User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Volvo 240 Photos

Dude back me up on this one. Who keeps putting up that gaudy looking orange '75 245 DL? Don't like the photos well then put something up a little cooler looking such as a Turbo or a GLT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise checking out WP:CARPIX. If you find a quality shot of a 242 GT it could be used for a while, but this does not mean you should upload another catalog scan. Personally, I like the bog-standard models much more than the sporty ones. Plus, I am Swedish, so I get like five additional votes on this matter (no, not really).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kia compacts

Hi, I have overhauled, reorganised, and de-Americanised the articles on Kia compacts. Kia Sephia now outlines the two generations of the car, including the facelifted second generation model, sold as the "Kia Spectra" in North America. This facelift information was previously (confusingly) shoehorned into the Kia Spectra article.

Kia Spectra is now a disambiguation page, replaced by the Kia Cerato article ("Cerato" is the original market name, also used in just about all markets except North America). The Kia Forte page remains as is, however, I think that Kia Forte Koup should be merged. Thoughts? OSX (talkcontributions) 13:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, and thanks for the heads up. I agree that the Koup should be merged. My only minor gripe is the merge of Timor, as the focus of that article was really on the project as a whole. Maybe the best would be to make a new page that is clearly about the corporation, and remove such information from the Sephia page?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The Timor range consisted of a single model, so its significance as a distinct brand is comparatively hollow. The first paragraph outlines the intention of the car, the second discusses technicalities behind the car (i.e. tariffs) and the controversy that materialised as a result of the Government's partisanship. The same would be discussed in article about an individual model of a well-established marque. Only the last paragraph goes off track a little, mentioning the planned Kia Sportage-based J520i, and also the Indonesian Government's own national car project. Do we really need a special page just to discuss this? How much more content could be added that is about the Timor brand as opposed to just S515/S516? OSX (talkcontributions) 09:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Kia Forte Koup merger complete (along with a major cleanup to the Kia Forte article). OSX (talkcontributions) 11:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not strongly wedded to the idea of a free-standing Timor article, but I am sure that between the Maleo/J520i and Tommy Suharto there is enough material that is off topic to justify one. It just hasn't been added yet; currently the material fits quite comfortably on the Sephia page.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Volvo Plants

Just made some revisions to Volvo Halifax Assembly and created a new Volvo Kalmar Assembly page. Figured you would enjoy them. Nfjb (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Kei Jidosha box

I was wondering on what was wrong about that too. Thanks! Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dongfeng motors

Is the riich a model not a brand? I don't think your citations support that, but I don't have any now that contradict. You're right. Riich is a Chery brand yes it is. Fleetham (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Zhengzhou Nissan-built Dongfeng "Rui Qi" has been anglicized as Riich and Rich, but it has nothing to do with Chery's own Riich brand. Please check the references already cited and take care before you make baseless changes. I added yet another reference.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed photos=

You reverted some edits where I removed photos, but I believe the pics may be disallowed as Wikipedia:Image use policy now says both remixing and commercial use must be allowed. I don't know what creative commons lic. allows commercial use (at fist glance, none appear to) so I just removed all the CC-licensed photos. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I would like to know which CC lic.(s) does/do allow commercial use. So, please tell me if you know, but I will go and check later either way. Fleetham (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If the photo is in the commons, then its use is allowed. The commons is the image depository for Wikipedia. If there was a license problem then the picture would be deleted from the commons. I'm trying to revert all of your image removals, but it's rather time consuming and aggravating. Did you really think that hundreds of images without the correct licensing had somehow slipped past all editors of these articles? As I have asked you so many times in the past; before you make drastic changes to an article, ask some other involved editor or put a note on the talkpage. That way tons of completely useless work could be avoided.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

too many refs

Okay, I will reduce the number of refs as a "final step" once I finish my major editing. Some of the refs are really low quality, such as blogs or just totally random travel sites like "". So I do want to add many refs, and then later I will remove the lesser-quality ones.

Why can't I just removed all the lesser-quality ones now? Well because some statements are ONLY cited with lesser quality ones.

And in regards to the licensing of photos, WP:Image use policy requires commercially reusable photos, such as those with a Creative Commmons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. I believe with CC-lic. stuff it allows commercial reuse if it allows reuse, unless it says "NonCommercial". For example a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported lic. work is not useable.

the newest (3.0) CC lic.

The important part for use on Wikipedia is that it does carry "ShareAlike" and DOES NOT carry "NonCommercial", if it's CC-licensed.

Fleetham (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If the photo is in the commons, then it's ok to use. That's what the commons is for.
You do not need references for every single sentence; only for those which are likely to be challenged. If there is absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of a statement, then it doesn't need a reference. And these are not your articles, you can either improve them or leave them be but you can't treat the mainspace like your own personal sandbox. We do not need to see your interim edits.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I know, I can make one big edit but sometimes I will make several smaller ones because I am logistically lazy, and if I make small edits I know I am not making big mistakes.
I do like every sentence cited, but with the Share taxi one the only thing I will insist is cited are things that pertain to the definition. A share taxi is an often informal mode of transport that exhibits specific and unique characteristics, and if a particular informal, regional bus with a special name and decorations doesn't exhibit those characteristics, it doesn't belong on the page. Fleetham (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not you like every sentence cited is of no relevance. Again, WP:OWN. The guidelines clearly state (and this is the THIRD time I am telling you this in two days, not counting previous occasions): "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."
Also, if three sentences in a row depend on a single source, you do not, let me repeat, not have to insert three references. One at the end suffices, unless it is some highly incendiary or embattled material. Also, would it be too much to ask that you aim some of your considerable energy to providing better written references? Template:Citation will show you how it's done. Here is an example of a proper citation, changed from one of yours which simply consisted of the URL:

<ref>{{citation | last1 = Eckert | first1 = Ross D. | last2 = Hilton | first2 = George W. | title = The Jitneys | journal = Journal of Law and Economics | publisher = The University of Chicago | volume = 15 | issue = 2 | date = March 1972 | page = | location = Chicago | url = | accessdate = 2011-03-07 }}</ref>[1]

Which then looks like this:

  1. ^ Eckert, Ross D.; Hilton, George W. (March 1972), "The Jitneys", Journal of Law and Economics, Chicago: The University of Chicago, 15 (2), retrieved 2011-03-07 

 ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, there's no way I can make such nice references because I only have one copy+paste space. Sometimes I lose the info on my clipboard because I have to Ctrl+C something else. I tried using reflinks once but didn't like the output citation. They do give an "accessed on" date, which might be really helpful, but I don't know why it would be. I do like nicer citations made using a more-difficult method, but am not agile enough to make use of that without it being a completely inconvenient event. Fleetham (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I too only have one copy/paste. And you are editing for the benefit of others, not for your own personal convenience. Wikipedia is not for you, it's the other way around (you can tell I drank the proverbial kool-aid).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I do like the output of the {{-type citations and I will use them sometimes. For example, I am citing a lot of pages from an article but each page has it's own, full citation. I can remedy this with WP:LDR refs, I think. And in that case, using the citation format that provides better output is something I am happy to do, as I only have to do it once. Fleetham (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Fleetham - you may find the use of a page called a sandbox useful to you in building up edits and references. It has the advantage that you can paste things to it, and check they work, and save them until you are ready to transplant them into articles. This can reduce the problem caused by only having one copy/paste. I agree with you that having statements referenced in articles is a good thing.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Mr.choppers with respect of your comments about bundling citations on User talk:Fleetham#Bundling, please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Bundling citations, which explains that bundling citations can be beneficial.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Admittedly, bundling can be used with explanatory notes and subdivisions, but this possibility has never been taken advantage of by Fleetham.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As you were kind enough to show Fleetham an example of how better to use citation marks, please could you also give him an example of how to use bundled citations, together with an example of how not to use them.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You will notice that having shown Fleetham how to use citations (dozens of times by now) has had no discernible effects thus far. See Talk:Share taxi for an ongoing attempt to influence this user.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your edits

"Thanks" for "removing all the references" and generally "making work for me".

That's really "helpful" and in line with wikipedia policy, not "your own make-up ideas and notions".

I would appreciate contributions, not deleting sources. Fleetham (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your edits

I don't appreciate your recent reverts. I am open to discussion, and please avail yourself of this means of communication as opposed to "doing what you want" and "removing well-sourced material". If you don't I will treat you as a hostile bother. Fleetham (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I also do not like the way you removed the links to the dodge 50 website and the owners forum, who do you think you are helping by removing them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrier-bag (talkcontribs) 14:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't me who removed them, check the page history. It was someone named User:Deli_nk, so take it up with them.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing style

I don't disagree with you, I am simply saying citing every sentence is acceptable. In certain instances it may be preferable. The GA pages may not exhibit such citing because they can have a single paragraph of info. taken from a single source. When that's not possible to do because of the nature of the cited sources (they are all primary or just focus on a small, specific aspect, etc.) I think it better to cite every sentence.

For example if you have a paragraph with two sources and three sentences, I feel it is better to use three superscripts v. two. It can confuse the reader if you don't. They might think that the one un-superscripted sentence is uncited or may be unsure as to which of the two given citations pertains to it.

So yes, fewer superscripts are more desirable, but flexibility is also sometimes needed. Fleetham (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, every sentence does not need a reference. And in particular, innocuous statements do not need references. There is no need to provide a reference for "JAC" being used as the acronym for "Jianghuai Automobile Co" - not only is it obvious by the logo, but it is instantly verifiable in a million ways. References are only for statements which are likely to be challenged - statements of which the verity is in doubt. There are definitely sentences that do need a few superscripts, but even a highly embattled article such as Palestinian political violence for instance, uses less superscripts than do the ones you have adopted.
The good articles do not contain so many references because the editors don't place useless duplicate references for things which do not need to be referenced to begin with.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate input

I also wanted to say that I do appreciate your input. But sometimes it annoys me when that input is expressed in a way which makes me feel bad for doing things wrong. I would be more receptive to constructive criticism if I didn't sometimes find it insulting. I would suggest simply suggesting better alternatives to my present practice. I want to be a good editor and follow the rules, but sometimes I feel that you aren't sufficiently patient or that you are angry because my editing style differs. Fleetham (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You make an astounding number of errors. Right after you looked at the bundling article you immediately went off and bundled citations in a number of articles, but you made several mistakes right away:
  • created a blank opening line in every bundle, and then replaced this blank line after I repaired it.
  • bundled references which were in use elsewhere, meaning that one reference ( was listed in four separate places.
  • Used the ref name "Navi" for two separate cites, which means that the second use of it became invisible to the reader.
And not only do you make countless mistakes (mainly due to haste, it seems), but you also argue and wrangle about every single one of them ad infinitum. Our little discussion on Talk:Brilliance_Auto is fairly illuminative. When I make mistakes, I usually feel some contrition afterwards. While your series of mistakes are aggravating, so is your outright refusal to adopt the Wikipedia editing style. But what is really aggravating is that you will not accept any changes to your edits, even when you are clearly in the wrong. Our little debate about image licensing is a good example. Another thing which is upsetting is that you often delete good content (you seem to have a personal dislike for months, for instance), and since you make so many edits to a single page in one go, this lost content is often hard to catch.
"Your editing style" is problematic, because it flies in the face of what Wikipedia is supposed to look like. This is why I invite you to look at the featured articles, digest and compare them to what you do, and then consider how you can change your style accordingly. This is to underline that I am not saying that you must do as I do; I am saying that we should all strive to write in the recommended style.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Language such as, "You make an astounding number of errors" and "not only do you make countless mistakes..." makes me more keen to disregard what you have to say than take care to be careful. Please don't talk to me in the future. Fleetham (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bundling style

Just a short note, but I noticed you will change the bundling from all sources asterisked to all but the first asterisked.

For example, you will change the first version to the second:

  • #1<ref>*For the brightness of paper, see ....*For the size of A4 in inches squared, see...*For the height of a single sheet, see...</ref>
  • #2<ref>For the brightness of paper, see ....*For the size of A4 in inches squared, see...*For the height of a single sheet, see...</ref>

While WP:Citing sources does list the second method in an example, I think the first way provides better output--the reader will not be confused into thinking the first source is the only one in support of that particular sentence because all the sources cited for that sentence appear on an equal plane. Not only is the first way more visually appealing it is potentially more useful, too. Fleetham (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If WP lists one method, then that is the one to be followed. If you want to change this, then you should begin a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Until this has changed, the proper method should be used.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree and won't use anything other than official style. But don't you think such a change would be beneficial? Fleetham (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
From the citing sources discussion it looks like there isn't any preferred style. So I want to know what your preferred solution is. I agree that reducing the number of citations can minimize the problem. But when the problem does appear what do you think is the best course of action?
For example, what should be done in the following case? An editor is confronted with either placing a citation that is also used elsewhere in the page in the middle of a sentence or placing it in the bundle at the end, and making it appear twice in the references section. Fleetham (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather see the cite in the middle of the sentence if it is used more than once. Sometimes sentences and sections can be restructured and changed to avoid these issues. But I think that many of these references aren't really necessary - I know the feeling of wanting to include a reference I found, especially if I have gone through the trouble of formatting the cite, but sometimes they will just have to go.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree to that. Removing unnecessary references and rewording sentences can usually remove the need for in-sentence citations anyway. Fleetham (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Mr C. Have you spotted these strange looking Delica:- " Starwagon (L300) ". :) Richard Harvey (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that perhaps they are miscategorized - should be in the Delica L400 and Delica Cargo categories. It seems strange to call them L300s at least, I will ask OSX who made the category.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Share taxi

What's happening with the Share taxi article? You haven't been editing it, and I've stopped due to criticism. Fleetham (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The other guy's vanished, and I need some support before I attempt to repair what you did to the page.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind others changing my contributions; I didn't like the way you delivered criticism. I don't know what you were planning, but maybe all of the prose descriptions of the various share taxis could be removed in favor of a table? One that could incorporate and remove the huuuuge infobox, too? Fleetham (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, a reversal to what the page looked like before you ruined it, and then the gradual incorporation of content found in some of the sources you provided would be what I hope for. You do not listen to others, and your insistance on continuing to edit in a fashion contrary to the Wikipedia style has left me no choice but to stop worrying about stepping on your toes. But until consensus can be reached, I suggest we leave it as it is. And prose is (nearly always) preferred over a table.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, I'm happy to hear criticism. But please be a little less harsh. You'll get a better reception! Fleetham (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
For example, I am happy to hear how you feel but less so to be told what I am. If you said, "I feel like you don't listen to a word I say", you'd get a better response than "You do not listen to others". I feel your criticism could stand a little tempering with empathy! Fleetham (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you noticed that you end up butting heads with nearly every other editor you encounter? The number of ongoing disputes you are engaged in must signify something. Also, I am hardly the first person to complain that you don't listen. I try not to treat you as badly as you treat others, but I worry less about your emotions after six months of being nearly entirely ignored by you.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm all ears. Please say what you need to, and I'll try to modify my behavior so you're less unhappy. Fleetham (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Visit a featured article. Read it, understand and appropriate the style in which it is written. Write longer prose sections instead of broken up stumps. Realize that not everything has to be quoted, only material which is likely to be contended. Do not delete others' material without very good reason, and if someone disapproves then stop deleting any more stuff until consensus has been reached. Never delete content without explanation. Treat others as you would have yourself be treated.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Those are things I should be doing. I can agree to try to remember what you said and abide by it. If I fail to do so, I'd appreciate input that takes into account my prior requests of "friendly criticism". I often feel that you are highly critical. That's not a bad thing--if I respected you I would try hard to meet your standards. Unfortunately, I feel the way you voice your criticism has sometimes made me think of you as an annoyance. I'll consider your input if you'll be more considerate. Fleetham (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Share taxi again

You said, "a reversal ...and then the gradual incorporation of content found in some of the sources you provided would be what I hope for." I don't know if that's what I want. I think at the least we can both agree that at most there should be one citation superscript per sentence? I mean, surely that's something no one objects to? Fleetham (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That is something no one else agrees to, only you. There should only be reference superscripts on sentences which are likely to be contended.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you think one superscript per sentence is better than 3 or 4? Fleetham (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I;m just trying to find some common ground so I can edit the article without feeling like doing so is being disrespectful. Surely there's some things we can both agree on? Fleetham (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There are new messages on the talkpage, regarding edits to the page. I'd advice leaving it alone as I am doing myself for the time being. To me, a sentence gets as many references as it needs: see Israel and the apartheid analogy for an example of lots (and necessary) superscripts. What we do not need is references for statements that are not contended, which is one of the main problems with your edits. I also prefer not to bundle citations when any reference therein is used elsewhere on the page, but that's just my opinion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on that last bit; citations should only appear once in the footnotes. And I believe you mean "advise" not "advice"... anyway, I'm not sure why it's a problem to cite "uncontentious" facts. What methodology do you employ to discern the uncontentious from the contentious? Fleetham (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It is a problem because it breaks up the text with unnecessary superscripts - also, you seem to consider the absence of superscripts as cause for deleting nearly entire articles. Whether or not something is contentious is usually a judgement question, but I expect good faith from other editors in only contending text that appears untrue or disputable. Lastly, pointing out a simple spelling error on a talkpage is rather rude and entirely unnecessary.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I won't do it again. I understand that readability may be compromised by superscripts, but I feel citing every fact when the article is about something obscure and unlikely to have been previously encountered by most readers can only be a good thing. Anyone can write a lot of uncontentious but completely false information about someone who never existed, for example. I say, yeah--no need to cite a well-known fact. I also think the standard should be: when most readers are unlikely to have encountered the topic of the article in the past, citing uncontentious facts is helpful because it is an assurance to the reader that what they are reading isn't simply a figment of some poor editor's imagination. So, in the share taxi article, a citation for the fact that in Kenya they call such things matatu is helpful. Fleetham (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There are other editors out there, many of whom have knowledge on the topics in question, no matter how obscure. If any editor encounters a fact which appears untrue, then a [citation needed] or a [citation needed] tag is added, and unless the text can be proved then the sentence is removed after a reasonable time period has passed (a couple of weeks, often much longer). Thus, no need to provide references for things such as that General Motors is often abbreviated "GM".  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There are things that don't need citations. I don't think adding them should be discouraged, however. Maybe it's just me, but excess superscripts seems a small price to pay for reliable information. Wikipedia is a nice reference work unless it's an unreliable one. Fleetham (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Again: please visit any featured article to get an idea of how articles are supposed to look.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If you can't write a paragraph based on your source we don't chuck out that source. Sometimes compromises must be made to ensure reliable info. Fleetham (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Again you resist the idea of adopting wikipedia's style standards or even discussing them. Any reason?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Again you feel the need to inaccurately characterize me? :D I'm joking, joking. Please do be respectful, however. All I mean to say is adding a citation doesn't have to be a problem. It's actually helpful! Fleetham (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for being touchy, but I'd prefer to have a conversation that includes how you feel about me as opposed to being flatly told what I am. I understand that you don't feel the need to couch your language in such a way, but you're getting a bad response here. Fleetham (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Instead of saying, for example, "you resist adopting wikipedia's style standards" just say, "I feel you are resisting adoption of...". It really would go far in the whole providing a friendly criticism thing. Fleetham (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". If you find it difficult to do that, please don't speak to me in the future. Fleetham (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is very well illustrated by the fact that whenever I suggest you look at a Featured Article so as to comprehend the Wikipedia style, you either change the topic or accuse me of something or other. As you did right here, where you provided four responses but still refused to answer what I say.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind feedback. I just want you to be a little nicer. Don't make assumptions about my disposition or interpret my actions as having ulterior motives, and you'll get a better response. I'm not resisting following Wikipedia style, and I believe the only point which we actually disagree on is the citation of uncontentious material. If it really would make you happier, I don't mind reading some featured articles. Fleetham (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Your naming of the Australian L400 Delica Space Gear as a star Wagon is totally incorrect, Removal of my image showing the rear Tailgate decals of an L400 is quite frankkly out of order and I consider that to be vandalism. Luckily I have access to the Australian Delica Club website, as a L400 Space Gear owner myself, and I am quite aware that the name Space Gear is correct for the Australian imports into the country. for a simple example see this Youtube link:- [1]. Please take it to the article talk page if you wish to query this, but do not just revert the edits. Richard Harvey (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I already explained my actions on the article talk page.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I also provided evidence supporting my edit in the Edit Summary. You did not bother to check anything before reverting and accusing me of vandalism. I also explained things on the talkpage, with much supporting evidence. Please undo your edits and remove the entirely unnecessary pictures of JDM tailgates. The Youtube video shows a JDM grey import, extremely common in Australia.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello Mr. Choppers. The User 842A who started the project discussion on the Chevrolet Vega, (but didn't participate in) has started another discussion on the article page and is flagging the article, accusing me of ownership again. His sole contributions, non-automotive sourced criticism, was NOT deleted, and I have added much auto sourced criticism past and present, (and reverted the deleted praise) keeping the article neutral. I have followed the suggestions in the previous project discussion and the two suggestions in the current discussion. Your comment "I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation." was sited there for his reference. Please speak your opinion. 842A just doesn't stop: he is either not aware of the conclusions of our discussion or is ignoring them. He keeps complaining of my cars in the article (4 out of 51 images) and my "closeness to the subject" How can I stop his flagging and rehashing, contrary to the conclusions of project discussion? Please go to Talk:Chevrolet Vega (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Hi. Just for the record, the "pain" comment was reverted (by me) immediately. He sited it from an old revision. The "warning" in the Vega discussion was added by 842A himself, without his signature. Thanks for your help. (Barnstarbob (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC))
Mr. Choppers, I appreciate whatever balance you can bring to the article. Barnstar/Vega/CorvairBOB has been advised many times that making attacks on other editors and then reverting those attacks does not condone the behavior. He's also been cited many times for the COI and OWN issues and not just by me. The warning I posted is signed by me. For whatever reason, it does not display my user name – but nonetheless, it's there. IMHO, the article needs to include less trivia and more clear, salient information about the car's legacy – which, like it or not, happens to be widely reported and less than highly regarded. Just as the Edsel and Pinto article highlight succinctly their marred legacies, the Vega article needs to also. And why doesn't the Corvair article? 842U (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

Hi. Let me know your thoughts on Talk: Chevrolet Vega#The Article's Objective Reply to my talk page. (Barnstarbob (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

8R-G timing chain tensioner

I was going over the 8R-G and came across the bit you added about the timing chain tensioner being left off. I was overseas when you added it and didn't pay much attention to it - although I did spend some time at the wifi point in the hotel lobby downloading that wonderful brochure from Anyway, I finally got around to looking up the original parts catalogues and found nothing about the deletion. I have the Corona Mark II GSS parts catalogue from 1970, No. 53280-70, covering the RT75-M with 10R engine and the Corona Mark II parts catalogue from 1971, No. 53294-71, covering the RT72-MQ with 8R-G engine. Both catalogues show both engines have an lower and upper chain with a tensioner on each chain. There is no mention of either tensioner stopping. The 1971 catalogue was likely released at the same time the RT75-M GSS (with 10R) became the RT72-MQ GSS (with 8R-G) in Jan 1971, so its possible the deletion happened latter in the year, but the 8R-G did have both tensioners in Jan 1971. But the time frame is small because the T6#/7# series gave way to the X1#/2# series in Jan 1972. Possibly it was removed by owners or dealers, but I would think the reliability of a sloppy timing chain would be awful, allowing a slipping timing chain. I own an 18R-G myself (which is just an 8R-G with a bigger bore) and I've experienced bad timing when the tensioner is not quite tight enough. Thoughts?  Stepho  (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know a thing about these engines: my quotes are entirely dependent on the translation of this brochure. Perhaps the Japanese Wikipedia page has some relevant info?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Sigh :( Since both sources are from Toyota, I guess I'll just have to show state the conflict and leave it at that. Thanks anyway.  Stepho  (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Chevrolet Vega

This is to notify you that an RfC has been opened regarding proposed edits in Chevrolet Vega. The discussion is located here.

You star, thanks. You can work out the "For" statement via talk pages, or just be BOLD and work it out iteratively.

My thoughts are that in these respects, the Vega article should be significantly edited: it should reflect clearly the Vega's legacy, it's role in the US auto industry and it's marred track record. It should be considerably more concise. It should rely less on fan trivia and less than transparent sources. And it should include less of one editors photographs, personal vehicles and promo photos from General Motors. That's the basic thrust for me. 842U (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pferdestärke (PS)

Question: why do you change units from kW with horsepower in parentheses to PS with kW is parentheses? According to the horsepower article, PS it "is no longer a statutory unit" and it doesn't seem to get used in any English-speaking sources. I had a look a while back on some German car manufacturer websites and they tend to use kW so shouldn't we (especially considering this is en.wikipedia)? OSX (talkcontributions) 06:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Japan only uses PS, and these are (nearly always) the only times I do this. Most of my sources are Japanese and German period prints. Often the conversion becomes incorrect when using kW as the primary (try getting 100PS/74kW, for instance), and non-metric hp were never used outside of the US and the Commonwealth countries. I believe that when talking about a seventies' German car or any Japanese car, PS is the correct primary unit - just as I would list cubic inches first when writing about older US or even older Aussie cars.
100 PS (74 kW) ({{convert|100|PS|kW|0|abbr=on}})
74 kW (101 PS) ({{convert|74|kW|PS|0|abbr=on}})
74 kW (100 PS) ({{convert|100|PS|kW|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}})
When dealing with a car, the output of which was originally calculated in metric horsepower (=presumably all Japanese cars), I believe that the first option is still best. I know that Australian market cars are purely kW these days (since when exactly?), but when horsepower are used are they bhp? If so, I will take care to use the correct units from now on.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but since most English speakers would be familiar with kW and hp, I think these are the best. The English Wikipedia is supposed to be catered for English-speakers (hence why a Japanese car article is written in English and not Japanese), so I would say that by the same reasoning units should be catered towards us as well. Since kW is the "correct" metric measurement and the world except three countries uses this system, it seems logical to use this first (except in the US, the UK, and pre-1974 Australia). PS is simply standard horsepower "modified" to fit in with other metric units (PS = 75 kgf·m/s), hence the slight difference between the two. Like the good old centimetre (which is also not used here), it's not a proper metric unit. OSX (talkcontributions) 09:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that a metric HP (for some reason called "PS" in Wikipedia, which is not my decision!) is 735 W, while a hp is 745 W. In any case, PS is preferred over hp: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Power. I would have preferred some way to call them "hp" rather than "PS", but they are different units and the output becomes incorrect when using another form:
100 PS (74 kW) ({{convert|100|PS|kW|0|abbr=on}})
100 hp (75 kW) ({{convert|100|hp|kW|0|abbr=on}})    ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Pferdestärke is German for 'horse strength', which gets the German abbreviation PS. Japan used PS instead of HP until it recent swapped to kW. Since the source material is in PS, the Convert template must be fed a PS value, which can then be displayed in various formats. But the convert template has various options to alter how that is displayed.

  • 100 PS (74 kW) ({{convert|100|PS|abbr=on|0}})
  • 74 kW (100 PS) ({{convert|100|PS|abbr=on|0|disp=flip}})
  • 100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp) ({{convert|100|PS|kW hp|abbr=on|0}})
  • 74 kW; 99 hp ({{convert|100|PS|kW hp|abbr=on|0||disp=output only}}) - not sure if it can displayed with brackets)

And cm is a proper metric unit, just not one of the base units (m is a base unit in SI, cm, mm, km, ... are derived units based on the metre). Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Stepho, I know it's rude but I edited your comment to show what was typed to produce the various outputs. I can't imagine you'll be upset, but I do think it proper to apologize nonetheless. The only problem with using PS is precisely that it does cause some confusion - in countries other than Germany and Japan, a metric hp is just called whatever the locals call horsepower. Is there any English speaking country that uses the metric horsepower as the metric default, and what do they call it? I know we're not going to be able to easily change the convention of using "PS" to denote "metric hp", but it's worth thinking of something. "Mhp"? Nah. DIN wouldn't work since many are in JIS or EEC or other.
As for using all three, I think it unnecessary, unpleasant, and less than elegant - only needed when the same spec car has been offered in markets which use all variants, mainly true for German products.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries about editing my comment - I normally do similar myself but was a bit tired this morning. And of course apolgies from me for intruding into the conversation.
I was hoping that '|disp=output only' would allow us to use a PS value for input (ie matching the source) but display it in the more familiar kW and hp (ie without displaying PS). Unfortunately it doesn't quite format it correctly unless we use 'convert' twice. I will ask the more experienced guys at {{convert}} if there is a better way.
  • {{convert|100|PS|1|disp=output number only}} gives 73.5
  • {{convert|{{convert|100|PS|1|disp=output number only}}|kW|abbr=on|0}} gives 73.5 kW (99 hp)
  • {{convert|{{convert|100|PS|1|disp=output number only}}|kW|abbr=on|0|disp=flip}} gives 99 hp (73.5 kW)
To the best of more knowledge (gained mostly from Pferdestärke), all references to metric hp really mean PS. Japan used PS up until recently. I have no further real knowledge of what Europe used.  Stepho  (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ha, of course you're welcome here. I just looked at that article and noticed this part: "[Pferdestärke] was adopted throughout continental Europe with designations equivalent to the English horsepower" - in Sweden we call it "hk" (hästkraft), the Dutch call it "pk" (paardenkracht), Italians/French/Portuguese call it "cv". The various Slavic iterations all begin with a "K" (konjska or similar), and the Finns call it "hv" (hevosvoima) - but all do translate literally to "horsepower", and all refer to 735.49875 W. Meanwhile, a bhp or imperial horsepower is 745.7 W, and is curently in official usage in the US (and Canada?). Obviously, older British cars and ongoing vernacular usage of "hp" in Britain also refers to the imperial hp - as I assume also holds true for Australia and NZ.
I was first made aware of this problem when the 1,001 hp Veyron I had read of in Auto Motor und Sport was cut down to 987 hp in British car magazines - due to the differences in rating. Looking at old car magazines from other countries, I also realize that usually editors are completely unaware of there being different kinds of hp, meaning that conversions to and from kW lead to all sorts of niggling but persistent discrepancies. I wonder if HP could be used for metric, while bhp and hp are used for the imperial? Too confusing? The French use CV for tax hp and cv for metric hp.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Haha, here's another version of the metric hp: ĈP. And no one is more metric than Esperanto speakers. The Basque call it ZP (for zaldi-potentzia), while they use "HP" for the imperial hp. But only the Japanese use the German PS, presumably a hangover from their... shall we say "cooperation" in the thirties.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


Ok, that's it. This guy seems to have fun engaging in edit wars and disruptive editing. I'm going to fill a Requests for comment/User conduct as talking to him is pointless. I've seen you have had the same issues with him. Will you sign the Rfc?. --Odiseo79 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I will. Too bad it has to come to this, he sometimes comes up with good reasearch.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Vega Article

Hi Mr. Choppers. It's time we all move forward, then we all should move on.. But the (real) problem here should be addressed first, as I will soon get to. There are many other articles in need of improvement that don't even come close to the work spent on this one. Funny thing is for at least a year (2009) I was the only one even interested in improving it. Wanna have a chuckle? Take a look at the thing prior to Feb 15th 2009 - one image, a couple of paragraphs of typical internet bashing, but no real information worthy of Wikipedia. Many years featured as little more than a biased stub resembling an internet blog. I supplied the text and the references for most of it, because, as I have stated, I have it all binders full, Most of it was not available on the internet (until this article was available, vastly improved by 2010, that is) Nobody else had the archives it seems, or at the very least, had the interest or time to use any available referenced material. I had the interest, the material and the better place, finally a complete, neutral, factual history. It was, and is needed, in its current neutral form. Many internet writers and bloggers have used it and copied's the reference FOR THE FACTS... Now that it is improved, and now this year, by other User suggestions and contributions as well, it suddenly needs a re-write according to a couple of Users contributing, as of a couple of months ago? Well, I don't buy it, and neither should you, or any of the other Users that have discussed and contributed to the article's basic current state for nearly two years... Please check out my (reverted) edit to Reception and the lead made last night. They reflect the discussion opinion without any major change, just form and headings in Reception, and tweaks to the lead. I would like your opinion. Previous discussions were productive and many changes were made, as you know, in those previous discussions, but it's getting difficult to find reason for major changes at this point in time, as even you have suggested is not needed. There have been three long discussions over two years (while maintaining article neutrality) with additional text added, and much trimming of many sections, splitting (three new separate articles), tweaking, etc. The article should be reviewed for an A rating at this point in time, instead of the re-write option of which I know you do not agree with and is clearly a complete waste of time after two years of research, work, and other User suggestions and contributions based on those discussions by quite a few more Users. The projects discussion, initially a (failed) attempt to try to prove me guilty of OWN, started by 842U, resulted in much User involvement, and much improvement to the article, but 842U failed to contribute anything to the article, until discussions were over. Then his major changes came as I have shown above.... He changed the thing DAILY after the discussion was over, the results of the discussion obviously not to his liking.. And he had accused ME of OWN. Major changes were then made by him, without further discussion. It will happen again, I'm afraid unless it is acknowledged that there has been a problem here - I issued the complaint on both 842U and BikerBiker for making major changes and deletions without discussing them first. The article was needlessly changed on a daily basis for months (in those two sections) by 842U after the Projects discussion was over! It was recommended for GA status a year and a half ago by an administrator worked with me on improving the lead, keeping it factual, but neutral without a point of view by Wikipedia. It seemed to be the most important concern, and the lead is just right in that regard, in addition to properly summarizing the article. Ironically, it's one of the two main sources of this current conflict. Which, by the way, is basically all that keeps getting reedited. OVER AND OVER. It doesn't need to be changed every week, or in 842U's case, daily for a month to one User's (his) liking, especially not for the better of the article. His contributions were not reverted, but his resent, complete revamping after much refinement over time by said contributors is, unproductive to the article and Wikipedia. The article needs to be rated A, at the very least GA. It's time..and overdue.(Barnstarbob (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Fiat 126p

Hey, I didn't notice that it said PF126(s) , sorry for the redunant "a" :P

Malux however, is not quite right, I speak fluent polish and we pronouce it Maa-lou-Hhh, maybe we can change it to something else that makes the Hhh sound, x doesn't quite work? I don't have any ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[ˈmalux] is written in the International Phonetic Language. If you click this link you will see that in IPA, "x" is pronounced like "ch" in Polish. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nissan Pixo

I think i overestimated the amount of available information on the Pixo so i'm glad you deleted the stub and moved it to the same article, it is better than before though so that's something anyway. Thanks Chopper Jenova20 08:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, cool - I was afraid you'd be more upset about it. There should be a bit more worthwhile text to be written yet, though.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No, i'm not bothered by that at all, what you did worked out for the best really.
I just don't like disambiguation pages that don't mention all the models they cover through laziness, and they're usually too messy to add anything to easily.
Having the same thing now with the Citroen C8, it's not even mentioned in the article like the others.
Thanks Jenova20 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Daihatsu F70

Daihatsu Rugger Feroza

In Indonesia the Daihatsu Taft/Rocky/Hiline were powered by diesel engine. The gasoline powered was named Feroza, although based on the Rugger. This is facelift model with over fenders. talk 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That Daimler

Daimler mfd 1937 first registered UK Jan 1999 New 15 four-light sports saloon.jpg
Daimler mfd 1937 first registered UK Jan 1999 New 15 four-light sports saloon 02.jpg

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the unidentified Daimler.

I'd been going to transfer the discussion to one of our talk pages, but now the conversation seems to be disappearing anyway as the image is on the deletion route.

(I do not know if will get deleted. The last time I nominated one of "my" pictures for deletion, my application was refused, apparently because someone hadn't read what I had written in my nomination. But life is too short to worry about such things.)

I've reuploaded the image, named as a Daimler 15 with a non-standard body. That's based on a discussion with Eddaido which may be renewed when he (or I?) access more sources.

Feel free to add to that discussion if you want to. It's on my (Commons) talk page, I think: no it's not. It's on User_talk:Eddaido. Feel under no obligation to join in if you've nothing to add and / or better things to do. Either way, I didn't want to shut down the subject in my own mind, even temporarily, without confirming that I read your thoughts and I don't necessarily disagree that this could, also, be some kind of DB 18. Or ... not...

Best wishes

Charles01 (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Thought you might like to know about the JDM MR2 GT-S (E-SW20-ACMZZ, E-SW20-AJMZZ with 3S-GTE engine). MR2 20 series production data  Stepho  talk  04:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh (and sorry for the slow response, I have been very excited about very boring Korean cars). I was always under the impression that SW20 was for the naturally aspirated 3S-engined cars and SW22 for the turbocharged ones. Are there any other sources?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries about lateness - I'm the king of lateness myself! Anyway. Practically all of the data on my website was pulled from brochures and parts catalogues. The SW20 stuff was pulled from JDM brochure AC0018-9211 (Nov 1992). I can make a scan of the data page if you wish. Unfortunately I haven't gone through the corresponding US microfiche yet. Also, I don't know what the difference is between the JDM SW20 with 3S-GTE and the international SW22 with 3S-GTE. It might be something to do with the chassis, suspension or aerodynamic aids but I'm only guessing. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  22:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


I thought these were bad (and the interior is equally appalling), but this goes one step further. What is it? A two-seater bus, an ice cream van or just a car driven (to put it euphanistically) by an "alternative type"? OSX (talkcontributions) 09:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

While originally used as small vans in cramped Japanese cities in roles where Americans would have used one of these, by now I guess that they are for me and my sort of person to put-put around in. They are highly customizable and are indeed often used as ice cream vans. Since one can drive around with the doors open and the loading area is accessible directly from the front they are also useful for any delivery making frequent stops. There is an even funnier looking version of the previous generation. The extra quirky individual customizes one of these by using a half-cut of a turbocharged Mira Avanzato, which makes for an interesting little racing van...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. My main issue is with the bus door—totally unnecessary for a car about the length of a Toyota Yaris if you ask me. OSX (talkcontributions) 08:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Daihatsu Mira 
Daihatsu Mira Michito 
Daihatsu Mira Michito 

Here's one for sale. Check out pic #3...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Original research" in Tokyo tells me that vehicles such as this are used for local deliveries of small quantities of things that are, or might be, tall: potted plants, freshly cleaned and pressed dresses, etc. They seem a sensible choice. ¶ The stupidest "Japanese" vehicle I've seen in Japan was a Toyota Tundra with extra-sized wheels and other "macho" extras. It was taller than the Hummer parked next to it. As for (entirely) non-Japanese stupidity, I've seen stretched Hummers and Ford Excursions, but not yet an International or a Boss Hoss, though I presume that they're around somewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Triton

Thanks for entering the debate. It appears we have all 3 of us that would prefer a disambiguation under L200 since you suggested it. Thanks Jenova20 08:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No troubles at all - I think it will help in writing a better article. OSX is a very good editor in my eyes, as he is always ready to reconsider his own opinions when met with a reasoned case.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd still consider myself a learner so it is nice to have a debate i contribute to on the odd occasion.
Thanks Chopper Jenova20 14:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


If you'd like to fix the Dongfeng page, I would suggest removing the listed subsidiaries to a separate paragraph. I agree that it's difficult to read when each company name is followed by congeries of Chinese and ticker symbols. Feel free to replace the names of the foreign joint venture partners if you want, too. Fleetham (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes. No need to ask first if you want to make improve a page next time. Fleetham (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello Mr.choppers. Please see this about "Panasonic"/"Matsushita", and respond there. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that it all worked out well. ¶ If you have some materials on Japanese cars and some free time, you might like to consider the Nissan Rasheen article, which makes the bizarre assertion that It [...] looks a bit like a Hummer but smaller. Well, the "smaller" part of that is true (to Nissan's credit), but I'd say that it's just as close to (say) an Austin A40. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As am I (glad, that is). Yeah, calling it a Hummer seems a bit silly. However, I am largely uninterested in cars developed after the Japanese bubble's collapse (I prefer the Showa era), but I might be able to improve on that part at least!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Shooting brake

Are you suggesting that as a body configuration the shooting brake is as largely well-understood, defined and recognized by the general population... and used by manufacturers with a similar frequency and similar marketing purposes as... the hatchback?842U (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No obviously not quite as commonly used - but many hatchbacks are also not marketed as such. If there are dependable sources that refer to cars that are of an obvious shooting brake design (as for instance the Beta HPE and P1800ES) as such then I see no reason to insert repeated disclaimers.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
IMHO: This discussion is coming up because of the inclusion of a vehicle that was never marketed as a Shooting Brake, the Volvo 1800ES -- without a reference or citation for inclusion as a SB. While the term Shooting Brake has a perfectly legitimate, authentic etymology, no one is now suggesting that cars today called Shooting Brakes are used to break in horses and carry hunting weapons. The term Shooting Brake is now a highly esoteric, archaic marketing term, used to evoke a heritage of breaking horses and carrying weaponry... for advertising purposes: nothing more. It's the "Rich Corynthian Leather" of body types. So I'm suggesting it is disengenous to go back and apply the term to cars that were never marketed as such and clearly were not designed to break in horses and carry shotguns — and that the term in fact probably requires a different, more careful approach than wagon or hatchback. To go back and fluff out the article with a list of vehicles that could have been marketed as horse domesticating and weapon bearing... or that resemble cars now marketed that way... is a mistake. Again, IMHO. YMMV. 842U (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it as an archaic marketing term - sadly I am travelling and cannot access my library, but the accepted idea is as mentioned in Top Gear: a "cross between an estate and a coupé" (often based on a regular coupé design). This is what is commonly meant with shooting brake, even though the term originated with custom-built British esoterica. Thus, it is used to define a car that cannot properly be called an estate/station wagon, and also cannot be properly labelled a coupé. 'Shooting brake' thereby becomes a useful term rather than mere peacockery. I would like to avoid a large list, but a few illustratory examples are always useful. I wonder what others' opinions are? I would recommend reading the German entry on shooting brakes for a fairly balanced entry on the topic (excepting the inclusions of the Brera, 128 3P, and 2002 Touring, with which I disagree).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not British so when I sniff Irony I just go nervous. I think you will find that those vehicles referred to by Mr Choppers from the sixties and seventies were so-named because there was No Way they could carry goods and passengers like a shooting-brake. Eddaido (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it goes like this:
  • A heavy (probably remains of a) wagon is kept in the stables to be pulled by carriage horses in training, will have a seat for the driver. Few people keep carriage horses and keep the staff to train their own, it would have to be a grand estate. . . or maybe a large enough farm / ranch. If the raw horses destroy the brake its not much loss.
  • Some rough seats can be added to carry a number of people on a jaunt perhaps to go shooting.
  • Rich people have something to do that job that's a bit more refined.
  • When cars come along, and don't last long, rich people might have an old car cheaply rebodied with seats and shelter to carry hunting parties. Maybe the good body goes onto a new chassis.
  • Anyway true (motorized) shooting brakes like that are only for rich people to own and are used just a few times each shooting season.
  • Station wagons / Estate cars can do the same job.
  • Hatchbacks look a bit like miniature station wagons / estate cars
  • Fast hatchbacks by Reliant, Aston Martin, Ferrari are called shooting brakes almost as a joke (station wagons are not usually intended to be fast). I suspect some of the Aston Martin ones were really mobile entertainment centres to take to race meetings etc.

Does that help explain? Best wishes Eddaido (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, the AM Virage Shooting Brake came with a custom made set of birding guns and had a special gun compartment in the rear. While I like the idea that it is all wink-wink and nudge-nudge, I still consider "shooting brake" a useful (and commonly accepted, as per any number of sources) term to refer to this type of granturismo loadluggers - whatever the meaning of the term may have been in 1860, 1910, and 1960.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The two words each haven't changed their meaning, have they. It was called a brake because it steadied up the horses, slowed them down while they were trained. All guns should be kept in locked compartments in home office factory or on the road / in the field in one's Aston. :-) Anyway I reckon in this case the name's arguably right but the Am is for the very rich and a very exclusive shoot. That's no charabanc. Eddaido (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
But just as "sedan" has changed from being a wheelless human-propelled contraption to becoming a three-box automobile (or saloon, if you prefer - presumably something to do with sitting rooms?) so has Shooting Brake over time become something different from the original idea. I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make, but we have all come to accept that "sedan" no longer carries the same meaning that it did 100 years ago.
Again, I don't quite see what you are trying to tell me. I am fully aware of the origins of the term and its change in time. I am not even sure whether you're disagreeing with me about anything and then also not what the point of disagreement may be.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Entries

Mr. Choppers,

I'm trying as best that I can to enter and reorganize enties in Wikipedia on large American automobiles. I would apppreciate if I received more support for the skeletal work (organization) involved. True filling in spaces is important, but creating the spaces where the moss may grow is also.

Thank You, Mark

Facel vz. Facel Vega

Thanks for your support. My impression is that the company is called Facel, and that there is a range of models calles Facel Vega. Is this correct? The rest of the atricle as well as other articles are not consistent, and often refer to the marque as Facel Vega. Egil (talk) 07:29, 3 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) 04:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Sorry, my bad, it's early in the morning for me to be thinking too hard. I've undone it back to your last contrib. Thanks for adding to the article Jenova20 08:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no worries mate. Your reversal speaks for itself. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:51, 15 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 14:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nissan Cube

The sizes were off on the new 2010> model. I have changed them but i'm not sure if i put a reference in the infobox or leave it without one? Here it is anyway -

Thanks Jenova20 09:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm never sure about placing references in the infobox - I do it occasionally, but only if it is something which is highly likely to be challenged. Sometimes placing the reference on the talkpage covers things ok. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply Jenova20 08:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mazda MX-3 engine specifications

Putting the citation at the heading of a data table implies that all the data in the table is traceable to the cited source. This was not the case with the engine specification tables in the Mazda MX-3. The table was originally uncited; I found a source for *some* of the data and I added citations specifically to the data that had been verified by that source. The source article is about an introduction where the press was given statistics and allowed to drive the car. It was not a road test (hence no 0-60 mph time, 1/4 mile time, nor top speed) and, being a press introduction, it was published at or before the beginning of sales to the public, hence it would have no information on how long the model was built.

I have since corrected your mistake by placing citation tags on the data that is not covered by the cited source.

Might I suggest that, if you are not familiar with a source and its contents, you do not change how the source is cited?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jiangxi Changhe Automobile‎

I felt the same way and opened a sockpuppet investigation a few hours ago. Please feel free to comment there.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Results out, IP blocked for two weeks while Fleetham's one month block has been resetted and is now due to expire 13 November 2011 instead of the original 26 October. Man, speaking of shooting yourself in the foot, this guy is incorrigible. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Any specific guidelines for car photos?

Hello. I wanted to ask basic question, as I feel I'm in a situation where there is a conflict of interest. I recently uploaded a pretty good quality picture of the new 2012 Toyota Camry on the main Toyota Camry wikipedia article. I replaced the picture that was in the infobox, because while it was a very nice photo, not only was it a photo of the outgoing model but it wasn't even a photo of the mid-cycled refresh model. I'm sure that's no biggie, but at the end of the day, the new 7th generation Camry is in production and being sold. I moved the photo of the outgoing Camry to the section in the article that talked about the 2007-2011 Camry. I often recheck articles, as I realize people on Wikipedia tend to be petty with edits, and will revert something usually due to something very childish. Low and behold, when I checked the article, today, the picture I uploaded to the infobox was replaced by the OLD Camry picture. When I did some research, I realized there appears to be a conflict of interest, because the revert was made by the User:OSX which is the person who uploaded the old Camry photo. He cited in his edit comment, "The most recent generation image does not have to be first." Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're now talking about a new model or a car and a good photo has been posted, doesn't it make sense to use the NEW car photo? The editor seems to be salty because his photo was no longer front and center. I just want another opinion. I mean, at the end of the day, his photo will have to be replaced. How silly would it be to have a photo of a 2007 Camry posted a year or two from now? Thanks in advance. --Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy to have to disagree with you. The photo you uploaded wasn't actually all that good, and there is no need to have the leading photo be of the most recent iteration of the car in question. I would prefer a photo of the car which best sums up the name to be the leading photo; admittedly an impossible to agree upon definition but also almost never the most recent iteration. I think that the first photo seen should be of the XV10, a car which for me best illustrates camryness. I do think that there are currently perhaps too many Australian shots in use, but this is mostly due to the relative quality of photos uploaded. Sorry.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, either the XV10 or XV20 generation would be my pick, but because these models are too old, revert wars would cause too much drama. The lead photo has the role of best illustrating the history of the Camry, not the most recent version. The new model is not sold in all markets yet, and would not be very common in places where it is sold already since it is too new. An XV40 would therefore be more recognisably a "Camry" to most as far as I am concerned. There is also the issue of markedly different front and rear styling for Asia/Europe. Which version is more important?
Mr.choppers, at my count, we have 15 US-spec cars, 9 from Australia, and 11 from Japan. Are we supposed to include images on the basis of population or quality? Admittedly, you have noted this above. IFCAR tends to avoid taking rear-end photos of cars which means other images have to fill this void. For the XV20 generation, I would agree, as this section only shows Australian models.
Unless a particular market veers away from the "global" or more prominent styling, then there is no need to favour one market over another unless license plates from certain markets excite you. A good example is how Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen re-design the rear-ends of North America and some Japanese models to accommodate the much taller but narrower license plates used there (compare this to this). I would favour the use of the original European design in such instances, but having one of each would be ideal. Likewise, for the strange headlamps Mercedes-Benz fitted to it's North American cars in the 1980s, and then there's those stocky 1970s-era bumpers that were imposed in the United States. I think most major markets have a history of such modifications, and we should not illustrate articles as if these versions are the norm. An annoying trait here in Australia is the prevalence (albeit decreasing) of factory-fitted bull bars on off-roaders—totally unnecessary on your Land Cruiser used to go to the shops and take your kids to school in the suburbs.
Great find by the way: Subaru XT6. OSX (talkcontributions) 09:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The comment about "too many Australian photos" was firmly tongue and cheek and more of a prayer for more photos from all countries. It could even be read as a backhanded compliment to yourself. Since we already have fantastic photos of very many cars (albeit with Aussie license plates) I am not taking any more photos of those, instead focusing on oddities such as the XT6 and this Giannini. It's too bad there's not one of "us" in South Africa, that would make for some great shots. Regarding the redesigned US rears, here's another interesting photo which is of interest to those of us who are license plate buffs.
Totally agree with using the European version for European cars etcetera, and only including local market specialties as space allows and if they're very interesting.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I usually pick up your dry humour, but it can be missed sometimes because I am not speaking to you face-to-face.
I tend to only take photos of very common models if they are in a good position. If they have shadows and reflections all over them, there's no point wasting time taking the photo.
Those are the downsides of internet conversations; I have gotten better from editing here but there are still times when things don't come across right away. I did take one photo recently of a boring car (a Kia Spectroptimagentis or summat) for that very reason, and it ended up being the only rear view of the facelifted model of this car! You can imagine my excitement, I am sure (I think that was dry humour, but sometimes I don't even know myself any longer).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that Spectra facelift image and immediately inserted that image into the Kia Cerato article as a result.
And that's the beauty of dry humour—if you have a habit of preaching it, you can pass off awkward comments like, "wow those 1980s hubcaps are so cool" as a joke. OSX (talkcontributions) 21:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Those hubcaps are cool. And I have admired your redrawing of them before; actually that work of yours made me realize that Photoshop allows me to do similar things myself.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


I've answered you on my talk page. - CompuTerror™ 20:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Shameless rip-off

Hej! Gotta watch these people who shamelessly rip-off userboxes from other pages :)  Stepho  talk  08:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No shame whatsoever... I agree that 4Runner and Hilux Surf should be merged, by the way.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


Well done on starting a much needed tidy up of the Lifan Group page. Warren (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir - as I am already quite bored, though, I would like to stoke some sort of minor argument to keep things interesting. In the absence of outside actors, either of us will have to do something vaguely retarded which will then eventually cause a good article to arise.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fleetham is back