User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2017

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Euro NCAP/test

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Euro NCAP/test, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Chevrolet Bolt date format

Hi Stepho-wrs. As a knowledgeable editor of the WP:Auto project, I would like to invite you to the discussion that is taking place in the talk page of the Chevrolet Bolt about dates format. Thx.--Mariordo (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.  Stepho  talk  16:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1JZ-GTE Power Figures

Hi stepho,

I noticed you changed the power figures back to an auto conversion figure for the 1JZ-GTE on the JZ Engine page. Thankyou for this, as I am unsure how it all works.

I only changed it as it said 210kw which was incorrect, it should have been 206kw. There is a difference between metric horsepower and british horsepower, which I am sure you are aware of. 280 metric hp = 206kw and 280 british hp = 209/210kw. Nothing to do with you, I just noticed it was wrong on the site. Thanks for fixing it back up and making it look pretty.

Now, if only the NSW RMS and carsales/redbook would change their figures from 209 back to 206, myself and a lot of other people would be very happy haha!

Cheers,

farsight87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farsight87 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. A lot of people, magazines and institutions have trouble distinguishing hp and PS. You can find out more about how the template can be used by looking at previous examples (like mine) or by looking at the documentation at {{convert}}. Feel free to ask questions of me or on the template's talk page. Don't forget to sign your questions with ~~~~ (it inserts your user name and the time/date). Thanks.  Stepho  talk  00:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Carsalesbase.com

There's a discussion of the source carsalesbase.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Carsalesbase.com. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf GA reassessment

Nissan Leaf, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your restoration of a sock's comment

Sockpuppets evading a block do not get to "present their side of the discussion". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

For editing an article, I completely agree with you. For a discussion, I disagree. A discussion where one side is not allowed to talk is not a discussion. If one side is blocked from the discussion for a duration then the discussion should be halted for that duration.  Stepho  talk  23:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your view is not backed by policy. FYI, the person currently using that IP will be blocked whenever they are detected using a new IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Toyota Century stopped production...because a new generation is being developed

I had to search (トヨタ・センチュリー) to find a Japanese language article. According to this Japanese article, Toyota Century full model change, it's getting a full model update, cancelling the V12 for a hybrid, and an announcement is expected at the Tokyo Motor Show later this year. In 2012, Toyota did introduce the FS Hybrid Concept, which might have hinted at the next Century. That's all I could find...it looks like after 20 years, Toyota is going to update the Century. (Regushee (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC))

Yeah, looks like it is finally getting an overhaul. Here's another link https://car.kurumagt.com/2017-fs.html . Unfortunately all I can find is speculation for what the new model will be like - which isn't suitable or WP. The FS Hybrid seems like a dead end. Hopefully the press release at the Tokyo Motor Show will give us more info.  Stepho  talk  10:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

About the pictures of the Toyota C-HR

From what you revert, you were saying that the photos have too many background which confuse the eyes. Reason why I replaced the photos taken during it debut since there the production ones on the road. I tried my best to have less things going on in the background but the location where these cars where awkward. The blue one I taken was on a parking space and I ended standing in the road and the grey one I be quicker before the owner came out of the butchers.

Is there tips of what to do if I do find another C-HR that could be added on the English article I just think it time to replace the Motor show one and have newer ones on the streets.

--Makizox (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To me, the 2 sets of pics showed pretty much the same features, except the street pictures had distracting backgrounds. WP:CARPIX is our guide to good car pictures.  Stepho  talk  23:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean and definitely will take a look but, from what I see on a many articles related to automobiles the picture would have some form of background such as a building or a car peaking behind. Since the image is used for that page what users would look at in the picture is what in front of them, specifically if the image is cropped on the car itself. I guess is all due to one's perspective and I can see your point but most images on Wikimedia which depict a vehicles do have a form of background such as buildings and cars, it is good practise to keep bystanders out of the picture to a minimum if you can. but overall its basically unavoidable to not have a background for a image like mine. I will keep practising though.

--Makizox (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, most articles don't have a good selection of photos to use - so the best choice is still a poor choice of cluttered backgrounds. But I do encourage you to take photos with clear backgrounds in the hope that this part of Wikipedia will finally improve.  Stepho  talk  11:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Toyota 1000 classification Suggestion

Toyota 1000

Would you have a moment to check - and if necessary correct - my classification of this image? Most (tho not quite all) of the cars in that category have a different front. I called it Toyota 1000 because that was written on the back as it drove past. But although the steering wheel is on the European side, I don't think I remember ever having seen a lot of these ones in Belgium. Though they might have shipped a trial batch back in the days before they realised you could make soooo much more money by selling the Europeans AWDs and upmarket hybrids. Anyway, thanks for any input on the identification front. If you don't have time, don't worry. Definitely not worth getting in the way of the day job or even domestic responsibilities. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why the edit summary is offering me a closed list of inappropriate labels. I think someone's been improving things again....

Rushing to work. Quick answer is the Toyota 1000 was the European name for the Publica (1000 cc engine size) which was later renamed as the Starlet. More common in Britain.  Stepho  talk  22:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Production car speed record

Hi Stepho - Just a comment about the reversion of my edit from kph first to mph. All the other speed references have mph then kph, and I am sure many of these were in kph first. My edit was for consistency and I wonder if it should remain unless you intend changing the others? NealeFamily (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right! Guess I wasn't paying attention. The reference was in km/h, so the number use in {{convert}} must also be in km/h, but I somehow missed the rest of the article being in ancient units first. My apologies.

I'm tempted to make it all km/h first and ancient units in brackets but I'm reluctant to change it on my own personal preference. If I do that then I am also telling the Yanks that they can change other articles to their favourite units and we get anarchy again. I might claim WP:CARUNITS though.  Stepho  talk  09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted and thanks. NealeFamily (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Toyota Motor Corporation Development Interviews and Photography

I have finally been able to submit a library of development information on various Lexus model generations and that of other Toyota models. I had seen similar in the past few years, but had no way of linking to them (which explains my poor ability to provide direct link sources). How good at you at deciphering Japanese text? If interested, I will send you a Google Drive link with access to this content. Since late April, I have been to trying to unearth various items from step-by-step stages of development of these vehicles. Here is a publicised sample of what I have, which isn't complete yet, but plenty more to come. Also, just want to confirm if you've seen these before?–––Carmaker1 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

As a translator I'm awful. I recognise a fair number of characters in Kanji and Katagana (but not Hiragana) - enough to navigate through brochures and websites and enough to know where I need help from computer aided translation I can usually. I'll give it a go.  Stepho  talk  00:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well how can I give you private access to screenshots of these articles then? I refuse to directly publicise them on your talk page, for security reasons (drive-by readers). I'll be looking into different methods, as I have design information on the new XV70 design development at design approval in 2014 and freeze in 2015.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Honda J engine

I am very guilty of not always handling things at a calm and civil level, but in following your principle of making sure that timelines for vehicle life-cycles are not based on U.S.-style model years, I am having serious issues in this Honda J engine and feel that there is no discussion possible, with the extremely novice editor User:Vortex833(gives me the impression of a sock account situation). I had reported the matter to the Dispute Resolution board, but to no avail. Possibly I am not presenting the matter well enough?--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I love your leading sentence: "Excuse my manners, but you are a dunce." Apparently the bees don't think much of your vinegar. I noted that the article said the J engine was produced only in US. If this is true then they are allowed to use their horrible model years that no-one else uses or understand - as long as it is clearly marked as model years in a few key places so that non-US readers can get a grasp of the weird slant to reality. However, if a member of that engine family is also used in other countries that don't use model years (as implied by the J25A section) then we can claim it is an international engine family (as Honda is also a non-US company) and therefore needs to written such that non-US readers can understand it. If this is true then we can rewrite it similar to "in 2001 (for the 2002 model year)" or even better "in October 2001 (for the 2002 model year)". Because it is a predominantly US engine family there will have to be a lot of "MY" qualifiers because they really can't understand calendar years in relation to cars. Hard to accept for us outsiders but they really have brainwashed themselves into thinking only and purely in terms of model years. Sigh. Anyway, I will poke around a bit tonight.  Stepho  talk  22:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL, thanks! I see what I can fix, to mediate this issue. Until you pointed this out a few years ago and I became an engineer, I had issues with the marketplace mixing such information up and attempting to standardize it across the board. I honestly don't see the point of them using model years in this manner outside of 4th quarter months. This is originally what was the intention by the U.S. automakers in the early-mid 20th century. Since the 1960s, too many automakers have allowed their U.S. marketing departments to cheat the past 50 years and muddle things up into this big mess, that many of these users unfortunately fall for. This is the noticeboard I brought it too. I have become very particular on this matter for certain reasons. Conflating these model years with actual dates of introduction, has shown to down the road, confuse individuals that look at a model generation in retrospect and then question timeliness of mid-cycle enhancements or full model change redesigns as being "too early". Despite the fact, that the life-cycle dates to a much earlier date than the so-called "model year". The XV40 Camry was launched in Q1 of 2006 and refreshed by Q2 of 2009. The replacement arrived in late 2011, yet some individuals have been quick to say "launched in 2007 and then redesigned in 2012. In reality, that is a nearly a 6 year life-cycle, at about 66-68 months. Similar for the XV50, that was sold for 70-72 months, yet one hears sold from 2012 to 2017, updated in 2015. It doesn't make sense anymore and clearly most people echo that sentiment perfectly out of forgetfulness, in highlighting that they should correlate with real time dates.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I blame Sloan. He wanted people to buy new cars every year so he encouraged yearly aesthetic updates. Why be stuck with last year's outdated model - buy a modern car! Then with model years he can say why be stuck with this years cars - buy next year's model, today! And the gullible public fell for it with both brain cells. Sigh!  Stepho  talk  12:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Toronado

Your reversion of my recent edit to Oldsmobile Toronado also discarded punctuation corrections. Please be a bit more discerning when reverting edits. Furthermore, per my test results, the addition of a blank line before the {{Clear}} template produces no discernible benefit to readability at any screen resolution from 640x480 (VGA) to 1276x942, or larger, so your insistence on having that white space makes no sense whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a desktop publishing program: The purpose of HTML on the Web is not to manage layout, but to manage content. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 14:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The extra comma you added is optional. Some style guides prefer them, some prefer to leave them out. I have no preference either way and neither does Wikipedia.

However, the blank line before the {{Clear}} does have a tangible benefit. In terms of the final rendering on the reader's web browser there is no difference - not even a single pixel. But for editors the extra line makes it standout from the paragraph of text. When the {{Clear}} is tucked in tight at the end of a paragraph it is common for new or inattentive editors to start a new paragraph after it, leaving the {{Clear}} in the middle of a section where it does not belong. Whereas a {{Clear}} on a separate line gives a clue to editors that a new paragraph should be before the {{Clear}}. It's a little thing but it is so cheap and easy that it has no real downside. From your own argument, anything that makes the information clearer is good.  Stepho  talk  22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

copyvio images uploaded to Toyota Century

Hi,

I left a message at admin User:Kudpung for six images I found illegally added to the article. The first one was of the new model that hasn't yet been released until the 27th, and the editor claimed it was his own work when it's the image Toyota created. I then found five other images uploaded by the same editor which I've seen on the 'net before that are highly suspicious, uploaded with a wizard. I've reverted the editors contributions and given examples to the admin for removal. While I'd love to keep the images, they are illegal. (Regushee (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC))

Ok, no problem.  Stepho  talk  23:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Toyota Century Royal hearse exists, just haven't found a fair use image...yet

There are images and a YouTube video showing a funeral procession for Prince Mikasa last year, but a fair use image of the vehicle doesn't yet exist. I mentioned it from images found on the 'net. So, how do we go about legally, without committing a "copyvio", uploading an image of this elusive hearse as proof? (Regushee (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC))

Even if we can't find a photo to use directly, we can always just add a link to it in a reference.

Do you know if the Royal total is 4 sedans + 1 hearse or is the hearse one of the 4 Royals (ie 3 sedans + 1 hearse)?  Stepho  talk  06:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

From the Japanese Wikipedia translation there were four sedans and one hearse. Maybe that explains why they originally planned for five sedans, then changed the plan to four sedans and one hearse. UPDATE, After reading the latest content on Japanese Wikipedia, there are three sedans and one hearse, and they each have names. Empress 1, Empress 2 (the hearse), Empress 3 and Empress 5. I added in the article why there isn't an Empress 4.(Regushee (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC))

This is long overdue

[[ File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png|100px]]		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Anata no jidōsha kiji no kōken ni kansha shimasu Regushee (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

, and

This editor is a Senior Editor and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.

どうもありがとうございました! Thank you very much!  Stepho  talk  10:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the IP - I have a sneaky suspicion they're a sock of the IP who keeps adding/removing manufacturers, Could be wrong but regardless they can discuss their changes like everyone else :),
Anyway thanks again your help's much appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been annoying me. 9/10 of what he puts in is close to being right but is actually wrong (eg the Toyota Crown would be a mid-size vehicle in the US but in Japan it's legally a full-sized car). 1/10 he gets something right (eg Prius 3rd gen really is full-sized). But having to wade through the crap to get to the rather small nuggets is more effort than it is worth. Not sure if it is a malicious editor or just a naive teenager thinking he can fix the world with his view of everything. If only he would use the same IP address so that we can have a chat with him.  Stepho  talk  14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah see I have no idea if he is correct or not, I'll self revert on the Prius article as if he is correct then there's no need to revert although as you said we shouldn't have to sift through all of his edits see which are correct and what are not, Exactly if he used the same IP and would be willing to discuss this it'd make everyones lives just that little bit easier, Ah well thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Because of the sheer amount of crap he's putting in, I'm starting to favour reverting him on sight. It's not fair on us to spend an hour each day shifting through his edits to find the one good one - we have better things to spend our time on. I'm sure it will came back to bite me one day when I revert his one good one but I'll stand by my right to not have to sift through mountains of crap. I wouldn't mind if he slowed down a bit and also stopped doing the exact same mistake 10 times to the same article in spite of our clear explanations why he is mistaken.  Stepho  talk  14:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Production car speed record

Did you really mean to restore all of this? [1]. Please take another look. Much of this appears to be the contested content that should not be included (the Guinness World Record rules, for example). Meters (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It is precisely because it is contested that I am reverting it - not because I agree or disagree with any particular viewpoint. WP:BRD is the guideline to follow. Leave the article in its original state, thrash it out on the talk page and then follow consensus to edit the main article.  Stepho  talk  22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the diff or not? Two days ago you reverted [2] because the change was attempting to use the Guinness World Record definition of a production car. Today you are reverting so that it does use the Guiness World Record definition [3]. That's not the original state. Look at what you are reverting. It is not appropriate to restore this contested content while this is being discussed, which is what you are doing. The other editor has indeed raised the issue of the Guiness World Record definition issue on the talk page. See [4] and most recently [5], which specifically mentions your edit. The person who is edit warring to restore an inappropriate version without discussing it on the talk page is you. I can understand one mistaken revert, but continuing to do when two different editors have pointed out that you appear to be reverting without actually reading what you are restoring is disruptive. Please read WP:EW and follow your own edit summary advice: follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue. If you don't you may end up blocked for edit warring. Meters (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I got it backwards. I was attempting to restore the original and instead unintentionally restored the changed version. Too many other editors on too many fronts all at once and me spread too thinly. My apologies.

Who was the second editor to warn me? I saw your warning yesterday (and interpreted the diff backwards, so I thought you were advocating the change). Your second warning and Sagenode's warning only came today - before I have made any further reverts or changes and I am making apologies where appropriate.  Stepho  talk  09:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. You are correct that Sagenode did not point out that you were reverting to the wrong version until after your last revert. My apologies. Sagenode may not have mentioned you by name earlier but was very clear about why the material was being removed here [6] and on the talk page. You reverted twice more after that. We've all made mistakes, but when someone actually posts to your page that they think you have it backwards it's probably a good idea to actually look. Meters (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Pagani Zonda PS

Accidents of the cars are notable since they would entirely change after the rebuild. U1Quattro (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The PS, 760LH and 760 Fantasma mention accidents. Only the 760 Fantasma mentions a rebuild or supplies references. To the average reader (and me, since I don't really follow the Zonda much), the implication is that it was repaired after the accident with no major changes - just like most other accident repair jobs.  Stepho  talk  23:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring and go to the talkpage! - You disagreed with the MDY changes so I've changed those back and so as such there's absolutely no need to revert unless you truly have an issue with my tidying too!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad that we now have a stable Tesla Model S article again. The non-date changes are quite fine and I have no beef with them. Unfortunately the date changes were so many that it was hard to see the wood for the trees, so it was either bulk reversal or spend half an hour checking each and every change by hand. I see that among your recent changes you undid one of your own changes to reference <ref>http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2017/2017-tesla-model-s-p100d-first-test-review/</ref>. You can see how hard it is to get it right when so many changes are in the mix.

Now that the article is in the original state regarding the dates, we can have a discussion on the talk page. Notice that I opened a discussion at Talk:Tesla Model S#Date format yesterday but you haven't replied yet. Your edit summaries imply that you didn't see that. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  03:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Stepho-wrs. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)