User talk:OSX/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:OSX. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Photos

I'm processing a few photos at the moment but have uploaded a few of a Ford XR Falcon GT (289ci V8) but I don't want to upload them all, I was wondering if you would like to select a few? Bidgee (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

[1], [2], and [3]. If you change the licensing to CC-BY-SA like some of your others, then I am sure someone else will upload the remainder eventually. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've uploaded the three images. I'm using {{cc-by-sa-2.5-au}} now so licensing on Flickr would mean they would be uploaded under a {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} (IE: No AU). Could you check to see if this is correct? Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be an HZ due to the HZ-only "Radial Tuned Suspension" badge on the back. However, it does have some non-stock parts such as the HZ Statesman Caprice front-end and hubcaps. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! That is what I thought but I dislike those who mix parts (may look good but not as good as the true car model). Bidgee (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you check these two Chrysler Valiant Charger's as I think I may have the model incorrect? Bidgee (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Probably best to ask GTHO to confirm. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

MacBook Pro

Hi, OSX. You've edited the changes I've made in the "MacBook Pro" article, namely, you've removed the reference to notebook's technical specs on apple.com. What's been wrong with it? I'm new to article editing, so need to know better. :-) Best regards, Sergey. 91.208.161.26 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sergey, the reference you used, MacBook Pro (17-inch, Early 2009) - Technical Specifications is exactly the same one that is listed in the heading "early 2009". This reference serves to verify everything in the "early 2009" column of the table. As such, there is no need to reference the 2.93 GHz processor option separately. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, haven't noticed it there. :-) Thanks a lot for your explanation. 91.208.161.26 (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notification

This message is to notify you, per Wikipedia policy, that I have referenced you in this recent discussion:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_votes

Ebikeguy (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:2003 Mazda 6 (GG) Classic hatchback 01.jpg

Can you give some details of the changes you made when editing this image? Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The image was cropped and brightened. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

photos reply

I can't figure out what's going on where in that discussion, which is why I haven't really been following it. FWLIW, I think 300px is unnecessary from a photo perspective and that left-aligned thumbs are valuable, but it doesn't seem that the larger size has come up in the interest of illustrating the car as much as tidying the infoboxes. IFCAR (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Corolla years

Re: File:Toyota Corolla E20 April 1976 1166cc.JPG

Yes, it is an Aug 1972 to July 1974 E20. The give away is the presence of indicator repeaters just before the front wheel - older models had nothing here at all. Cheers. Stepho (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You might find this useful. It contains pics of each model, including facelifts.

http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/manuals/Toyota/IdManualExport1979/

Stepho (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Luxury vehicle

Thanks for identifying [4] in luxury vehicle as a vandal, as this anon and a few others keep trolling me and parroting other users, but never registers as a legitimate user. While the dispute between myself and CZMarlin has not been resolved, it is great not to have to worry about an anon. GoldDragon (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it is a worthwhile addition to the article, and the information seems correct based on my knowledge. CZmarlin does take concern to the referencing, so if you could work to improve that part, perhaps he would be satisfied. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Convention

O hai! Is it just a coincidence that after many months of absence I come back to Wikipedia and you post that just today? Coolness if so :D

I think it's a fair compromise. I grew a bit tired with Wikipedia and trying to bring some order to it, so I guess I grew less interested in disputing standards so hard to apply anywhere... I applaud and appreciate the effort nonetheless, and hope heartfully it will prove helpful.

Let me know if I can be of assistance in any way. I will be popping in and out intermittently, and I hope the system will remember to log me in to get your messages :D

Best regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No coincidence. I was going through our new automobile watchlist and I saw your username after several months of absence. I guess I recalled that prolonged and very much loathed discussion from 10 months ago and thought I should have another go at it (I think this is attempt numero quattro). I am actually fairly happy with it as is; I re-read all the discussions and the "most markets" provision will never work well, and the "all markets" provision will work almost every time and will not suffer from debates about which countries are "important enough". Everyone except IFCAR seemed to agree to "all markets" so that was good enough for me (oh, and no one came up with the alleged example for which "all markets" won't work). If there is a consensus to change it in the future then that can be done. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Outlander "good additions"

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

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

Mitsubishi Chariot

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

Fiat Tempra in the movie The American

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRC "China"

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

Model info in short

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Auto/WP:Animation

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

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

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

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

Compression ratio

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

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

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

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

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

MacBook Pro edits

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

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

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

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

Chevrolet Cruze

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

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

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

hello - back on

Hello OSX

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

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

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

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

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

Hyundai Elantra pic

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

Y2
MD

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

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

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

Plymouth

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

Awards list

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

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

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

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

u dot s dot

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

Move request. Your opinion welcomed

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

Mazda Titan

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

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

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

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

timelines

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

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

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

Plastic window-covers

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

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

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

They are used in other countries as well, especially those with warmer climates (including the United States: [6], [7]). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

MINI (BMW) de-capitalization

Hi OSX,

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

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

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

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

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

Hybrid and Performance pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ford Ranger move

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

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

Nissan Leaf GA review

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

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

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

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

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

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

McMansion

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

Re: Deletion of "Ford Motor Company"

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

Toyota dates

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

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

Was this Mariordo?

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

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

Mac=Mariordo?

See the block here: Sockpuppet investigation

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

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

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

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

WP: Cars talk page

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

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

Vaucluse

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

See Flemington, Victoria#Demographics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My intention was simply to suggest plausibly helpful links.

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

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

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

Mazda 121 DA

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

Daimler roadster

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

Mitsubishi Starwagon (L300)

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

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

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

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

Hello again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land Cruiser

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

Chevrolet Vega Rating

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

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

Kia Forte

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

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

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

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

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

Agree completely with that and lent my support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ford Focus Electric

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

Requested Move

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

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

Lexus official sites list

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

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

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

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

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

why didn't i edit commodore myself?

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

Legacy production years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Harvester Light-duty pickups

International pickup and antipodean variations

IH B-120 (US)

IH C-1600 (Aus, 1966-1973)

'78 Dodge D500 (Aus, 1972-1979)

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

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

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

Convert rounding

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

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

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

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

2012 MY Camry

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

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

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

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

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

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

1998 Ford AU Falcon

2002 Ford BA Falcon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia has developed a policy of separate articles for the:

Vehicle
Platform
Engine and transmission

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