "mid-spec" is our poverty pack and the same principle applies to luxury cars which have a lot more standard equipment here. At the subcompact end, the US$12,995 Toyota Yaris is only AU$14,990.

We also have a lot less multi-millionaires and billionaires, but at the same time a lot less poor people (as the government pays each unemployed individual $15,000 per year for as long as they like for doing absolutely nothing—and $15,000 is considered to be well and truly "poverty" here). This means there is a massive middle class (that is, individuals with salaries from about $50,000–150,000 per year) and sizeable upper middle class (about $150,000–300,000). To put it differently, the full-time minimum wage in Australia is $29,640 p.a. (the highest as per list of minimum wages by country) whereas the US minimum wage is $15,080. Someone on the minimum wage would also be paying almost no tax and would receive an additional 9 percent p.a. on top of their gross $29,640 wage/salary going into their compulsory superannuation fund (retirement fund).

So yeah, I guess that's the trade-off for not seeing many Maybachs around. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Much preferred - I am Swedish, which I believe has an even flatter income curve. It's nicer for everyone; these huge income gaps create incredible problems. I much prefer seeing a 120Y to a Maybach!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Land Cruiser

Hallo, OSX. Why are you debating about the "Land Cruiser" series? I will fix the list so the problem will be solved, but please.... don't revert it! RaymondSutanto (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega Rating

Hi OSX. I'd like to ask a favor of you, if you have the time and inclination. There has been much debate as to the quality scale rating of the Chevrolet Vega article. All those who want to rate it are accusing each other of being biased. I see that you are not involved in editing that article, and I know you are an expert on automotive articles, so I thought you would be an excellent editor to provide an unbiased quality rating. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and excellent advice. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Kia Forte

Hi, i feel mentioning the Naza twice in the same line contributes nothing as people could look it up anyway from the second time and it seems to be just pointless space wasting and advertising. We don't do this for any other car as the model and brand are usually enough without being listed separately, eg: Ford makes the Ford Focus and exports it to many countries. It's pointless and trivial i feel and may aswell just be left as: The Ford Focus is exported to many countries. Do you see the point i'm making? Thanks Jenova20 08:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the opening line of the Kia Forte article states: "The Kia Forte is a compact car manufactured by Kia Motors." Therefore Kia is mentioned twice. It's not just that article either, just about every car article follows this style. Also, by not providing a link, users would have to search the term which is the very reason why we have links is it not? Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and the opening line aside - which i believe is automobile club policy, would you consider padding between the two mentions of the Naza to put them further than 4 or 5 words away?

Thanks for the speedy reply Jenova20 09:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed you wanted the Ford Focus Rs Wrc article moved into Mk1 and Mk2 Ford Focus.

Agree completely with that and lent my support.

Thanks Jenova20 09:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess verbosity could pad it out a little: "'...while Naza of Malaysia has assembled the vehicle since 2009 and sold it under the name Naza Forte." Your issue with the name "Naza" wouldn't have anything to do with its similarity to "Nazi" would it?

P.S. thanks for particiapating in the Ford Focus WRC discussion. There is a similar discussion at here at WikiProject Automobiles regarding the "Ford Focus Electric" being converted into the Ford Focus (third generation) article as well. Did that merger seem reasonable to you?

I don't have a thing for Nazi's, i'd like to make that clear.

I'm not sure completely why that's continually bought up because of 2 unrelated incidents; one about a homophobic cartoon and the other about a fake signature used in a petition, which i provided a source for.

A look on my userpage will show i'm gay so a Nazi sympathiser i would never be in a million years.

Back to the current topic, i only have a problem with Naza as being unheard of mostly to people in the UK and so placing the name so often in an article about the Kia seemed like advertising.

I have no problem with the new wording you proposed anyhow, i just didn't like the original version.

Thanks Jenova20 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't need my support with the Focus, you alreay have 10 against 4, it's unlikely the other side will get their way.

Thanks Jenova20 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ford Focus Electric

Please stop deleting this article. A well-attended formal discussion resulted in a "Keep" decision on this article. If you continue to delete it, you may be blocked from editing. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not moved by your idle threats. It is clear you are in the minority and can't quite bare this. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your final warning. If you revert again, I will open an ANI demonstrating that you are in violation of 3RR and you may be blocked from editing. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm here from WP:AN/I. It looks like you've reverted edits to Ford Focus Electric three times in the past 6 hours or so. Be aware that another revert will leave you in violation of the three-revert rule and will lead to an immediate 24-hour block. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 16:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. See here.--Mariordo (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

Hi, there's a discussion to Rename Toyota Vitz as Toyota Yaris on the Toyota Vitz Talk Page, please let your opinion be known there. I had to read the rules on votestacking and canvassing lol so i'm just gonna copy and paste this message on peoples pages who have at some point shopwn an interest in car articles to be in line with that rule. Thanks Jenova20 11:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox automobile}}

Is the discussion alluded to here actually taking place anywhere? Because from what I see, people are getting bored of waiting for the automobiles project to adapt to what is actually needed for live articles. For the time being, I'll leave it for you to decide what to do with the forked template; it'll probably need unforked at least temporarily, unless you're willing to allow for fields to be added back to the main infobox (which really shouldn't be any sort of hassle). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of British car terms (saloon vs. sedan, bonnet vs. hood, etc)

I wanted to ask if it's possible to convert the American car terms on car model pages to British car terms. I saw that the Wikipedia pages on Rolls-Royce cars used the British term "saloon" rather than the American term "sedan". This made me wonder whether it's possible to try this out on the page on a well-known car such as the the Mercedes W126 S-Class. I can see you weren't happy at this and undid my edits. I know that Wikipeda may be American at heart, but I've asked myself if it could rely on British terms more often, even if British English vocabulary is hard to understand. Yip1982 (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

British terminology is fine on articles for British cars, but it is my understanding that the term "sedan" is used is most places around the world whereas "saloon" is mainly restricted to the UK are Ireland. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, UK car-related terms including but not limited to saloon, boot, bonnet, kerb, nearside, offside, wing (i.e., fender), indicator, tyre, gudgeon pin, big end, and kerb are used, to exclusion of the US terms, in the UK, Australia, South Africa and other Commonwealth countries (with the notable exception of Canada). The UK terms are also used interchangeably with the US terms in many other places of the world where "international English", as opposed to "U.S. English", is the idiom. It would not be appropriate to constrain the use of the UK terms to British cars. It would be more appropriate to apply a common-sense guideline of the vehicle market being discussed, though this leaves no hard-and-fast rule with regard to cars originating outside the English-speaking world and sold throughout the world such as the Mercedes models presently in question. We could parenthesise, e.g. the Mercedes E420 sedan (saloon) or we could devise another solution by consensus, but insisting on US usage except in the case of British cars is not that solution. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd dispute that. Here in Australia we "pick and choose" between UK and US terms (but always use UK spelling). That is, we use boot, bonnet, tyre, but then fender, sedan and station wagon. In some cases both terms are used: blinker and indicator, et cetera. My issue is not with British terms per se, just "saloon" and "estate".

For cars originating from non-English speaking countries, I have been using UK spelling and terminology for European cars and US spelling and terminology for Asian cars. This is based on my observation that European manufactures often use UK spelling as England is such an important part of the European region. On the other hand, Japanese and South Korean manufacturers tend to use US spelling so I have followed this concept.

Sedan vs Saloon at Google.co.nz (NZ only search)

• "BMW AND sedan" (1,910,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (190,000 results)
• "Jaguar AND sedan" (2,720,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (143,000 results)
• "Rover AND sedan" (1,670,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (116,000 results)
• "Toyota AND sedan" (1,910,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (211,000 results)

Sedan vs Saloon at Google.co.za (ZA only search)

• "BMW AND sedan" (983,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (112,000 results)
• "Jaguar AND sedan" (507,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (65,200 results)
• "Rover AND sedan" (761,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (77,000 results)
• "Toyota AND sedan" (1,050,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (92,100 results)

As "sedan" is usually used in place of "saloon" outside of the UK, I think the more common terms "sedan" and "station wagon" are better for all non-English cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS#National varieties of English covers this. Topics with strong national ties should use that country's terms. Otherwise we retain the existing variety of the previous editors. So, cars made in Britain should use British terms, cars made in the US should use US terms, cars made in Australia should use Australian terms. Whereas cars made in Japan, Germany, China, etc can use any of these terms but whichever terms the original editor used should be the terms that the article continues to use. Rolls-Royce is tied particularly strongly to Britain, so it should be using British terms. If you think that non-British readers might be confused then provide links to an explanatory article (eg saloon). Cheers.  Stepho  talk  07:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lexus official sites list

Hi, What is your critieria for which Lexus official sites stay in the external links section of Lexus and which ones get deleted? Should we list all countries that have a Lexus dealership or just put in Japan and global http://www.lexus.com.sg/changecountry.html (like we did for Toyota)?  Stepho  talk  10:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Major English-speaking markets, Japan because it's the home market, and China simply because of it's size. Lexus operates in too many countries to list them all. A global site would work better but do you think others will keep adding specific country links back in? OSX (talk • contributions) 11:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. But I feel that even though we are using the English language we should cater for a worldwide audience. Also, listing only English websites (plus Japan and China) will have the same problem as listing only Japan and a single global link - editors will be adding their own country. However, the Toyota article with its single global link seems to be surviving well.  Stepho  talk  23:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, let's try the global link. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 13:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Y  Stepho  talk  23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

why didn't i edit commodore myself?

Because it is too much hassle. The fanbois have won to that extent. Meanwhile I am astonished to hear that the chassis engineers waited for the styling boys to 'pen' their little pictures. The rest of the world uses simultaneous engineering. Some companies even develop their platforms before the upper body is styled. GM included (that is the whole point behind the zeta platform, etc). That whole section is the sort of make believe tosh beloved of Wheels magazine. Greglocock (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Legacy production years

In reference to your production range, I don't see any support for your position that production year range refers only to the production in Japan. First of all, you refer to an open discussion on a talk page; secondly, the talk page says "An end date in this case would be when the car in question was replaced in a majority of markets," whereas you said in your edit summary that it needed to be based on Japan.

It's a simple factual inaccuracy that production of that generation of Legacy stopped in calendar year 2003. IFCAR (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The point of the range is to show the general production range (usually based on the original market). Satellite factories often continue to produce a vehicle after the main production plant has moved onto the next generation. Production years lose their value when we have cases like first generation (1982–1989), second generation (1986–1995), third generation (1992–1999), fourth generation (1996–2003), et cetera. The production field of the infobox can detail the extended production from other sources like the example depicted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Years, part 2. I know that the Subaru Legacy article is currently absent of the necessary generational infoboxes, but please feel free to add them because they would be of help. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 09:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're restating your previous opinion, but the only support you've provided that this is a widely held position is you saying the same thing on a talk page. That's not enough to convince me that there's support for determining the years of production for a particular model based on one of many factories building it. IFCAR (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to discuss this matter objectively—it comes down to opinion. To me, it seems counterproductive to change things (and cause confusion) to suit one market. The Toyota Camry article does the same thing where the North American/Japanese dates are used over the Australian ones, which are instead listed in the various infoboxes. The section headings aren't meant to show the exact dates of manufacture, but the main period for that particular generation—1998 to 2003 in the case of the third generation Legacy. The fact that Indianan-assembled versions remained in production until 2004 is less important than the fourth generation Legacy replacing the third in 2003 in most other markets, especially Japan. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand if it in fact most other markets. Was it? To me, it also seems counterproductive to change things confusingly to suit one market, regardless of whether that market is the home market, and you've so far said only that the 2003 end date corresponds to Japan.

Is 1998-2003 also the range for, say, Europe and Australia? If so, I see some merit behind that, but that isn't what you said earlier. IFCAR (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Japanese production (serving Europe and Australia) switched over the the fourth generation in 2003. Only the US-produced model continued on until 2004. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "home market" production dates should take precedence, but I often find myself disagreeing with my own previous opinions on this matter. In general, since there seems to be a continuous back-and-forth on these all across the Automobile Project, I would prefer not to list production years in section headers at all. For me, the most important part is to always use anchors so that pipelinks will keep working. As a sidenote, when the original producer continues production of a single version of a car (say the 1977 Mazda 323 Wagon, which continued in production alongside its FWD successor) I would still list the "main" years in section headers.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

International Harvester Light-duty pickups

International pickup and antipodean variations

IH B-120 (US)

IH C-1600 (Aus, 1966-1973)

'78 Dodge D500 (Aus, 1972-1979)

Now on to my main business: The 1956 (?) IH A-series, B-series, and C-series (and any other names they may have had later, I know next to nothing about these trucks) are currently of interest to me as they were also bizarrely marketed as Dodges in Australia (Chrysler Australia apparently did all the pressing work, although the cabins still had "IH" stamped in the sheetmetal). Aside from message boards, I cannot find any mention of the Aussie market IH/Dodges, and you have always been an excellent source of info on these things. Grateful for any help.

While there are enough photos, there is nowhere to put them and I don't even know what one could possibly title an article (or a Commons category, for that matter) on these rather charming old International pickups.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I know nothing about these models either. As far as I know, I don't have any resources on them. Red Book says they don't exist but it's has patchy records for old, obscure models such as the Dodge D500. It is possible that GTHO may be of help. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Convert rounding

Just to show why I always specify the rounding when using {{convert}}. By default it tries to round the output to what it guesses is the same amount as the input. Input values with 0 or 00 at the end tend to make the output value also jump to the nearest 10 or 100.

default rounding	0
199 horsepower (148 kW)	199 horsepower (148 kW)
200 horsepower (150 kW)	200 horsepower (149 kW)
201 horsepower (150 kW)	201 horsepower (150 kW)
299 horsepower (223 kW)	299 horsepower (223 kW)
300 horsepower (220 kW)	300 horsepower (224 kW)
301 horsepower (224 kW)	301 horsepower (224 kW)

It causes many false bug reports on the convert talk page. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  06:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

2012 MY Camry

What do you suppose we should do with the 2012 MY Camry? Toyota USA have released a lot of details (except the all important model code number) but haven't actually started selling it yet. I'm inclined to keep it off WP until we know for sure if it is XV50 model or just an XV40 facelift but US editors are going to keep trying to add it in somehow. Usually I just look up the equivalent model on the Toyota Japan's site because they specify the model code but Toyota USA' early release of details puts a spanner in that plan. Toyota USA is claiming it as an all-new vehicle of the seventh generation but I can't remember what they counted as the sixth.  Stepho  talk  06:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

All evidence suggests that it is an XV50 and therefore a new model (Toyota claims the previous model is the sixth generation, and this new one is the seventh). Every five years since 1991 a new Camry has arrived with the second digit of the model code increasing by one (XV10, XV20, XV30, XV40). A visual comparison of the 2006 and the new 2011 model is compelling enough for me to tell you it's an all-new model. If this turns out to be wrong (unlikely), then we can adjust the article accordingly. I don't believe it is a good idea to remove the information entirely because we don't know for sure about one small detail. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll follow your lead then - it gives me someone to blame :) Most modern cars look like jellybeans anyway :)  Stepho  talk  08:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I too am not a big fan of the latest model's exterior styling (the interior seems alright). While conservatively designed, pre-facelift XV40s and the post-facelift hybrid XV40s look much better. I'm not sure what's worse—the exceedingly bland XV50 with its nasty rear styling—or the porky XV30. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may intrude, I think a couple of Ford models serve as a useful precedent: the Fusion and Explorer.

The 2010-model Fusion received new front and rear ends and updates to an existing platform but an unchanged roofline and largely unchanged interior; Wikipedia counts it as an update. The 2006-model Explorer received those changes plus a redesigned interior; Wikipedia gives it its own generation. I'd say the Camry's substantial -- if not total -- changes to both the interior and exterior are further support for the new Camry being considered its own generation, if the designation is ever challenged. IFCAR (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:1998-2000 Ford AU Falcon Futura sedan (2011-06-15) 01.jpg

1998 Ford AU Falcon

File:2004-2005 Ford BA II Falcon Futura sedan 01.jpg

2002 Ford BA Falcon

I don't consider the 2010 Fusion and 2006 Explorer to be all-new models. The Explorer article also separates the 1991 and 1995 models, which are the same car with different front- and rear-end styling. I haven't bothered fixing this up as it would just get reverted. For some reason, Ford Ranger (North America) is on my watchlist and I have restored the article to show two generations (as opposed to four) on several occasions now. Maybe it's my Australian bias showing here, as the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore tend to be updated with a new generation only every 9 or 10 years. In that time major changes are made to the core vehicle: compare the the 1998 Ford AU Falcon (interior) with the 2002 Ford BA Falcon facelift (interior).

Basically, if one can fit a door from the previous version onto a supposedly "all-new" model then it is not a new generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that "door standard" is a little arbitrary. You can have a thorough cosmetic update with no mechanical changes, or a thorough mechanical update with minimal cosmetic changes. IFCAR (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A "a thorough cosmetic update" would be a facelift wouldn't it? Why should the 2005 Ford Explorer be treated differently to the Ford Contour? A new generation by definition must be all new. I would draw the line at a thorough re-skein such as the transition from the Mk5 to Mk6 Volkswagen Golf, but not the B6 and B7 Volkswagen Passat. I consider the Mk6 Golf a re-skin as the outer panels are all new (including doors), despite the the shell being largely the same. It's possible Mk5 doors would fit on the Mk6 but they would not align with the adjacent panels.

Despite major mechanical changes (but very few cosmetic changes) such as the replacement of the 3.2-litre V6 with the all-new 3.5-litre version, and over 2,000 other component changes in total, the 2006 update to the Mercedes-Benz E-Class (W211) is no more than a facelift and therefore of the same generation as the the 2002 original. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

When I say "thorough cosmetic update" I mean effectively putting an entirely different body on an unchanged platform. That would meet your door standard, but why count that as a new generation and not something that's seen major mechanical changes without major modifications to the body?

Small point on the E-Class, though: the engine change didn't coincide with the styling updates, at least in the U.S. market. IFCAR (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The underpinnings of a car tend to be shared amongst other vehicles, carry over to new generations, and often remain unchanged for lengthy periods of time. The FJ Cruiser example in the section below is little more than a retro body over the top of the circa 2003 Toyota Land Cruiser Prado (J120). The body and interior are all new, but the platforms, powertrains, and underpinnings (like suspension) are carry-over componentry. Likewise, the 2009 onwards Opel Astra is little more than a Chevrolet Cruze with a new body and a Watt's linkage added to the rear suspension (in turn picked up by the Cruze in some markets).

Wikipedia has developed a policy of separate articles for the:

• Vehicle
• Platform
• Engine and transmission

How many vehicles get entirely new "blank canvas" underpinnings (platform, suspensions, engines and transmissions) over an existing body? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Toyota FJ Cruiser facelift

I was clicking back and forth between two FJ photos looking for a difference, and all I saw was a different alloy wheel design on the photo you added. The article text doesn't mention a design change. What exactly is the photo supposed to be illustrating? IFCAR (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

According to GoAuto:

Until now, the FJ Cruiser has been a US-only vehicle since its launch there in 2006 and the popular model has recently undergone a mild facelift there.

Toyota Australia was waiting for this update before bringing the FJ to our shores. The update brings new 17-inch wheels, new bumpers and some interior trim and spec upgrades.

The Australian vehicles have different rear bumper to US models with the licence plate in the centre rather than under the tailgate door-handle.

Vitara/Escudo chassis

It's probably taking it a little far to call it a facelift though, so I've changed the article to reflect that. Here's a comparison of the bumpers for American and Japanese produced models. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Vitara

Found some pictures on Picasaweb, is this one worth adding to the Suzuki Escudo article?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, as it's too low in resolution to be of any value. To me, these internal images are not very useful unless they demonstrate something outstanding such as a new safety system or something similarly innovative. Either way, I won't be bothered if you add it anyway. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nyäh, I think you're probably correct. That's why I thought to ask before just throwing it in there.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Automobiles in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Automobiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Autos

Hi, there is a discussion going on at the Auto Project discussion page about updating the safety sections in the auto articles. Please give your opinion and don't worry, i'm not trying to rename something. Thanks Jenova20 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Liberty Outback

I added that to the caption based on the article text -- the first sentence of the first generation section. If you're sure that's not correct, you'll probably want to fix that, too. IFCAR (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A4 speculation

Nice work reverting on A4. FYI I'm pretty certain that new editor is simply a new account for the problematic COI spammer User:Autoindustrie. Worth keeping an eye on his contributions. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I am right. Autoindustrie submitted a name change request to "Motormy", but in the meantime has been editing as "Pistonmy". Under the latter he has already spammed WIkipedia with his own blog. I'm starting to smell a duck.... --Biker Biker (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

RB20 engined VL Commodore

I find this NZ special very interesting. In an old notebook of mine I came across a mention of it, stating 129hp as the output. Also, was it only available with the 4-speed Jatco automatic? This seems unlikely but it is how the article is currently worded. Perhaps you can shed some light on this? And thanks for including the XT6 photo, btw.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Also just happened to encounter the Vectra engined VN Commodore, also highly interesting. In the European market Vectra, such a non-catalyzed engine produced 95 kW (129 PS; 127 bhp), while in the Omega it produced 90 kW (122 PS; 121 bhp). Any clue as to what the output may have been for NZ and Singapore?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied to at: Talk:Holden Commodore#RB20 engined VL Commodore and Opel Calais. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Audi A6

Thanks for correcting my mistake! Jenova20 10:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

BMW 1 Series

The 5-door hatchback was facelifted on 2007 and more models were added so there are 3. Do you want to discuss this rather than reverting each other? Jenova20 12:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A facelift is not a new generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It only becomes a new generation when the platform and code number (E81/82 etc) changes?

Jenova20 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The different codes refer to the different body styles. The short- and long-wheelbase 7 Series models do the same thing, yet they are still the same generation. Likewise, the circa 2005 model 3 Series models are split into sedan (E90), wagon (E91), coupe (E92), and convertible (E93)—they are still the same generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, i think i've confused a facelift and generation there then.

Thanks for noticing i suppose, better you than someone who doesn't Act in good faith Jenova20 13:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Mazda Premacy

Hi O, are you still in favour of removing the Mazda5 information to give it a separate article? I feel it would benefit the article since the Premacy information is keeping the current article down and a car that is still in production with it's own article is easier to keep clean and work on. Thanks Jenova20

I like the idea in theory, but I probably would not support this due to Japan still using the Premacy name. I'm not totally against it, but moving the second and third generations to their own page is going to cause duplication as there is still a Premacy version of these models. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well to put it bluntly, it will never be a featured article because it's a jumbled mess and there's not much interest from contributors.

Split off mazda 5 though and that has a chance, otherwise the very look of it will keep it a junk article and deter people. I'm willing to bet most English speaking people don't even know the connection between the Mazda 5 and Premacy anyway.

If the mazda premacy name is still used in Japan then that can be added to the appropriate article.

It shouldn't really be a big barrier to improving both articles by splitting them.

I'll take this to the talk page.

Thanks Jenova20 09:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that making an extra article will be better. Premacy refers to all three generations; Mazda5 only two—therefore we will have two articles on the same car. Content duplication will become a problem and separating the two articles will do nothing to make either more worthy as featured articles.

I'm also willing to bet that most English-speaking people have no idea what a Mazda5 is either. The "Mazda" part of either name would tell all but the most brain-dead people that it is a car of some sort.

Stop worrying about article names—they're not that important. It's like fighting over the choice of typeface and running out of time to do that actual writing. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It bugs me when i type in a car name and see a terribly written jumble because someone has lumped the names of 2 or 3 cars together and then still only wrote about one of them.

There is a lot more information out there about the Mazda5 than the Premacy and so i don't think it would be difficult at all.

Thanks Jenova20 10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It bugs you because article titles do not reflect the name used in the United Kingdom. It would be lovely if we could all have Wikipedia tailored to our own location, preferences and point of view. Unfortunately, this is not workable within a global project and it is not feasible to have articles named to suit one perspective. Global news channels like CNN International often have news readers with hybridised British-American accents for this very reason—it's a compromise.

You don't like Kia Carnival being named as such because it is foreign to you. I don't like many current names for articles because they simply sound stupid: Mitsubishi Delica, Daewoo Winstorm (now moved), Toyota Platz, et cetera. The point is to remove oneself from such bias and take a global perspective. Is there a common global name? Does this global name conflict with another vehicle? If not, then give the article the global name: à la Mazda3 as opposed to Mazda Axela. Does the name sound crap? Too bad if it does. Toyota Yaris meets the global name rule, but fails the conflict benchmark (it clashes with the Belta sedan). Mazda5 doesn't really fail this test as such, but it is silly to have a Mazda Premacy article plus a "Mazda5" article that effectively duplicates two-thirds of the former for no other reason than "it's not called that in my country, therefore I don't like it."

I often consult Wikipedia for topics that I don't know a real lot about. As it stands the article titled "mobile phone" reflects the non-American term. I wouldn't expect an American to search for "cell phone" and start sweating profusely from the unease of having a different title. Likewise, I wouldn't quite resort to calling in the violins after searching for a car boot and being directed to the American term "trunk". What I am most interested in is this: does the article explain the topic to me in an easily understood manner? And did that article clearly explain to me that a "mobile phone" can also be called a "cell phone"? If yes, then I am satisfied and I've even expanded my vocabulary by learning the alternative name used elsewhere.

Many articles, Mazda Premacy included, could be better structured to make it clearer that alternative names exist. And since redirects work very well, I am sure that readers will easily work out that they are redirected for a reason—something that should be explained in the first or second sentence of article in most cases. I know when I am redirected after searching topics that I am not knowledgeable on, I don't get confused by the redirect taking me to an alternatively-named page. Any developed article should and can make it clear that multiple names exist.

It is a genuine concern to take issue with having several almost identical cars combined into a single page which only explains one of them. One solution would be as you say to delete any references to these "invisible" models to right the wrong. While this is one way, we would then need to create a second article for the version sold in Spain under a different name. Consequently, the development history, powertrain details and safety scores will be duplicated among two articles and need to be updated twice if a new engine is released next year. Rather than deleting all references to any "invisible" badge engineered counterparts, we could quickly write a couple of sentences about these other versions and keep the combined layout in tact. Just remember no article is perfect and no article will ever be so. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, although i try not to be biased pro UK at all and would argue against that.

The Yaris is by far more the more popular name, i can't remember all the details of the Kia Carnival, and the Mazda Premacy seemed like a good chance to imrpove the article by splitting the mazda 5 and mentioning that it's called a premacy somewhere else (while leaving the main premacy article as the predecessor).

Your point is made though and i don't think my editing skills are good enough to bring any one of those articles to a featured article status currently.

As you can see though, we're both knowledgable about aspects the automocar industry and will most likely be working together more in future, so have a good evening and weekend.

Thanks Jenova20 15:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am still not understanding why separating the two pages would improve them. No new content is added, all that is done for the Mazda5 is the erasure of the original 1999 model information and a new name.

Less is more in terms of articles. Take a look at Ford Festiva. Australia and Europe received this model under the name "Mazda 121". It was known in Japan, North America, and later in Australia as "Ford Festiva" (replacing the identical 121 in Australia). In South Korea, where (I think) all left-hand drive models were produced, it was sold as the "Kia Pride". This car is now produced and sold in Iran under several nameplates by "SAIPA". We used to have a separate article for the Festiva, Kia Pride, and the Iranian versions, plus barely a mention anywhere of the Mazda 121—we now have a single, neat, concise page outlining all four models. For the second generation of Ford Festiva, we previously had the information at "Ford Festiva", plus North American information at "Ford Aspire" and South Korean information at "Kia Avela".

Surely "Ford Festiva" is better than this, this, this, and this. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Saab 9000

I just saw that you made some useful edits to Saab 9000, I have some issues with the current organization of the page and would like to run them by you before I do anything. Dividing the 9000 into "first" and "second" generations is not a really productive way to view the steady stream of changes which the 9000 underwent. To recap, the 9000 began with the original hatchback version (later called the 9000 CC, for "Combi Coupé") and was later complemented by the 9000 CD (sedan). The CD received a more sloped nose, which was later fitted to the CC as well. Leter yet, the redesigned 9000 CS hatchback appeared, with new rear and front designs. The CS front end was eventually fitted to the CD as well. Meanwhile, the 9000 CC remained available in some markets as a cheaper version.

The engines also kept changing, starting with the 2-litre Turbo and eventually including a 2.3-litre version and then the V6. The main issue I take is that these gradual changes have to undergo some severe contortions before they can be fitted into a basic "MkI" and "MkII" article structure, leading to some awkward compromises and half-truths. I welcome your inputs in advance of making some changes; I propose simply dividing the article into a 9000 CC, 9000 CD, and 9000 CS section - perhaps with a separate section on engine developments. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied to here. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you feel about downplaying the pictures of the 9000 Cabrio prototype? Maybe we could just use one of them, or they could fit into another section? Right now I feel that they are receiving undue importance within the article. Cheers and goodnight (here, it seems to be 17:30 in Oz right now).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it's now less prominent. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Vauxhall Astra

Can i ask if you know why there's an article for the Vauxhall Astra and the Opel Astra? Thanks Jenova20 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Um... because there is? Yes, please feel free to merge the Vauxhall contents to the Opel page. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no... i never agreed to do the merge.

I was just bringing it up since you all but accused me of a pro-UK bias a couple days back.

Someone pointed out the Vauxhall Astra existed before the Opel Astra so i'm stumped as to what the rules say to do.

Thanks Jenova20 09:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for interrupting... The rules say use the name that it is known in every market with English as the first language. If that fails (typically because it has multiple English names) then use the name used in the vehicle's home country).  Stepho  talk  09:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So if correct that it originated in the UK as a "Vauxhall Astra" then later throughout all Europe as an "Opel Astra" what do the rules state?

Do we rename to Opel, Vauxhall, or leave both names in existence Stepho?

Thanks Jenova20 09:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We should use the Opel name because the Holden Astra and Saturn Astra make the Vauxhall name only one of the English-market names. Germany is the home market, see WP:WPAC#Titles. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, trickier than I thought. After skimming the articles, the Astra name seems to have been used by Vauxhall first in 1980 but the third generation onwards (ie 1991, when it went outside of the UK) was designed by Opel. I'm split either way :( The Holden Astra starting as a rebadged Pulsar and then becoming a rebadged Opel/Vauxhall doesn;' help things either - especially since it got its own range of engines. In any case, the alternative name should link to the final name.  Stepho  talk  10:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what Warren said on the Vauxhall Astra talk page and it's stumped me a bit as there doesn't appear to be a clear policy on this spiderweb of names, countries of origin etc.

Thanks Jenova20 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, another tangled web of badge engineering :( I will read through the various Astra articles, derive a timeline of events showing the various histories and where they merge/cross/diverge, and then present it at Talk:Vauxhall_Astra#Merge. I suspect there will be no clear answer but I'll at least dig out the facts so that we're all on the same page (pun not intended).  Stepho  talk  01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Astra was never more than simply a badge-engineered Opel Kadett (later Astra). Since the only market where the Vauxhall Astra has been regularly offered, I can't see how Opel Kadett/Astra would be merged into it. I also don't see a very pressing need to do the opposite - any merger will cause a lot of anger, so I think it's allright to let things remain the way they are.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put the timeline of major events/brands/names at Talk:Vauxhall_Astra#Merge, so it can be hashed out over there.  Stepho  talk  06:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Honda Vigor, Quint and Ballade image request

Hello OSX. From the Australian photos you've submitted, could you keep an eye out for the Honda Verno twins of the second generation Accord and Civic sedan cousins, called the Vigor, the Ballade and the Quint? The only images we have of the Quint are the Rover variation, and we have no first generation Vigors and one Ballade. I'm going to guess there must be a few left running around in Australia exported from Japan. In particular, rear photos showing the trim piece across the trunk would be nice to see. Thanks (Regushee (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Hi, I don't think I have seen any of these models here. The used Japanese models imported here tend to be high-performance, coupe, and minivan-type vehicles, especially variants sold in limited numbers or not at all when new in Australia. Common models include the Toyota Estima, Mitsubishi Delica, Nissan Elgrand, Nissan Skyline, Toyota Chaser, Toyota Soarer, Toyota Supra, Nissan Silvia, and any other turbocharged or similarly high-performance model. There also seem to be a few Toyota Celsior and Toyota Cressida models despite these selling well when new (I guess they became more in demand later on as prices came down). Some people have even imported T150, T160, and T170 series Toyota Corona models, which seems strange as these have nothing going for them and appear little more than a slightly smaller equivalent to the ubiquitous Camry. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Bots botz botz

All of the bots edits to the Volvo 700 and Volvo 900 series pages are becoming rather annoying. Should we do something in particular beyond just undoing and repairing the edits in question? Also, do you know WTH this thing could be? It's not a Kijang (unless heavily and very well modified), but what is it?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Toyota Kijang? Picture doesn't match up with Google but that's my best guess. I think the bot owner should place those Volvo pages on an exempt list. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For protecting wikipedia from FFGR79. I also think that this user could end up being useful (handy with a camera, tenacious) and would welcome their efforts after a renunciation of their current methods. I am kind of glad I took a few days off; seeing a number of other (mostly unrelated) editors all doing the right thing made me regain some of my faith in WP, which had been rubbing off a bit recently. Cheers.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I hope your judgement is correct because the editor seems to be here just to annoy others—out to see how far they can push it. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, happy Saint Lucia's day.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Chilean photos

While I love Qwerty242 for uploading all these photos of sometimes rare cars, I just want to announce that I stand behind your pruning of his often excessive additions. Although, I do like pictures.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverse of Subaru Forester revision

Hello. I was wondering why you reverted my edits to the Subaru Forester. Bookster451 (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Compact SUV" was changed to "Compact Crossover SUV", a dead link. "Compact SUV" is an EPA term.
• You removed reference to AWD and the wagon body style in the first sentence.
• The article originally said, "the Forester shares its platform with the Impreza", which is explanatory enough. A platform is merely the underpinnings of a car. It is unnecessary to say that these are different cars because this is a) obvious and b) implied by the use of the word "platform". OSX (talk • contributions) 04:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually didn't mean to delete the reference to all-wheel drive, must have been an accident. But as for the compact crossover SUV thing, I've seen this in other articles. Are these articles incorrect as well? I just didn't feel the term "SUV" fit the glove since it shares more commonality with a station wagon than an SUV. Bookster451 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally think we need to stop using the term "SUV", which I too am guilty of using far too often. According to our own definition, "a sport utility vehicle (SUV) is a generic marketing term for a vehicle similar to a station wagon, but built on a light-truck chassis." It seems we (me included) have a double standard in the sense that people rarely refer to the BMW X5 as a "Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)" or the BMW X6 as a "Sports Activity Coupe (SAC)", but commonly use the similar term "SUV".

"Crossover wagon" seems more fitting to me for car-based "SUVs" so to speak, but I am not sure how to best describe ladder-frame "SUVs". Any suggestions? "Four-wheel drive" on its own is too ambiguous and can refer to any vehicle sending power to all four wheel regardless of off-road ability. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A trrue SUV doesn't need to have four wheel drive, I believe. It just needs to have a truck-based body-on-frame design, whereas a crossover is built more like a car. I am still a little confoused, I think I may do some research and work on the Crossover and SUV articles. For now I'll list the subaru forester as a crossover suv. Bookster451 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I saw you reversed the Forester again. I would like to see a sourcethat the EPA classifies it as a compact SUV. Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude. I just think that the current article doesn't suit the car very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookster451 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Opel Antara

The Opel Antara is offered as a product of the german car manufacturer Adam Opel AG . The vehicle is manufactured by other GM subsidiaries outside of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniotx (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed within reason. However, while Opel designed the Antara, it does not actually produce the car. "General Motors" (GM), while more ambiguous is more fitting as it includes all three GM entities that produce the model. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Captions

I've noticed in a number of your edits, most recently to Toyota Vitz, that you've been removing the years or model years of cars from photo captions. That seems to be in conflict with WP:CARPIX: "The caption must clearly identify the vehicle. The year or model year and trim level should be included in the image caption if the information is available."

Why have you been removing this information? IFCAR (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to disambiguate when disambiguation is not required. It would be like including "sedan" next to all images in the Toyota Camry (XV50) article—totally unnecessary as it is only available as a sedan.

Also, I feel "facelift" and "pre-facelift" terms are better for some articles as release dates vary between markets, and North American variants use model years, et cetera. Some articles contain images with such a jumbled bunch of years they become useless from a global perspective. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked every case in question, but agree in general. No need for looking for a hard and fast rule for captions though, I think. It might be a good habit to incorporate this sort of info in an image's Commons file if it isn't already there.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the policy, just ignoring it isn't the way to do it. Particularly when the specific year of a vehicle is known, rather than just a range, I see no reason not to include that in its caption.

For year ranges, the issue that some articles have had with "facelift" vs. "pre-facelift" is that some cars have multiple design changes. Captions saying things like "with second facelift" got very clunky. IFCAR (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise the WP:CARS page said that, so I apoligise if it came across that I was ignoring that clause. Every article needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Where it is beneficial to use years, then use years; where "facelift" and "pre-facelift" is preferable, then use that format. It simply depends on the situation.

I am still not seeing the benefit of including the year in an article like Hyundai Veloster. There have been no updates, so why would we need to state the year in the caption? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OSX isn't ignoring the policy, WP:CARSPIX isn't a policy or guideline. Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the benefit to NOT including the year. Why wait until there's an update, at which point the year will be needed as a descriptor? You need a better reason to ignore the stated, written policy/guideline/whatever you want to call it than you personally don't think it matters. IFCAR (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What about if Toyota releases a new Camry wagon? Should we add "sedan" to all images in the existing article in anticipation? When Hyundai facelifts the Hyundai Veloster, then the page can easily be updated to reflect this. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Daihatsu Charade

Hello OSX - apparently the fourth generation Charade was available with the 1-liter engine in Australia, but nowhere else that I can find out about. Google tries to outsmart me (it knows where I am and won't let me forget it) but maybe you could find a reasonable Aussie source for the 1-litre G202? Thanks,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct as per Red Book. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (belatedly)  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, try Google Australia in future, and specify "pages from Australia". I do the same when I need information for the UK or NZ by going to those countries' respective Google subsidiaries. I still haven't worked out how to search only US pages though (which can be a hassle at times). OSX (talk • contributions) 08:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

FJ Cruiser

Hey OSX I really appreciate the changes you've made to the FJ article I've been working on. Sometimes it's tough to display the information in a straight forward manner. There really isn't a good style guide in wikiproject automobiles so I was looking at some of your FA articles for guidance. I do think a small two paragraph section is warranted for information describing common modifications as so many owners modify their FJs. Though its tough to stay neutral when mods involve products, I tried to keep it as general as possible, your thoughts on the aftermarket section? Garrett^TALK 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! Look, I can see why people would want the aftermarket section, but the article is about the Toyota product, not third party modifications. Also, there are infinite combinations of modifications available, so how does one work out what to include and exclude? WP:CARS has decided somewhere in the talk page archive that such information should not be included. Simply, if the FJ Cruiser can be modified in a certain way, so too would many of similar vehicles. Therefore, this sort of information would be best covered in a general "vehicle modifications" article. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 12:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Automobiles

Cool, I see you have an interest in automobiles too. A random question: doesn't it get kinda tiring always editing automotive articles and not editing other stuff. I'm not saying it's bad, but I'm just wondering. You're like an Australian IFCAR! :) Quiet Andrew! The McCarvers are coming! (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough comment, but when you're as fanatical as I am with cars, the interest never wanes! And yes that includes photos as well. Thanks for the message. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Audi models

Hi,. what was wrong with those related fields, I made undo to those. -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay I fixed them.. :) -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the related field requires a greater nexus than merely platform. The VW Group are probably the "worst offenders" in this regard (despite the terminology, this is not a bad thing). The 1999 and 2005 VW Jettas are heavily based on the corresponding VW Golf model (doors, interiors, width, etc). Likewise, the original B5 series Skoda Superb is little more than an upgraded VW Passat (B5). Conversely, while the B6 Superb and Passat share some components, none of the visible components are shared and as such this relationship is all under the skin. Therefore, linking to the platform page (Volkswagen Group A platform#PQ35) makes more sense. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The platform is the main factor in related field, it consists usually chassis, powertrains etc. there is no better reason to use related than this, although its kinda duplication if platform field is used. If you disagree I think we need to take this under discussion on WP:CARS discussion. This style has been used in most car articles. Body or external visible parts doesn't mean cars are related, its the mechanics/technical parts which determines this IMO. And the VW Group is kinda most famous company using this parts sharing among its brands VW,Audi,Seat,Skoda trying to make different cars and using same parts. -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It already has been brought up (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Related field in infobox), and the consensus is to not clog up infoboxes with every model that shares a front suspension subframe with another (immaterial). What's the point of having a platform article if we are going to repeat this information in every infobox—having that platform article allows this information to be condensed? Also now I'm confused because some related cars are okay based on platform, but others are not. The PQ35 platform lists 22 entries, do we want 21 related cars in every infobox? I hope not. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no point to add evey car to the field, but its intresting to know if some Audi and Skoda shares same platform, its not our job to avoid hiding these part sharings...and the platform article should be used to tell something about the platform itself not just list cars using it. -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And how do you intend on choosing which related models to include and exclude? We can't just pick our favourites, or the more attractive cars. We need a measure that at least shows a passing resemblance to objectivity. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Volvo 700 Series

The changes made to Volvo 700 Series by my bot arn't vanalism, this was an interwiki conflict I spent a lot of time on to correct it. Please stop reverting that edit. - Warddr (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the 740 and 700 are the same car. We don't have separate 740 and 760 articles, just a single one. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not because you don't have a separate page on wikipedia-en that no other wiki does. Interwiki links an meant to link to the SAME page on every wiki. There are wikis where there is an article for both, and you'll break the interwikis for them. And for example why would you link to fr:Volvo 740 and not to fr:Volvo 760? And why do you keep on reverting my correct link to nl:Volvo 700-serie as well? - Warddr (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Chile mystery Telstar

Chilean Telstar

Hello OSX, found this interesting car when I was flickr mining today. It's an LHD Telstar AR (1984), fitted with a 1.8 engine. I would guess that the LHD is a simple conversion with Mazda parts, but I never saw the 1.8 listed as available in the AR Telstar before. What do you think?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's not many of these ugly Mazda 626 clones left. I'm not aware of the 1.8-litre model, but I don't know much about the Telstars here either. What I could find, is probably the exact same car for sale (atleast the aftermarket hubcaps are the same), see [4]. Note the Ford logo on the build plate, which states the model code as "GD", which is the same as the equivalent Mazda 626; also the ID No. SHVMBT-00236 (if this is of any use), and it was "Made in Japan" by Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd (Mazda). OSX (talk • contributions) 11:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it might indeed help - I found out that the Laser was also sold as a Ford in Chile, so this is probably a genuine original Telstar for Chile. Cool, because I had only ever thought these Ford-badged Mazdas were sold in Oceania and SE Asia. The chassis code is highly confusing, as the JDM 1.8 Telstar was GD8PF. Mysterious.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Agh!!! It just dawned on me that this is not a GD, it's a GC! Now I am totally confused.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Roseville

I deleted a lot of your pix because 16 pix of federation cottages was far too many, especially when none of them is heritage-listed etc. I had the same problems in my early days, when I got rapped over the knuckles for putting too many pix in some articles. The general guideline is that pix should be suported by the text and they should not turn the article into a photo gallery, which articles are not meant to be. I was not just trying to replace your shots with mine; mine are of different subjects, whereas yours are just too many shots of the same type of subject. You should think about this now, because if you keep doing this sort of thing, you will just have to learn the hard way. Anyway, I'll be back soon and we can discuss it further, but you will definitely have to change your attitudes and practices. Yours in good faith, Sardaka (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sardaka. The topic of the artice is "Roseville, New South Wales", not "Homes of Roseville, New South Wales." The gallery has ten images of homes in it,[5] which still is (8?) too many photos of homes given the "Roseville, New South Wales" topic. See {{too many photos}}. They are beautiful homes, so I'm guessing there likely is reliable source material to support a spinout article on Architecture of Roseville, New South Wales, where a photo gallery of homes may be more appropriate. To see how such "Architecture of" articles are written, see this or this. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

An article cannot be adequately illustrated with two images unless all the houses look the same. Let's not aim for another Churchville article, where it would seem that suburb is merely a place of worship due to only images of churches and anything resembling a church being included. Suburbs primarily contain houses, and the articles should reflect this. Photos illustrating the area do a far better job than text. I think 10 images is very reasonable. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you responded, but there are still too many pix. It's not necessary to have 10 pix to show what a Federation home looks like, especially if they are not especially notable, heritage-listed, etc. I will still be working on this article. Two pix of churches are not excessive, but 10 pix of cottages are. The last two are especially unnecessary. I suggest you read WP:IG.

As I said, I had the same problem in my early days, and soon learned that photo galleries belong at Wikimedia Commons if a gallery is really what I want to do. So now I put my pix in galleries or categories at Commons, and link them to the relevant article. In this case, you can easily create a Commons category on Federation homes, Roseville homes or whatever you like, and link it to the articles. I normally stop at 8 images in an article. If I want to use more than that, I put them in a relevant Category at Commons and link to it. Eg, Albion Street, Surry Hills, where you can see the link to the category at the bottom of the article. I created that Category especially for that purpose, which is what I always do if I have a special interest in a particular subject. You will probably find that there are already Categories at Commons which you can put your pix in, then link to the article.

Sardaka (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

PS You deleted the pic of Harold Cazneaux's home, Ambleside, which is backed up by the text and is of more note than a few Fed. cottages.

Not that I intend to have a war about it, but the "rundown stairs" are actually a cottage that is relevant to the text, but not to worry... Sardaka (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mazda Titan

Seriously? Vandalism? Reverts like that are a good way to lose access to tools you know. My edit was clearly not vandalism, I have explained to you before what the problem with the article is, and it is still in the same terrible state it was over a year and a half ago, with no attempts made at cleanup by you or anyone--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw the deletion, and while I was disheartened I also understand it. I will give it a go, once I have the energy.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback

Why do you keep reverting the Subaru Outback article to a previous, less informative, article. The version that I posted and keeps getting reverted back after you edit it is a much better written article. I fixed the issues about it not being its own model. Please stop reverting this back to the less informative version, or please explain why you are reverting the article back to your version every time it is changed. MarcusHookPa (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)MarcusHookPa

Nothing has been lost, the information has simply been moved to: Subaru Legacy (second generation), Subaru Legacy (third generation),Subaru Legacy (fourth generation), and Subaru Legacy (fifth generation). The decision to do this was made here and here.

Subaru marketing the Outback as a different model does not change the almost 100 percent parts interchangeability with the Legacy. What are the differences? Different bumpers, wheels, badging, increase ground clearance, and that's about it. So why have two articles stating the same thing twice just because of what Subaru's marketing department does? The concept is no different to the Audi A6 Allroad, the VW Passat All-Trac, and the Skoda Octavia Scout (none of these pages are separated either). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem is though, the version that I have posted clearly separates the Outback into the Legacy Outback and the Impreza Outback. Also, I own an Outback, and I can say from first hand experience that not all of the parts are interchangeable.

MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ownership of the said vehicle does not make you an expert. Please detail the components that your rigorous analysis determined do not fit on the Legacy. I doubt there would be many.

Plus, car companies marketing departments release subtle variations of other vehicles all the time. If we made a separate page for each version for every country that offers wonderful packages with glued on cladding and tough "off-road"-looking wheels then we would have about four times as many car articles that we have presently. The editors here have come to a decision to combine the pages. This decision is not set in stone. If you provide a convincing case, then other editors will vote to have the merger overturned. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, those who own the cars are often forced to study their cars, and thus do tend to learn more about them than the causal observer. Some key points after looking at a couple of recent edits and comments in this contentious exchange of edits:

The fact there is a sedan version of the Subaru Outback sold (in he US at very least) was left out. This has since been corrected, but was omitted via one of your edits.

The hood, grille, and bumper of the Japanese built examples are NOT per piece interchangeable with US models for proper fitment. When a body panel as large and expansive as a hood is not directly interchangeable, how 'purely cosmetic' can you really call that?

In one edit comment, 'this is a Japanese car' - the US government would disagree, because the US market models are made in the US, in Indiana. The design of the core vehicle may have been done in Japan (and of this I'm not so sure), the actual vehicle with significant variation is not made there. Toyota has design studios in the US - does that mean a car designed in the US but produced in Japan is a US vehicle?

There seems to be a trend in many of the Wikipedia automotive articles to imply that a model name in the US market isn't the cars 'real' model name. This is again why more emphasis should be put on platform designations as the global convergence of information, and that the significant variants be considered for their own articles. 76.14.240.12 (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

US vs Japan parts interchangeability has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether the Outback should have its own article. Or are you suggesting separate articles for Legacys depending on where they are assembled? Personal study of a car does not mean anything (WP:OR): what cited sources say counts. Subaru's own manual (p. 3) mentions four types of Legacy; namely the Legacy Sedan, Outback Sedan, Legacy Station Wagon, and Outback Station Wagon. Legacy v Outback is ranked of equal consequence as is "Sedan" vs "SW" - and not even Marcus would argue that we need separate articles for the wagon versions. Or so I hope.

The fact that there was an Outback Sedan was absolutely not left out - it is mentioned in the relevant generational articles since a dab page is by definition meant to be kept short. It is never explicitly referred to as uniquely a station wagon either, although I agree that at least one of the images should be of a sedan to minimize misconceptions.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for omitting the Outback sedan variant from the summary page and therefore implying that the Outback has only ever been available as a wagon. I have now corrected this.

It is true that the North American Outback (and Legacy) models are quite different to those sold in other markets. But separating the Outback from the Legacy because of this makes no sense because the Legacy/Outback twins produced in Indiana differ in the same way as the Legacy/Outback manufactured in native Japan. For me, making the division based on country of origin makes more sense as this is the level at which the changes occur, not the trim level (but I am not advocating a separate page, one is enough). What would really benefit the articles is to detail why the North American cars differ and reconcile these differences back to the consumer preferences and legislative requirements in the United States that necessitated them.

When I say it's a Japanese car, I am referring to the design. I don't care if Subaru produces their cars in Japan, Bangladesh or on the moon—they will still be Japanese in design. The nationality of the assembly line workers is of no consequence to the car (the effect on local economy is a separate concern). For this same reason, Austrian-assembled Chrysler Voyagers are still American cars.

The lines become a little more blurred when foreign outposts of Japanese firms heavily contribute to the design of a vehicle development from the very beginning. Examples of this would be the Toyota Tundra (hardly an appropriate vehicle for Japan) and the Australian-development Toyota Aurion (XV40). OSX (talk • contributions) 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New table

I just wanted to show you the nifty way I just thought of to illustrate production periods, see the table at Nissan Leopard#F31. Or is it too busy? I should maybe use a lighter color?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it took me a minute to actually see what was happening but I got there in the end. In the second and third rows you skip highlighting for the "2" and the "0", respectively (sorry this is hard to describe in words). This is what threw me out.

What I really like is how it illustrates which engines replaced what; it just wasn't immediately obvious that's all. I see if I can think of a clearer way of showing this because the engine succession timeline is a great idea. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I also like that one can divide the breaks somewhat proportionally, allowing someone to casually glance at it and get an idea of which engines were available at any given time. And, that it doesn't take up any more space than the table would otherwise. As for Marcus in PA, I have reported him for 3RR because I don't see reasoning with him doing much of anything. He's a seasoned edit warrior.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, this is certainly becoming a very time consuming process. I never knew contrasting body cladding could be so special. I learned that an electric motor is the hard way (Camry Hybrid), but a badge and body cladding? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello OSX. A dispute about the Subaru Outback has now been listed for admin attention at WP:AN3#User:MarcusHookPa reported by User:Mr.choppers (Result: ). If you know something about this issue you are invited to add your own comment at the noticeboard. To me it looks like a messy dispute that has wandered across a number of article talk pages. A lot of people seem to be doing reverts. Admins will be grateful for any reasonable suggestion of how to sort this out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Broad warning concerning you and other editors

I strongly suggest that all editors involved in this edit war view and take heed of the warning I've given here. --slakr^\ talk / 07:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback and friends

I just wanted to invite you to a second discussion regarding whether the Subaru Outback deserves a standalone article or if it ought to be merged into the relevant generational articles of Subaru Legacy (and Impreza). Thank you,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru merger mania

I just added a merge suggestion tag to the Impreza, the WRX and the STi, since the Impreza articles are in so much more disarray than the Legacy, the Outback and the Baja.(Regushee (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

I agree, Impreza and friends have been on my radar for a long time, but I have really been leaving these into the "too-hard basket" as the WRX and STi will be a tough one to push through due to the halo status of these cars with so many enthusiasts. I will be right behind you in support for a full overhaul of these pages. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

While a merge would be possible, please remember, in most markets except the USA (and possibly a few others), this model is sold as the Subaru WRX and Subaru WRX STi. The only reason that I do not fully oppose this merger is because WRX and WRX STi models have been made for other vehicles than the Impreza (Legacy WRX STi, 2010 and 2001 I believe, I also believe there was a WRX and STi version of the Forrester released somewhere between 2000 and 2010). MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A name difference is trivial and is not a good reason on its own to merge articles on two heavily related cars. It doesn't take up much space to state this difference in name. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well I wish you good luck, this should be very interesting if this does not turn out like the Outback articles (although it should work the same way). I feel that this merge should take place after the WRX and STi articles are merged into separate generations. Please also merge the Saab 9-2x Aero if you do successfully go through with this. MarcusHookPa (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback

Please provide me with a link to this policy that you are referring to. Thank you, MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

P.S. I hope you know that I do not have any sock puppet accounts set up. I only made one edit with a different account (ip address) and that was because I forgot to log back on after I updated my browser. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with you accidentally using your IP (I've done that before). I am just not 100 percent convinced that you are not the same person as MonkeyKingBar. The new Loopy Linda account today was the final straw where I was confident that there was at least some sock puppetry going on. The investigation will sort this out. I apologise if you are innocent, but sock puppetry can;t go on. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the need to do this, but I feel that Loopy Linda was another Outback enthusiast who noticed that the Outback article was changed and did not realize that there was a debate going on about this. Did you try to contact her via her talk page? I agree, sock puppetry is unacceptable and has no place on Wikipedia. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am satisifed that you are not the same editor as MonkeyKingBar and have removed your from the investigation. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

North American Timeline

I though you would be interested in this template for the North American timeline. This way we can change the general template to reflect the Japanese model years. I notice that Volkswagen has a template for each market. I am not sure about any other companies, but If I am not mistaken, I believe that Toyota may also have one. Maybe a European of Australian one could follow this model. MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)