Jump to content

Talk:British International Motor Show

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup and table

[edit]

I have done a general cleanup of the article and converted the history sections into a table.

Can someone who knows the history better than me fill in the gaps? I suggest that it would be good to have a row for every show that actually took place, including the ones before WW2.

Also.. I would like to see an introduction and photo for each show as a nice indicator of how styles changed.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British International Motor Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Perhaps we could discuss this matter?
Maybe you could give more detail of your particular concerns here than you can in an edit summary and your particular problems might be settled by discussion. Eddaido (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

♠It's pretty obvious somebody's added a lot of cruft about the British auto industry, none of which is on-point to the London Motor Show, which is what the page is about (& not, clearly, about the British motor industry at large, where it belongs)--not least, mentioning cars being towed in Paris, which has to be the farthest off-topic item on the page & one I'm astounded hasn't been removed before now. OK try reading below
♠Beyond that, there are introductions mentioned which are specifically tagged "after the show", which IMO have no place, since, again, they're not about the show (& so not on-topic). The show fell apart, permanently, because manufacturers no longer used it to introduce new cars
♠The year being mentioned each time also seems pretty pointless. (Dates each year would be helpful, when omitted.) You must be talking about some other editor, your amendments to my dates make no sense.
♠Some of what's left does need citation, but it's mostly not contentious; when it (occasionally) is, I've tagged as such.
♠The Riley bit, well...it irritates me people don't understand what a marque is; "Riley" isn't a label: at a minimum, it's a brand name. If you don't know that, you should, perhaps, avoid using a wrong term & revealling your ignorance. How Pathetic
♠And finally, a continuing irritant, citation style: too many editors simply cannot get it right. Books include author (last name first), publisher, city, year, & page number, & not ISBN (save that for the sources, not in a fn); book titles are italicized. Journals, including newspapers, include, journal name (italicized), date or issue number (where appropriate), article title ("in quotes"), & page #. If you're incapable of that, ask somebody who knows how, because frankly, I, for one, am getting tired of fixing it. And that's quite aside people simply sticking in quotations, leaving no clue whatever where the quote came from, or who said it, which is just stupid & lazy. In case it is me you're attacking can you give an example TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay calm! Eddaido (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems you can't do that. It is clear you don't know what the London Motor Show was. The Motor Show was put on by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders as their annual showroom. They were the British Automotive industry. They would begin the opening (often done by Royalty) by telling the most important events affecting their industry during the preceding year. They relate direct to the industry and the motor show.
You would be far more useful to yourself and readers if you just supplied any part of the missing data for all the other years instead of personalising the current article as you are ignorantly trying to do. I think your wholesale deletion is a great deal more than pointless, it is simply ignorant, ill-tempered, exclusionism. Eddaido (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly calm. Stop defending cruft. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well now (another "Bold" revert) you seem to be acting like a small angry child. That's true isn't it. Eddaido (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being patronized by arrogant, self-important people. Neither do I appreciate being called "childish". If you have a problem with the content of my edit, perhaps you'd care to discuss it, rather than insulting me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I have pointed out the quality of your actions, I suppose that may be insulting, it is simply correct. Settle down and discusss your problems, you're so over-excited. A sugar rush? Eddaido (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My actions are not subject to your approval. Or have you forgotten the principle: discuss the content, not the editor? Or perhaps you believe I'm not entitled to civility? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise I'm sure. Now how about discussing the content instead of throwing another tantrum and yet another revert. Eddaido (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right after you stop taking the attitude anyone who disagrees with anything you have to say is an ignorant child. Not before. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you truly disagree about this: all my comments are about your actions in editing this article in Wikipedia. There lie the similarities to an ignorant child. I've no idea of the kind of person you are. And the arrogant and self-important make thoughtless "bold" edits. Please just discuss these matters. Eddaido (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I was perfectly prepared to discuss this, right up to the point you decided to be a dick & make the "discussion" about my attitude & not the content of the edits. Until you're prepared to do that, we have nothing to discuss. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK you have now called me a dick. It has always been the content of your edits. Eddaido (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Trekphiler: Your latest edit summary — see what I mean about being childish? I am happy to discuss this article with you but would you please just recognise your initial mistakes and take the time to explain why you made them. Eddaido (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you persist in being a dick & making it about me & not the content of the edit. I've explained my position. You start by calling that ignorant, & go from there to childish & petulant, & you wonder why I haven't the slightest interest in anything more you have to say? Get a clue. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not care about you, I do care about your edits. You must be very low on comprehension if you cannot take that on board! Eddaido (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trekphiler: I've listed this at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Eddaido (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Opinion request made in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) because like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion about the content issue in question before seeking assistance. Once the conduct discussion here has been filtered out there's been almost no discussion of the content matter in question. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC) PS: Don't either of you revert this edit again. If either of you do, I will at the minimum seek to have this article fully protected so that it can't be edited until you actually agree on the edits to be made and may, additionally, take both of you to ANI for slow-motion edit warring and incivility. Stop talking about one another and address the edits, only, and if you can't do that then drop the stick and go find another article to edit. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was perfectly prepared to do that from the very outset. Unfortunately... Now? Do what you want. I'll come back in 6mo, when maybe I won't have to deal with incivil dicks. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then its OK with everybody if I just restore the article to how it was before the disputed edits. Eddaido (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trekphiler, if you're being facetious now is the time to speak up. Eddaido, if he doesn't then okay, but don't do so without including sources for all the unsourced material since doing so would violate the Verifiability policy, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (emphasis added). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TransporterMan: A new edit war is being incited here in the same terms. Eddaido (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to edit war so if an editor objects to an edit, set out the reasons on the article talk page without reverting and the edit war will be averted. If the editing editor won't respond, consider the advice at DISCFAIL. If discussion proves to be unprofitable, consider moderated content dispute resolution if there's been substantial discussion on the content matter in question; if there's not been, then consider a request for comments which requires very little discussion. If conduct issues get in the way, speak to an administrator (I'm not one) or file a complaint at ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remarkable how the very same edits I made are now done, by somebody else, without apparent drama. It really does make AGF harder. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trekphiler, what are you talking about? Eddaido (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name confusion

[edit]

There is some confusion in the way the article as evolved as the last "international" motor show was in 2008 (with 2010 and 2012 cancelled). The shows since 2016 have not been international. I would suggest that the redirect of British Motor Show is ended, and the 2016 onwards content located to that page. Warren (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My suggested reorganisation is to: retain this page for the International show. Consolidate MotorFair and London Motor Show (as is already pretty much done), and move content relating to the new "British Motor Show" to a new page, rather than redirect to this international page. Warren (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_International_Motor_Show&oldid=1200365804"