Talk:Ikarus 256

Production dates

Thank you for starting this entry. It needed doing. However, both Hungarian wiki and German wiki indicate that they went on producing the Ikarus 256 till 2002. And Hungarian wiki indicates they started producing it in 1974. And Polish wiki appears to think something different again. I cannot tell where they get that from. But do you have a source for writing that it was produced only from 1977 till 1989, please? If your copy of Werner Oswald's book is dated 2000, then sadly he cannot tell us about 2002. (Even more sadly, I do not have a copy of it.) Thank you and regards Charles01 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Charles, everything that I have written in the article can also be found in Oswald's book (including the years in which the production ended and started). The official series production started in 1977, the Hungarian article says: „a sorozatgyártás 1977-ben indult.“ (Series production started in 1977). The year given in the Hungarian article's infobox (1974) is a bit confusing, this is not the starting year of the series production. In socialist countries with planned economy, it was very common that engineers developed new models but the political party decided not to introduce them (yet). From 1974–1977, only very few vehicles were made, presumably for "high priority customers", but for some reason, Ikarus didn't officially mass-produce the bus during that time period. I am not surprised, this was a very common practice in former socialist countries. I believe that Ikarus didn't go on producing the bus until 2002. Otherwise, there would be information indicating this in Oswald's book. But there isn't anything. Maybe some busses were assembled from remaining parts after the fall of the iron curtain or models technically based on the 256 were still made until 2002, but it is very likely that the official series production ended in 1989. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Makes sense. Thank you. Charles01 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox images

Current image

Previous image

Hello Davey2010, I wonder why you have decided to replace a decent image with another photo that is worse (in my opinion). The one that you have chosen over the previous one depicts the bus with a "cleaner" background as well as the bus's door-side, however, the image looks slightly distorted (the photographer stood too close to the object), the resolution is much lower, there are clearly visible compression artefacts (especially visible around the headlamps), and the white-balance is off (the white parts look overexposed, especially visible around the rear wheel). My photo on the other hand was taken from a distance, which makes the bus appear much more like a human would perceive it. The white balance is better, and you can see more details (for instance: headlamps, front wheel, tyres). It was not taken from the door-side, nonetheless, the front doors are visible. Background-wise, mine could be described as poor (the background is busy), but I'd say that my image depicts the bus realisticly: Sitting in a bus park at a bus station. Reflection-wise, the two photos are not too much apart – on mine, you can see a tree in the panes, on the current one, another bus is visible on the blue part of the paint (take a closer look at the bus's back). Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, My only reasoning for changing the image is that I noticed there were 2 versions of the bus - One with the opening door and the other with 2 doors so I felt showing both would be better,

I'd be happy if the image was maybe replaced with one where the door's closed but as I said I feel there should be atleast one image of both,

Given the article's on the small I can't really see how your image could be incorperated into the article (If the article was long enough I would've settled for a change),

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, the Ikarus 256's two-door version is much more common. I agree that showing both the single- and the two-door versions would be better than just having the two-door version on display. But something that I don't quite understand is why exactly did you remove my image? The two-door version image that you have chosen (DUD 751) is not particularly good. While its lens angle and photographer's position are definitely good, it is washed out (especially visible at the rear wheel), and it also comes with a lot of compression artefacts. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I just explained why ? .... The image looked the best quality for that side of the vehicle hence why I added it, I pay no attentions to backgrounds, photographers who uploaded it and all of that mumbo jumpbo - If the vehicle is generally clean and shows what I want it to show then that's fine for me, I understand people have different ideas on what the perfect image should be but for me the image I added is fine, You're more than welcome to replace it with one you find a better quality. –Davey2010^Talk 17:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

List of images displaying the door
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

I've added all of those that show the sliding door,

I was originally going to pick M however that includes after market green lights which could give the reader the impression this is how the bus looked,

A looks smart, shows the image, isn't blurry or too bright

D seems to blurry/white

N looks okayish the cream bottom of the bus seems a bt bright and the faded paint doesn't give it a good look

The rest aren't even considerations imho.

So out of M, A, D and N I still believe A is the best one, Hope this helps. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The doors are visible in my image, just look through the windscreen. You should put into consideration that there is not really such a thing as aftermarket parts with vehicles from former Socialist countries. Due to a huge variety of shortages, a lot of these vehicles were put together with parts that were available. In Hungary, you can see some Ikarus 256 with Ikarus 280 headlamps, and vice versa. Not only have I seen single-door 256 variants, I have even seen Ikarus 256 with manual (sic) doors; however, the double-door variants seem to be the most common Ikars 256 variants (unverified claim). As I've said, the depiction of both single- and double-doors is reasonable. But: Whatever image you'd choose for the infobox, you'd always chose one that does not depict either of the two variants. Therefore, I'd argue that it is not important to have an image that shows the doors perfectly. I'd choose the best quality image. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

But you shouldn't have to look through the windscreen and it's rather absurd to expect our readers to do so, Maybe afermarket was the wrong term - The green shades don't appear to have come with the vehicle that's what I was trying to say,

Well imho the the chosen image is the best quality in terms of that side of the bus,

You're more than welcome to go to WP:30 or WP:DRN to either get a second opinion or to somehow resolve this If you're not happy,

Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Why not have both? Make a horizontal multi image with the photos on the page and put the door closed photo in the infobox. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Looking at those two pictures ("DUD 568" and the one on temporary plates) it becomes hard to belief that they're both of the same bus. I keep wanting to think that one of them is of a short wheel base version of the other. Yet when I count the number of windows along the side, they really do appear to be the same length. Unless I'm missing something obvious (and one of these buses really is shorter than the other ... or my personal focal length is way different from yours) it does at least provide a superb lesson in how you can change the shape of a bus by twisting your zoom (almost?) all the way. Charles01 (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I had my 17-70 mm lens mounted, and the image was taken with a focal length of 70 mm, so you are right about the focal length. But the bus actually has a relatively short wheelbase, and when seen in person, it appears like seen on my image. If you look up some other Ikarus 256 images, you will notice that the bus usually appears like it does on my image. As I have already stated above, the current image appears to be distorted, and that is (in my opinion) because it was taken with a wide angle lens (short focal length), and because it had no lens correction applied to it. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ikarus 256 or Ikarus 250?

This bus has been identified by the photographer and classified as an Ikarus 256. But I'm not sure that's right. I've raised the question here. Maybe the image file needs to be reclassified. (And maybe the picture does not belong so easily on the Ikarus 256 page.) It would be helpful if you could take time out to see if you agree or disagree with my tentative conclusions on this. Thank you. Charles01 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It does say 256 on the front, so unless it was crashed and repaired with 256 parts I don't see this being very likely. Toasted Meter (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

See c:Special:Diff/360180168 --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)