User talk:Scheinwerfermann

To start a new topic here on my talk page, please click here.

Archives of Past Discussion

• Archive 1 (21 Dec 05 - 23 Nov 07)

• Archive 2 (5 Dec 07 - 15 Jan 08)

• Archive 3 (16 Jan 08 - 19 Mar 08)

• Archive 4 (20 Mar 08 - 8 May 08)

• Archive 5 (9 May 08 - 6 Jul 08)

• Archive 6 (7 July 08 - 17 Sep 08)

Conversion templates

Is the use of these going to be required? I personally dislike using them, and in the case of cubic inch -> liter, I know what most of them are off the top of my head anyway. I saw that you've been replacing already-converted text units with the templates, was there a reason for this?

I find that when a standard and metric figure are manually entered, it makes sneaky vandalism easier to spot (if one is changed, the other will be correct and they won't match up). --Sable232 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please use templates! They are the preferred way to do the job, for reasons of display uniformity and accuracy. Also, if unit conventions change — as they do, from time to time — a simple change to the template brings all articles up to spec. It's a much larger job to go through and nuke each and every individual instance of ft·lbf than to change a template to spit out lb·ft instead, for example. I see your point about vandalism, but frankly this seems like a really thin reason for avoiding templates. Consider all the non-unit-related vandalism that happens. Someone puts the word "poopoohead" in place of the word "carburetor", or adds a spurious "z" on the end of the word "wheelbase", and it's easily spotted and quickly reverted. Generally, enough people keep an eye on any given article that every revision is scrutinised for propriety. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

U.S.A. & UNECE

Hi, Scheinwerfermann! You seem to be the expert on the topic of UNECE Regulations. In the article on ECE Homologation, the German Wikipedia says in pertinent part: The ECE and EG-Approval will only be issued after all relevant governmental agencies of the EU have approved. (Wrong. Approval by one country's agency suffices, but that's only a minor faux pas compared to ....)

It then goes on: "The following non-EU countries accept the ECE-approval:

Australia Bahrain Brasilia Japan Canada Croatia South Korea Tunesia Ukraine Russian Federation United Arabic Emirates United States of America ..."

AFAIK, the U.S.A (and for all intents and purposes Canada) vehemently oppose UNECE Regulations. The English article underscores this. Apparently, there is a confusion in the German Wikipedia between being a signatory of ECE (which the U.S.A. are,) between being a signatory of the 1958 Agreement (which the U.S.A. aren't,) and between readily adopting the ECE regulations - which the U.S.A. definitely don't, and which other countries do with varying fervor. The EU usually makes every UNECE regulation law, however, even isolationist Japan has already adopted 37 ECE Rules Correct so far? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Disclosure: I'm in the parts business. I export parts from China to Europe. Half of my time is spent helping the Chinese navigate the trecherous waters of ECE Regulations. I also added something on China's CCC to the German article. CCC is China's answer (or retaliation) to ECE ... there is already a great article on the "China Compulsory Certificate" in the English Wikipedia.

Talk to you soon. Thank you. --BsBsBs (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: There are three new member states: (E53) Thailand, (E56) Montenegro, (E58) Tunesia

--BsBsBs (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, BsBsBs. Thanks for an interesting and "juicy" heads-up. You're mostly right in what you write here. I've gone in and tried to correct and clarify the German article. However, despite my user name, I fear my German language skill is quite limited. By all means please go in and fix what must surely be my gross syntactic and grammatical errors. The main changes I made were to the paragraph you mention, but there was also the strange assertion in the lead paragraph that ECE Type Approval is new since 1998. That's wrong; it started with the 1958 agreement. I can't tell if whoever wrote that was misunderstanding the (languishing) 1998 Global Agreement, or if perhaps E.U. or German national laws finally made ECE approval mandatory rather than optional in 1998. In any event, it is likely my simply having replaced "1998" by "1958" in the lead sentence probably changed but did not correct the error; hope you can put it right.

Canada does accept ECE headlamps and would love to accept other ECE components and whole ECE vehicles. However, Canada is handcuffed to the USA, which continues to insist they're right and the rest of the world is wrong, so Canada gets dragged along with US vehicle standards.

As for CCC, I think your choice of the word "retaliation" is a very apt one. CCC requirements are identical to ECE requirements, from what I can tell, which makes it meaningless as a regulatory requirement. I've seen the CCC requirement used as an excuse for gross industrial espionage, theft of intellectual property, patent infringement, and to facilitate counterfeiting. I'd be interested to discuss the matter further with you, since it sounds like you probably deal with a side of CCC I don't have much access to. Shoot me an e-mail, will you? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! You are right with the lead also. There is much more wrong with that article (practically everything...) see the discussion page. Actually, Germany was first to jump on the ECE bandwagon, hence the E1 for Germany ... most of the ECE regs are slightly watered down versions of the German ABE anyway, so nothing new for the Germans, easy for them to join ... I don't really know when EUROPE got an EU Type approval, EU law is confusing. AFAIK, Directive 70/156/EWG SUGGESTED on Feb 6 1970 that the EU Member states unify their type approval system Suggesting doesn't mean implementing... According to this source, old (national) and new (EU) type approval coexisted from 1993 to 1996. New EU (but not necessarily ECE...) type approval was implemented in 1996. Re CCC, I'll send you a mail. --BsBsBs (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

hp/bhp

If yo read horsepower article Americans used SAE net hp (gross horsepower) before 1972 and SAE net horsepower after that, I think if they used bhp it was very early on automobile history??.... --— Typ932^{T | C}  07:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, your terminology is a little crossed up here — perhaps the articles you looked up are unclear; I haven't looked. Prior to 1972, the US used BHP — also retroactively known as "SAE gross hp" because the BHP test protocol in use in America was an SAE protocol. Starting in 1972, SAE Net hp was used in the US. The difference is that gross hp/bhp was measured without any power-robbing accessories; the water pump, radiator fan, generator or alternator, exhaust system, etc. were all left off. As a result, the horsepower numbers obtained were unrealistically high compared to what was obtained from an engine as installed and equipped in a vehicle. The change to SAE Net hp in '72 was ostensibly to make advertised horsepower figures more realistic, which it did, but a key motivation behind the change was the insurance industry's high surcharges eating into sales of high-powered cars. I'll go take a look at the horsepower article and see if the matter needs clarifying. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If they really used bhp is it the same what British use ? like 110 kW = 147 bhp (UK) = 150 hp DIN (PS as used in WP), I have always though that Americans used hp before and after 72 only difference is that before 72 it was measured without auxilliaries (SAE gross horsepower) and after 72 with auxiallieries (SAE net horsepower) and after 2005 new system was introduced as SAE-certified. --— Typ932^{T | C}  20:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Horsepower article was an awful mess; no wonder you had questions. I've done a major cleanup (though more work remains to be done); please go over and have a fresh look. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have still unclear if it is same as British bhp, so is 147 bhp used in UK same as american 147 bhp? if not this should be fixed somehow in template:convert.... , this is really big mess with these different systems ... --— Typ932^{T | C}  21:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand your question now. Yes, the old British horsepower and the old American (SAE gross) brake horsepower are the same: 33,000 lb·ft/minute. So there's no need to modify the template. There is, however, a need to clarify this point in Horsepower; I'll go do so. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

Scheinwerfermann, I respect your enthusiasm and dedication to the WP and am very much wanting to work with you on all of this template discussion we've been having lately. I completely see your point and the value to having auto-specific templates, but I do not agree with absolutely discouraging {{convert}} usage as it is explain on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Both could and should be represented equally on here. In the case of {{auto hp}} specifically, I can't see a reason this couldn't be recreated and explain on this page for editors who may not want to fully specify a {{convert}} template, but I would also say convert is a completely valid template for use if editors want to add all of the flexibility convert has to offer. {{Auto hp}} for editor with a more simplified form of editing and {{convert}} for editors who want the specifics and flexibility. Again, I'm only trying to work with you here. Consistency throughout automotive articles is absolutely a main concern for me as well. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 06:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

H'mm. Perhaps I didn't state myself clearly enough to avoid giving you a mistaken understanding of my position. I don't at all support discouraging the use of {{convert}}; my position is that in the absence of a specific problem being caused by an auto template, both the convert and the auto templates ought to be accepted, since (assuming an editor uses a template applicable to the units involved) the reader of an article can't tell which type of template was used, for the output is the same — and there's our consistency, which I completely agree is necessary and desirable. From what you write here, it seems we don't have a disagreement; now that I've clarified my position, do you concur?

I didn't bring it up last night, but one template that I think would be very difficult to replicate within {{convert}} is {{Auto Lrev}}. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. I'd be good here as long as both convert and auto is shown and suggested equally in the conventions page. Is this agreeable? As for the {{Auto Lrev}}, the editors over at convert can definitely work some wonders. I normally just need to suggest these kinds of additions in the discussion page and they're on it. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading through {{Auto Lrev}} a little more, I do believe convert is already set up to make these types of specialized adjustments with certain attributes added. I'm going to look into this further to see if I can replicate the auto template through convert. roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting both is totally agreeable to me — I've never advocated anything else, though I may not always have made myself clear on that point. I use both, myself. I'll be keen to learn what can be done to replicate the function of {{Auto Lrev}} using {{convert}}. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the plural of "infobox"

Hi,

I'm sorry if I offended you somehow, but I don't consider this sort of commentary to be appropriate on a discussion page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't offend me a bit. I was pointing out the irony of using a nonstandard pluralisation while trying to advance the view that standardisation is crucial. I'm sorry you feel wronged, but you'll please note I carefully kept my comment relevant to the text on the page, rather than attacking you personally. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It appeared to me that you were doing so in a manner which appeared to be lecturing me for having repeated the wordplay more than "once", but if that wasn't intended then I'm sorry for having troubled you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly and Frank

I noticed that you accused me of making up a term with scare quotes. How dare you accuse me of anything you incompetent fool. If you did just a little bit of investigating, you would see that O'Reilly says that he is not a conservative but a traditionalist. In fact he wrote a whole book about it. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter what self-defined, potentially obfuscatory terminology O'Reilly might like to use to describe himself. Our job here as encyclopædia editors is to describe the world as it is, employing terminology in common use. To accept and repeat O'Reilly's term without putting it into terms of common use violates the spirit — at least — of several Wikipedia guidelines, including NPOV and BIO. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually on the contrary, it does matter what O'Reilly terms himself. Our job as editors is to record information in a clear and well sourced manner. One of the most relevant sources of somebody's political ideology is obviously themselves. What you are doing is violating the spirit of neutral point of view by bringing in your own perception of O'Reilly's political views which is simply irrelevant. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand me. There's nothing the matter with stating that O'Reilly calls himself a "traditionalist", but since that is his own term and means whatever he decides it means, it is vital for neutrality and accuracy that we describe him with terms in common use. Please tone down the accusations; we assume good faith and keep it civil on Wikipedia. Thanks.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I am not sure I do understand you. A traditionalist means someone who values traditions, traditional thought etc. It is not O'Reilly's to define, and he sure as hell did not originate the term. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Barney Frank and Fannie Mae

Hi. I hope you don't mind my moving this discussion here, if you want to keep it at the article discussion page that's fine with me, but I don't want an edit war. The reason quotes are important is because people like you are trying to remove this information. So the most non-POV way to include it is simply to quote Frank himself as was done by the NYTimes. If you want to add information that vindicates Frank or suggests he made efforts to increase oversight of Fannie and Freddie you are welcome to do so. But certainly the current chairman of the House Bank committee's history on the issue is notable. This is a big crisis. I'm not sure why you are trying to take out the word "opposed". Isn't this an accurate way to describe Frank's position of the Bush proposal? Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were ... Congressional Democrats. Would you prefer the word denounced that the NYTimes used? (Wallamoose (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi there. Thanks for your comment. Glad you don't want an edit war. Me either. I don't live in the U.S. and I've no interest or intent to remove any information from Barney Frank. This is purely a question of how to present the information. Let's keep the discussion in one place (over here). Opposed is fine with me; that's what he did. I might've inadvertently reworded it less clearly during my larger edit. Denounced is fine, if that's what actually happened. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User page

I was just glancing through your user page. Kudos! Definitely well written with a wealth of info in there that says mountains more than any group of userboxes could ever say. If I could find a barnstar that saluted this, I'd definitely throw it up here. roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! And yum, Kudos (Oh...not that kind?) ;-) —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Second bullet

Greetings,

I replied on my talk page with some ideas for us that may not be ready for the project page yet. Please review and advise over on my talk page. Thanks, Oilpanhands (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Username

Hi. Just wondering how you chose your username? Thanks, --DerRichter (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wanted Schweinwerfermann, but it was already taken (just kidding). From your username, I surmise you probably know enough German to understand what it means...if you will take a look at the history of Headlamp, Automotive lighting, Daytime running lamp, FMVSS 108, and ECE Regulations, you might correctly deduce my professional field. And how did you choose yours? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Automobiles Discussion

Hey, Scheinwerfermann, how're you doing? PrinceGloria started a discussion about the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix being related and not AKA. He's also trying to say that the Vibe's manufacturer is the factory where it's built and not Pontiac, despite the Infobox guidelines. I thought you might be interested because of our original discussion that stemmed from your placing the Vibe in the Matrix's AKA section.--Flash176 (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The lights are on

And someone is definitely home. That's the most I will do do for now, if the disruption continues let me know. Dreadstar † 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, another IP did the same thing. I've semiprotected the article. Keep me posted. Dreadstar †

And I've engaged the Deathstar. Dreadstar † 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Automotive Barnstar
		Scheinwerfermann, looking through your archives, I didn't see any Barnstars. Unfortunately, it appears that working on the automotive project is often a thankless job. I figured it was high time somebody gave you one. Thanks for all of your contributions. :)--Flash176 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Now is this aka a gold star, or is it similar to a gold star? ;-) *g* —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL!--Flash176 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus & Adminship

Hey, have a couple of questions for you.

About consensus, Wikipedia preaches it all the time, but I've never really seen any good guidelines about how it's defined. Like, does everyone have to agree or almost everyone? According to Dictionary.com, consensus is either the majority of opinion or a general agreement. I don't want to steam roll over anyone, but looking back at the two previous discussions (August-September & October), Typ932 and PrinceGloria are the only two people who are against including model year in the infobox and keep using the same argument. Everyone else has at least tried to compromise, but they seem to be of the opinion that a major North American policy is unencyclopedic since other countries don't go by it. Everyone else who has stated an opinion (I count 8 in the first discussion and 2 new in the 2nd) agrees with adding a model year provision. Isn't 10 vs. 2 pretty close to a consensus? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting tired of Typ932 and PrinceGloria reiterating the same things over and over that we've already discussed and refusing to try and compromise. I believe that their views on this matter are somewhat narrow minded because they're not familiar with North American practices and think that model year is simply a marketing ploy.

Also, you never said anything more on my talk page about your adminship request. Did you see where I replied to you? I'm just curious when you plan on applying.--Flash176 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Flash. Sorry about not responding (yet) to your comments regarding adminship. I did see them and have been thinking the matter over, trying to decide whether and when to stand for adminship. There are a few things about the process that I would like to understand better first, but I will probably stand soon. It would likely be looked dimly upon if I were to go shouting about my own pending RFA (as for example by posting messages on talk pages like yours, saying "Hey, go vote for me, kthxbye"), though I may post a low-key note on my own talk page encouraging all who read it to stop by the RFA and voice their opinion.

As for consensus...that is a very tough definition to nail down, and it is deliberately kept that way to preserve space for common sense and coöperation to rule to the maximum practicable degree. That is because Wikipedia is not a legal system. If we had a hard-and-fast definition of consensus, pointing at a rulebook would take the place of reasoned discussion, coöperation, and compromise. It might be easier in the short run, but it would damage one of the fundamentals of this project in the long run. So, we must carry on striving to define and develop consensus according to the issues and views involved in each particular case. Take a look at the official policy at WP:CON, but see also the interpretive essay at WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. As you can see, consensus is not based on polling or voting, and it does not require unanimity, and in this case that leaves us in a bit of a grey area: On the one hand, most participants in the discussion seem to prefer putting both fields in the infobox and using only one for any given article (except in special circumstances decided individually by consensus). Two participants object to this. That does, as you say, put us in a 10-to-2 situation, but because this is not a vote, that 10-to-2 doesn't decide the matter. It is to be hoped that those two participants can be brought round to the realisation that coöperating with the developing consensus, even if it is not their personal preference, would be best for the project. I am considering initiating a request for comment on the matter to see if that might help things along, but before I do so, I will try to see if a reminder of the finer points of consensus-building might get some results. Very interested to get your ongoing thoughts here and/or on the project talk page! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt but Im not against model years or where I have said so? I only want that "consensus" and correct field for that, it should not put in production time field --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So you don't mind model years being in the infobox, you just want to keep the actual production years as well?--Flash176 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Typ932, have I been misunderstanding your position? Please help me understand correctly. Do you have a preference for model years or for production dates, or both, or either? Is your concern just that if we express model years, we do so in a model years field, and if we express production dates, we do so in a production dates field? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)