User talk:Stepho-wrs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wbar purple.jpg
Crystal kmail.png Stepho's talk page

Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me.

  • To messages left on my talk page, I respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses.
  • Local time is UTC+8 in Western Australia (we get sunrise 8 hours before the UK and 12-16 hours ahead of North America). Please have that in mind if leaving time-sensitive comments.
  • All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large.
  • Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything.






Babel:

  *en, cn-1, ja-1

Wbar blue.jpg
Crystal xfmail.png Messages

Scion iQ EV[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Mariordo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Backtalk[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Stepho-wrs. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Problem Editor[edit]

I have noticed a string of highly problematic edits by user Carmaker1:[1]. As with Volvo V70, Nissan Murano, Audi 100 and Honda Odyssey (North America), he inserts the names of car designers based on missing, misleading or spurious references. In the Volvo V70 article, he inserted the name of a dubious designer into an article in such a way as to leave a direct and referenced quote by the actual designer attributed to his newly introduced spurious designer. And from what I can tell, he's pretty much blazing a trail through lots and lots of articles. His responses are... well... not helpful, to say the least. I notice that you ran into some similar issues with him recently. Is this something you could help with?842U (talk)

US$[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Idaltu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Template:Jeep[edit]

Hello, I would like your opinion on this template, I made the template similar to other templates like Template:Toyota Motor Corporation, but user:Aoidh belives that the edit is unessesary. Even though I told the user that other templates like the one I listed is supported by other users, as no reverts to them have been made. Do you think my edit is nesessary, rather than have page be just a redirect? Seqqis (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a template that would duplicate other Jeep templates and serves no purpose other than matching Toyota in the template name, which is hardly an appropriate reason. Just because other users haven't reverted other, marginally related templates does not mean your edit is "supported". As I said on my talk page, if you want to make the change, start a discussion on a relevant talk page (Talk:Jeep or more appropriately, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles) and get a consensus for your edit, and then make the change. - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that Template:Jeep Car Timeline is quite adequate for the job. Template:Jeep is quite fine as a timeline but it is mostly duplicating the existing template. Duplicates just double the workload and should be avoided if possible. There is no convention for timelines, so making them entirely consistent is an exercise in futility. You could always suggest a common format in the automobile project conventions section but it's probably low on the list of priorities.
As for WP:redlinks, I have no problem with them. They encourage editors to add new topics or redirects as needed. The timeline should show all the appropriate vehicles, not just the vehicles that have an article.
In terms of etiquette, being bold and making a change is fine. If another editor objects then it is time to discuss it on a talk page. Simply reverting each other just makes everybody angrier.
My suggestion is to leave Template:Jeep as a redirect and to fill in all the appropriate vehicles in Template:Jeep Car Timeline, even if they are redlinks today.  Stepho  talk  05:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cab-over v. conventional[edit]

Cab-over is "normal" or "conventional" where I am from as well. However, this article is cab over and the other one is conventional truck, so perhaps if you can find some WP:VERIFY then you should propose that cab over be renamed conventional, and that conventional is moved to whatever its other name might be. Otherwise you are skating towards WP:ORIGINAL. Limegreen (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in[edit]

Hi, I too find filling refs tiresome, which is why I don't do it, and focus on adding content instead. Thankfully, WP has other editors like you willing to do some of the the work. I hope you use Wikipedia:REFILL or some other tool. I plan to include that some time when I get around to it. TGCP (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the comment. Most of the time I don't mind it when others provide content and I just tidy up the format. I was just feeling a bit tired yesterday and finding it a little hard to keep up. I appreciate the work you do in finding the content.  Stepho  talk  22:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
All good. I think of it this way - all elements are eventually needed. TGCP (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.  Stepho  talk  01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I use reFill now, but how do you use it on just one section? I can only make it work on a full page, and with limited options. TGCP (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
No idea. I do it by manually.  Stepho  talk  23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Template help[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you are very good at creating templates and was hoping you could please help me out with one I am in the process of finalising. It is Template:vehicle registration at Wikimedia Commons. I will be using it to note down the data provided when doing vehicle registration checks, such as compliance plate dates and chassis numbers. This information can be very useful to work out the exact version of a vehicle. Unfortunately, the information is inaccessible once a vehicle becomes unregistered or changes number plates, so it is important to note this information down so it is always available. So far, I have been unable to successfully work out how to make the parameters optional. Currently, if a field is left out, it is still displayed in the final output as broken code. For an example of this template in use, see: File:1991 Honda Concerto EX-i liftback (2015-05-28) 02.jpg. Cheers, OSX (talkcontributions) 05:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I do optional fields as follows:
{{ #if: {{{year|}}}| ({{{year}}})|}}
The | character is important. If year is not provided (or is blank) then nothing is output. If year is provided then it has nbsp and the year value is output. You can provide a default as follows:
{{ #if: {{{year|}}}| ({{{year}}})| (no year given)}}
See 'template:Euro NCAP/1997' and its relatives for some worked examples. This drove me nuts figuring out the syntax when I first learnt it. Make sure every { has an exactly matching } . This WILL drive you blind :)  Stepho  talk  08:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stepho, thanks for the reply. I used your Euro NCAP template originally to no avail, and this time the 1997 version which is even more baffling to me. This is not something that I am very good at (wikitables are hard enough for me!). Would you please convert one of the fields over for me please, and then I'll copy that across? Regards, OSX (talkcontributions) 10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I modified it to show three different ways to make parameters optional.  Stepho  talk  01:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This is good, thank you! Do you know how to have the entire row hidden if a parameter is missing? OSX (talkcontributions) 01:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, try now for missing chassis number.  Stepho  talk  02:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems to have removed the chassis number completely, as File:1991 Honda Concerto EX-i liftback (2015-05-28) 02.jpg shows. OSX (talkcontributions) 03:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't quite see how to call it. Can you put a few test cases on this page? Thanks.  Stepho  talk  03:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean Stepho. Sorry. OSX (talkcontributions) 03:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Something like the following so that I can see if my changes are making it better or worse:
  • {{vehicle registration|jurisdiction=JJJ|chassis=CCC|engine=EEE}}
    
  • {{vehicle registration|jurisdiction=JJJ|chassis=CCC}}
    
  • {{vehicle registration|jurisdiction=JJJ|engine=EEE}}
    
Or perhaps you have a test page that you can direct me to that shows various params in use and/or blank.  Stepho  talk  03:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've made it work but the spacing is a bit screwed up. I'll have another try tonight.  Stepho  talk  08:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Great work. Seems to handle the parameters exactly as I wanted it to! Thank you very much for helping out even if I don't quite understand how you got it to work ;) OSX (talkcontributions) 05:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
Thanks again for all of your help with getting Template:Vehicle registration to work properly. OSX (talkcontributions) 05:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wasn't happy with it myself - the vertical spacing is all screwed up when multiple fields are missing. Which is why the history is full of a dozen changes this morning as I tried variations on a them to get rid of the extra spacing. Anyway, glad you're happy.  Stepho  talk  07:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this and this? OSX (talkcontributions) 07:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, 'Registration number' and 'Chassis number' have bad vertical spacing.  Stepho  talk  07:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is odd considering the other fields use the same code, yet they are unaffected. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Boys, this is a great template. Used it here. Just so you know, both Holland and Sweden and perhaps others also include the weight of the vehicle. Would that be worth adding an optional field for?  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Glad it is of use. I've just added the weight param. The user will have to put kg or lbs at the end. Eg |weight=1000 kg  Stepho  talk  06:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers, yes, please add parameters that are going to be useful. I based the template on the Australian state of Victoria as they (unlike other states) divulge a lot of information about the car which is great for badge spotters like me. I am not sure how weight is necessarily helpful in this regard, but if it helps you then that is fine by me. For the Swedish example given, I noticed that you used the "compliance date" field which I worry may be an incorrect use of that field. It seems that you are possibly using it for the date manufacturing was completed. I am only aware of Australian cars having these plates, but there may be others. The quotes below define exactly what "compliance date" means:

Every model driving on Australian roads must be rigorously inspected and crash tested to be worthy of a compliance plate. This states that the car has met the requirements of the Australian Design Rules (ADRs). The compliance plate is a quick indication to registration authorities that compliance with the ADRs has been demonstrated for the vehicle in question. When an internationally manufactured car has reached our shores it must be therefore fitted with a compliance plate before it is able to be driven on the road. This could be done in one year, even if the car arrived in the final months of the previous year, or was built in the previous year. The same applies for locally manufactured vehicles. — Motorama

Vehicles produced in 2013 will have a build date plaque under the bonnet stamped with the month and year it rolled off the production line. But they also get a compliance plate, which signifies when the car was released from bond and certified for sale in Australia. The compliance plate is always stamped with a later date than the build plate, often by month, to take into account the six to 12 weeks in can take a car to be shipped to Australia. It’s the compliance date that determines what year model a car is – at least when it’s new. And this is where it gets murky. While you can legally advertise a car with a 2014 compliance plate as a 2014 model, the reality is car dealers – and the industry – will value it off the build plate. So if it was built in 2013 but sold in 2014 it will still be considered a 2013 model – and valued as such. — Drive

I hope this helps! Maybe "year of manufacture" should be used instead but with the full date. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@OSX: The date I used is the marvelous Swedish word "Typgodkännandedatum", which means just about the same thing. "Type Approval Date" would be the closest translation. I don't exactly know what good the weight would be, I mean it is interesting for the car I posted as an example as it is a special. But I know that often I have data, consider it uninteresting and discard it, and then kick myself later. So why not? Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the code inside Template:vehicle registration you can see two lines replicated for each param. You easily add new params by replicating these two lines and changing the names.  Stepho  talk  03:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Great. Didn't want to take liberties without an invitation...  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Pickups[edit]

Hi there, we had an edit conflict in pickup truck where you were replacing "truck" with "pickup truck". I was doing a huge edit with rearranging images, so I pasted in my edit after you edit and then tried to redo your edit. Hope I got it all right. The goal is that truck should not stand alone since that has a given meaning in certain geos? --Cornellier (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops, bad luck on the timing. I'm happy with your changes. One instance was missed but I have just fixed that too. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  07:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oshkosh HEMTT[edit]

Hi Stepho-wrs,

Quick question regarding your edit of the HEMTT page; you removed Oshkosh Corporation as designer with the reason that 'designer' is for a person. I'm no Wiki expert and am learning as I go, so a question if I may? Is this a Wiki rule, and if so, where might I find this and anything similar to help with my Wiki education? I've searched and failed.

That said, I have just done a random search of 12 military vehicle pages on Wiki, and of those 10 had the designer field attributed to somebody, and in each and every case it was the manufacturer or manufacturing plant (in the case of Russia), so even if the rule exists, should we enforce it? Most seem to assume it can be used for person or entity.

Maybe I should start some sort of forum to get it revised, assuming it is a rule? I know from my previous conversions with the former HEMMT program manager at Oshkosh that the vehicle was designed by a team of about 20 to 30 people...

Welcome your thoughts on this one.Wolpat (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! From the documentation at Template:Infobox_automobile, "The designer field is used to record the name(s) of the vehicle's exterior designer(s)." To my mind, that means articles with a company name as the designer are in the wrong. This is also consistent with how the field is most used. But as always, I'm open to a discussion on one of the Automobile project's talk pages about whether the policy should be changed.  Stepho  talk  02:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Many military vehicles such as HEMTT, use “Weapon”, not “Automobile”.
At Template:Infobox_weapon "description": "The person OR GROUP responsible for designing the weapon." Couldn’t the manufacturer be a “group”?
Isn’t listing particular people unrealistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.49.106.112 (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, I thought it used the automobile template. We should follow the guidelines laid down by the template being used, so I have retracted my change.  Stepho  talk  14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All that template stuff is a league above my editing capabilities... That said, and not really wanting to start a huge debate somewhere, I'd say a HEMTT isn't really a weapon, and if the choice is either automobile or weapon, I'd go with automobile. But that's maybe another discussion for other people on another day! Wolpat (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Compare Template:Infobox automobile with Template:Infobox weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.49.106.112 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Corsa Specialised Vehicles[edit]

Hi, yesterday I decided to create a new article on CSV but 2 users not from Australia deemed it appropriate to have it deleted and blocked. I have managed to seek a review, which I think involves having "community" support for the article to stay. Afterall, CSV has gained independent manufacturer status like HSV to built its own cars and there's similar companies worldwide featured in wiki articles. The 2 people involved seem to have acted capriciously. Anyway, if you can contribute to the debate and support it, further info is here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_June_21. Just thought I would contact you (and feel free to involve other automotive enthusiasts) having noted you are from Australia and hopefully do know about CSV independently, and also thanks to your helpful contributions on the Magna and 86 articles. Cheers CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

HEMTT[edit]

Hi there, just swapped back your change to HEMTT; there's no copyright issue as the text came direct from a press release, and by its very nature it can be used in part or whole. I thought I'd take the time out to leave this note as just doing it without explanation is not good in my book. Oh and I forgot to sign in when I made the change back, which probably makes it look worse!Wolpat (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked at WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYPASTE. I don't see any special clause for press releases. My understanding is that press releases can be either quoted as-is (in which case it must be indicated that it is a quote) or rewritten but not simply copied as though they were your own words. Unless it is important that it be a quote, it is much preferred to be rewritten in our own words. I can't see a reason in this instance for it to be a quote.  Stepho  talk 
Hi Stepho-wrs, my comments are based on my time as a journo, and I recall hearing what I said at one of many boring lectures on copyright, libel and other associated boring subjects... That said, if Wiki states it prefers something else, I'm happy with something else as discussing the subject every time I add content of a factual release verbatim will soon become a chore...
I'd like to include as much technical detail etc. from the original relase, so if OK with you, leave it with me and by Monday of next week you'll never believe it was ever a press release! Wolpat (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
No probs, I'll wait for your rewrite. Cheers!  Stepho  talk  08:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron[edit]

Hello! I edited the page for the Bugatti Veyron awhile ago, and changed sports car to hypercar, and I noticed it was changed back. I just wanted to say, I think it should be under hypercar or at least supercar. Definitely not sports car. Sports car would be like a Mazda MX5, or Nissan 370Z, or something. Thank you for reading, and I hope you consider the small edit! no hard feelings. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.37.46 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There have been arguments about whether 'sportscar', 'supercar' or 'hypercar' is the correct term. Most recognise that a top end car like the Veyron is technically a 'sportscar'. But some think that a more precise term like 'supercar' is appropriate to distinguish it from nice but more common car like the MX5. Others think that the term 'supercar' has no precise definition and 'hypercar' is even more vague. The general consensus was that 'hypercar' is definitely out, 'supercar' is grudgingly tolerated and 'sportscar' is the preferred term.  Stepho  talk  03:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ford Mustang may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • t=1170 '50 Years of Mustang with Lee Iacocca – Jay Leno's Garage' per Guest Dave Pericak (Mustang Chief Engineer, Ford Motor Company]; ''YouTube''; December 29, 2013.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

US-spec Celica in Europe[edit]

The facelift model US-spec Toyota Celica 2.2 GT-S (ST184, The Netherlands)

Regarding the above picture of US-spec Celica GT-S (ST184) in The Netherlands, there were quite many cars from US exported to Europe for several reasons, like private import, foreign embassies, or returning expatriate. When I was in Europe, I spotted US-spec Lexus SC, Tercel & Camry. The thing that surprised me a lot was there are many US-spec All-Trac (ST185 GT-Four) for sale in Italy. There were more than 100 units differences between All-Trac imported from Japan to US & actually registered. Perhaps most of those numbers were re-exported to Italy. Celica21gtfour 8:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, grey market imports. We have lots of grey market second hand Japan-spec imports in Australia too. But since a car from almost any market can be moved to almost any other market, it is meaningless. We only care about which market the factory made it for in order to show which options were for that market. At best we could caption that picture as a US-spec Celica (explainign the particular options on that vehicle) that had been privately imported to the Netherlands as a grey market, second hand import (explaining the Netherlands number plate and perhaps any modifications to obey local laws).  Stepho  talk  08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lexus LS400 XF20[edit]

The Lexus badged-XF20 was not recognized as a 1994 model, in being solely available in the US that calendar year, a country that strictly goes by model year and not production/launch year. Other nations do not utilise model years, mostly registration years and therefore go by initial dates of usage.

There was no XF20 offered elsewhere with a Lexus badge, until the first quarter of 1995 in Europe/UK. In the case of the LS400 XF20 II, that was already launched worldwide in 1997, so the model-year specific labeling of 1998-2000 would be incorrect in that instance and decisions there made sense. 1994-1997 truly applies to that of JDM Toyota Celsior photography or XF10 first generation Lexus LS400, not a second generation Lexus LS400.

If one is not allowed to call the S550 platform Ford, the 2014 Mustang, then the same should apply here out of consistency. You cannot go off of personal preference in favour of Australia and solely decide that this can be applied differently in a Lexus article vs. that of a USDM-model Ford or GM article. I have written articles to reflect that (1998-2004 Ford Mustang SN-95 vs 1999-2004), only to have that reverted in cases of regional guidelines overruling a global standard.—Carmaker1 (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

To keep the conversation in one place, I have answered at Talk:Lexus LS#Model years on U.S-Spec.  Stepho  talk  01:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite template.[edit]

Thanks again for fixing the dates om the GM streetcar page. Why does the citation template put them in "wrong" by default, do you know? Anmccaff (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! The template itself doesn't actually have a default. But the tool you use to fill in the fields might have a default. Many tools use only dd mm yyyy or mm dd, yyyy because that is all the tool creator was used to. You would have to ask the guy that created the tool. I do mine by hand, so the template always uses whatever I type.  Stepho  talk  09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Holden Commodore[edit]

Hello, just added a bit of information on the 2018 fifth-generation Commodore, hoping that (1) it will stop people claiming the Commodore badge ends in 2017; (2) people won't revert it as being speculation. Once this replacement is launched, I don't see why this information and/or original claims could not be part of the replacement's background info, much like the VT article correctly states that it was intended to be (ironically) a Buick. People are failing to distinguish between end of local production (if it happens) and end of Commodore. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Aussie production will probably stop in 2017 but 'probably' isn't good enough for an encyclopaedia. And as you said, the commodore nameplate will continue anyway. Hopefully your scheme will work.  Stepho  talk  14:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WWIII[edit]

Yeah, with this thing starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia, I thought I'd just go ahead and label it WWIII.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Official websites[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Official websites has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Justify[edit]

You will need to justify, on the talkpage, why you're going against the advice of two other editors in insisting on mixed date formats. If you do not provide satisfactory reasoning, I will again harmonise the dates. Tony (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD says that we need to discuss on the talk page before change it yet again and that it should remain in its prior state until the discussion says to change it (or not). I'm happy to talk at talk:Toyota Corolla (E170) but please don't change it yet again.  Stepho  talk  03:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lada Riva[edit]

I've opened a move discussion for the Riva, as using this UK-only name for the 2105/04/07 seems ill-advised. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lexus LF-CC[edit]

Is there a reason why you added this statement, "Design concepts from the LF-CC were used on the production Lexus IS sedan and the Lexus RC coupe." in this edit? Were you trying to say instead that, all 3 vehicles shared cues with each other and that the LF-CC cues later were produced for public consumption (purchasing) via the XE30 (IS) and XC10 (RC)?

If not (or similarly), that would be misleading since both cars (XE30 and XC10) designs were signed off before that concept was unveiled in September 2012. The LF-CC could not have directly influenced them, being that the LF-CC was an adaptation of the XE30 concept in 2-door form and a subsequent design development. The RC fascia has some similarities, being that the XC10 design was definitive (nearly final, not yet frozen) by the time work began on the LF-CC.

A concept debuting before future production models, doesn't always entail that the "concept" developmentally influenced product planning. The LF-LC might be a unique example in this case, but most often this does not happen. The LF-Ch Concept of 2009 was shown parallel to design patents being filed on the ZWA10 CT's design in September 2009, being designed in definitive form in 2008. Much of the "LF" concepts do not directly influence models, but rather borrow from existing future production developments, prior to their respective design freezes or subsequent to them.

In many respects, the amount of lead time between a concept's showcasing and Job #1 can give this away very easily. Less than 18-24 months, is often the case where a concept was instead developed off of a production (design) model in the pipeline than vice-versa. More than 2 years lead time, is a perfect example of what LF-LC = LC500 is. A design study turned into a production model, with plenty of internal development time to start from scratch or adapt from existing platforms (i.e. 2002 Hummer via GMT800 = quick development).

I really want to work at it and help all of us maintain consistency with that. A good neutral (unbiased) timeline/timetable on models, along with the necessary information in the articles. Information on models from their roots/inception in development stages, brief summaries of gradual updates, and conclusion of life-cycles, with at least 99% accurate info present. My reason for that, is to help establish background information in the history of model's life-cycle for the owners and prospective secondhand or etc. buyers.---Carmaker1 (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That was over a year ago and I can't remember my thoughts from that time. Probably I copied the idea from both the IS and RC articles, both of say the same thing. The CC had a gestation period of its own, so it's possible that the design cues for all 3 were made about the same time (as you suggested). The IS and RC were to be production vehicles, so it would be hard to make a test mule that was feature complete. But the CC concept car could be knocked up quickly to test the waters. If the public responded badly to it then the IS and RC plans would be changed before they had a lemon on their hands. we could reword it slightly to be "Design concepts used on the LF-CC were also used on the production Lexus IS sedan and the Lexus RC coupe."  Stepho  talk  05:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Quarto_Group[edit]

@Stepho-wrs: Hi, I saw that you had recently flagged up my edit for the Quarto Group, I was wondering whether you could go over what I have written here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abmd942/Quarto_Group and tell me what you think about it? It would be great to have your opinion! Tell me your thoughts, and thanks for any help you can give! Abmd942 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Abmd942: That looks reasonable to me. It's not an over-the-top advert, it's clear and factual and it has references to back it up. There are a few small mechanical issues (I already fixed one date to make it consistent with the format of the other references) such as references should go after the terminating period of a sentence but this type of thing can be fixed up easily enough.  Stepho  talk  02:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)