User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2015

Morris Cowley

Hi Stepho. I've just inserted three Infoboxes automobile engine in a row on this page. Done to avoid a lot of white space and because they are variations on the one design. Do you think this kind of arrangement of infoboxes is a good thing? Happy New Year, Eddaido (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I think making a simple table would be a lot better. A lot of boring coding involved, but the end result should be considerably more elegant. Cheers, lots of very useful info there I am sure.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, tricky one. I do like templates but in this case they just aren't easy to read. Even if we make the 3 infoboxes line up neatly after the main infobox (ie all start on the same line), the individual entries within each infobox get out of alignment. Therefor, Mr Choppers suggestion of a table seems the only realistic way to go. Plenty of examples to copy from (ge Toyota Supra).  Stepho  talk  08:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Date format (again)

First, I am going to try to put this discussion back where I started it, rather than hide it where no one will see it, which you personally feel is appropriate.

At HEMTT I just posted six refs using a human date format. EDIT: This is the format used by the source, US Army documents. I intend to post more. There were three, one dead, there. I would appreciate it if you changed the them back. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I shifted your comment from my talk page to here. Much better to have a discussion in a single place instead of in two disjoint places.

MOS:DATEFORMAT says that reference dates are allowed to be in the yyyy-mm-dd format. References should use a single, consistent format. That format does not have to be the same as the format used in the source material (i.e. does not need to correspond to the format used by the army). This must be true because how can we have a consistent date format if we use references from multiple sources that use different formats.

WP:CITEVAR says that citation styles (including the date format) should not be changed according to editor preference. Instead, the first editor gets to choose from the legal formats (which includes yyyy-mm-dd) and future editors should respect his choice. In our case, previous editors had made the majority of references in yyyy-mm-dd format, so therefore we should use that same format for new references.

It is possible to change the format but only by gaining consensus on the article talk page to change it. Note that consensus requires a clear majority in support of the change - a deadlocked discussion means no change. Stepho talk 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. The correct answer is "Good point, I'll change them back". No wonder you don't want this on your talk page. Sammy D III (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, feel free to start drumming up some consensus on the the talk page. Stepho talk 05:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me understand your reasoning.

On 22 December 2005 the Army.mil site link was posted as an External link with no date. That editor’s last post was on 27 September 2006.

On 25 March 2007 the now dead Oshkosh site was posted as an External link with no date by an IP, their last post. That site is still up.

On 4 January 2010 the OD link was posted in a simple form with no date.

On 21 May 2010 these 2 External links and one simple ref were changed to refs with Machine date format. That editor’s last post was 11 Jul 2010.

Because of one long gone editor’s choice in 2010 this machine code date format is locked in. So my 6 good current refs, plus the others I was going to post, with a human date format consistent with the sources, have to be done in machine code?

The correct answer still is "Good point, I'll change them back". Sammy D III (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have a problem continuing a conversation on the same talk page that it started on. But since you have a bee in your bonnet about it we can continue here. Just as long as it's in one place and not scattered across multiple pages. I've relinked MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:CITEVAR above and suggest you read both of them.

Yes, one long-gone editor's choice back in 2010 dictates the default choice. A scenario that happened a lot in the early days of Wikipedia is that a Brit would make a page with references like 27 Jan 2006. Then a Yank would think it is wrong and change it to Jan 27, 2006. Then a Brit would change it back to 27 Jan 2006. Then a Yank would change it again. And so on. Lot's of time and effort wasted. It also made it hard to to keep track of real changes to the content because the page was forever changing in trivial details like the date. A similar thing happened for British spelling vs American spelling that is detailed at WP:ENGVAR. So the solution was for the first major contributor to get the choice and for other editors to respect that choice. But as I mentioned above, that choice is not locked in forever. If you can get a majority consensus on the article's talk page to change the date format then it can be changed. But be warned, a dead locked discussion means no change. This is how polite people get along with other people who have different opinions.

yyyy-mm-dd is not just a machine readable format. It is in fact the default format for many people around the world - just not for people in your neck of the woods. It is also explicitly allowed by MOS:DATEFORMAT. Just because it is not familiar to you or not favoured by you doesn't mean it isn't allowed. For instance, I think the Jan 27, 2006 format sucks raw eggs. It starts with the middle element, then goes to the smaller unit of time, then goes up to the largest unit of time. Much nicer to either go consistently from bigger to smaller (yyyy-mm-dd) or from smaller to bigger (27 Jan 2006). When I create an article I tend to use 2006-01-27 for engineering articles (including vehicles) or 27 Jan 2006 for other articles. But if an article is already locked in to Jan 27, 2006 then I continue using that format. I.e. if you want me to respect your choices then you also have to respect my choices. Isn't that what they teach us in kindergarten, to play nicely with the other children?

The date format used in the article does not have to match the date format used in the sources themselves. If I had 5 sources that used Jan 27, 2006, 4 sources that used 2006-01-27 and 8 sources that used 27 Jan 2006 then which format should we use? Remember that we only get to use one format in any given article - practically no professional publisher would mix them side by side on the same page and neither do we.

Lastly, to tell someone else that they are wrong because they don't match your personal opinion and to order them to change it is blatantly rude. The term Ugly American comes to mind but I hope I'm wrong. Anyway, you can ask others to discuss it on the talk page of the article. If enough people agree with you then we change over.  Stepho  talk  10:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Aw sepho, what are we going to do?

In the US they use mm/dd/yyyy. I have used dd/mm/yyyy because it seemed more international. It counts right, just like your machine code. Family tree programs here use it, even though it seems wrong to most people in the US. The US military, my source, the owners and users of these vehicles, uses dd/mm/yyyy. I know, as a former US Army personnel clerk, that this is because it counts right, but I can’t source this, other than personal experience.

English versions of major newspapers in the US[1], Australia[2], Brazil[3], Germany[4], Japan[5], and Mexico[6] use mm/dd/yyyy. Canada[7], England[8], India[9], Poland[10], and Spain[11] use dd/mm/yyyy. China[12] and France[13] use yyyy/mm/dd. Russia[14] uses dd/mm, I couldn’t find a date with a year.

I think that if I followed your links (I don’t) I would find that they are guidelines, open to interpretation, not carved in stone as you present them.

None of that really matters, though, does it? The bottom line is that your attitude towards the only person to post a link there in years chased him away. Seven refs, all solid, six of them good current links. Plus any other improvements that may have been made.

You don’t want me here, my talk page is a wasteland, so I am going to try something else, so your friends can see how you have kept this article safe from my edits.

The correct answer still is "Good point, I'll change them back". Now it should include “Sorry I put you through this chickenshit”. Sammy D III (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The correct answer is to go to the article's talk page (talk:Heavy_Expanded_Mobility_Tactical_Truck) and open a discussion. If your idea has merit and gains consensus then the date format will be changed. It would also help if you read those links I gave you so that you know how we deal with conflicting ideals at Wikipedia.

Alternatively, you can cry that the wicked Australia isn't automatically following the whims of the American, refuse to read the Wikipedia policies, refuse to acknowledge the reasoning and historical background that was patiently explained to you, order me to do things your way, and remove your own good work in a hissy fit.

Start the discussion on the article's talk page. If we don't get enough editor's involved then we can ask for more contributors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. And if you are still dissatisfied then I'll show you how to call in an administrator to judge whether I have done you wrong - but I'll only call one in if you at least start the discuss on the article's talk page.  Stepho  talk  03:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Lamborghini Huracán page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Bgwhite (talk · contribs) has fixed this.  Stepho  talk  03:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

GM Streetcar Page

I've made a few changes, and would like to have some input on it, if you are able to spare the time. (I'm also wondering if there is a mechanism to notify en masse contributors to the article.)Anmccaff (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my knowledge of the subject is limited. I have only done simple formatting tasks on that article. Mass notices are normally done by mentioning it at an appropriate wiki project. Possibly Wikipedia:AUTOMOBILE - it's a bit of a stretch but people in that project are generally interested in similar things.  Stepho  talk  22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put out the word on the "tram" project page. BTW, there's a formatting problem I have on the GM Streetcar Page' the lede has a bunch of parenthetical facts and references which I can't seem to cram into footnotes where they belong for the life of me. Any advice appreciated.Anmccaff (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting those 3 edits that I made, I have no idea why the script thinks it is a good idea to change them. I try to look out for them as much as possible but as you see some slip by. (after doing 350+ pages) Redalert2fan (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no problem.  Stepho  talk  22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tuatara comment

Hi Stepho-wrs - I noticed in your comment about the Tuatara that you said Guinness requires 15 cars for production car status - do you have an RS for that as the best source I can find says they require 50. It would be useful in the definition of a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My number was from memory and may well be wrong. I'm happy to go with your number.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NealeFamily (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Jeep

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

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)

Pickups

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

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)

Template help

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 (talk • contributions) 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 (talk • contributions) 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 (talk • contributions) 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 (talk • contributions) 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 (talk • contributions) 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 (talk • contributions) 05:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		Thanks again for all of your help with getting Template:Vehicle registration to work properly. OSX (talk • contributions) 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 (talk • contributions) 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 (talk • contributions) 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 (talk • contributions) 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)

Corsa Specialised Vehicles

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Thanks for filling in

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)