Talk:Rolls-Royce 20/25

External links

So someone keeps adding back in violating external links to the article. Per WP:ELNO #13 links must be specifically about the article subject, general sites are not acceptable as external links. Additionally since they've been updated to indicate that the content is only available to paid members, these links are also in violation of WP:ELREG and as a result not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links that may be of use to people, they are specifically encyclopaedic external links specifically about the article subject. As a result the first two links need to be removed to comply with Wikipedia policy. The third link to Fiennes Restoration is not valid either as it is purely an online sales company trying to sell replacement parts for the car which violates WP:ELNO #5. So that also needs to be removed to comply with Wikipedia policies. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello - Canterbury Tail - Lets see if we can find a solution here. The three links you have taken issues with have very important and specific information for this topic - as I have mentioned on your talk page and on this page. My read of WP;ELNO is that it provides a general guideline "e.g., Should generally be avoided..." if the link is not to the specific article. Not a hard fast rule. Unfortunately two of these links require fees to be paid before you can access the specific information. But once access has been given there is a wealth of information as is clearly noted on the home pages. Indeed the RREC has an entire library (physical and digital) that has all the historic information on these cars. They were given the historical archives when Roll-Royce was sold off. I also explained on your talk page the value of the other linkage. It is not a purely online sales site of replacement parts - but is a source to understand the specific build of each series. To remove these would seen to go against the core principle of Wiki'd edits eg to not remove useful information. It is very hard to find information on these cars as there is a limited community and source documents. Lets work together to make this a better site! Open to all suggestions that will better align to Wiki's guidelines and still support core goal of a communicate that shares an interest coming together to create a useful source of information for others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattporta (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Mattporta (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox and gallery dispute

Okay I might've reverted more than 3 times and should've held back but I been trying to solve a dispute with Lordruss1969 over what image to use at the infobox for the Rolls-Royce 20/25. I disagree with what he added to the infobox. The first image in the gallery below could work but I thought it would be better to be used in the gallery (cropped since all of ones the user's replaced were taken in portrait) as a HJ Mulliner example and have my one as the infobox since it was more brighter and stands out more. I even tried to make a compromise so his and mine could be in the same article but for a different purpose. However he keeps reverting them with vague reasons such as "Photo, the last one lacked in quality", "Images, the photo used was lacking", "Photo, the last one was not quite the ticket" and "As an owner of a 20/25 I’ve changed the image as the HJ Mulliner body is one of the finest of the period.".

It clear that he owns the car and it starred in some famous TV shows and looking at some of the photos he uploaded and used in the article, looks to be used as a wedding car as well. Which makes me wonder if he doing these edits as self-advertisement instead of encyclopaedic purposes. I told him if he disagree with my changes we can discuss with the dispute in the talkpage but it seems like he doesn't want to do that and simply want his wedding car to be used as the main image in the article. --Vauxford (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

They have never talked to anybody and don't have a talk page. Looks bad (both the pics and them owning/advertising? the car) but nobody has told them. Sammy D III (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear chap, this is NOT a wedding car, it’s part of a private collection of historic motor cars. Please refrain from making such statements that have no basis of fact….. Lordruss1969 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I think you made a mistake, I think it looks like you are talking to me. I am going to answer you, but I don't talk for anybody else.

First, make a "Talk page", huh? Nobody else is supposed to make one for you, and nobody can get a hold of you.

I said "Looks bad", and I still think that. You look exactly like an advertiser here. And that web site makes it look even worse. But when you wrote "I’m in fact a millionaire playboy" I personally changed my mind. I think you are probably just a kid who is a fan of the car.

Nobody has said anything bad about the car itself. Nobody. Find one. Everyone is talking about the photographs. They are terrible. Not the car, the photos. Some of these people are real photographers, listen to them. Nobody will leave up bad pictures of a good car, they will use good pictures of a bad one.

And, again, make a talk page. You can post almost anything, photos of the car, whatever. There are still rules, but they are pretty loose. Sammy D III (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

firstly, I apologise, not being familiar with dealing with such matters I may of responded to you in error.

I wish I was a kid again my old fellow, but that ship sailed many years ago.

A wise man once said judging without knowing is a nonsense.

I make no judgments on you, so please don’t make assumptions and judgments on me. Lordruss1969 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a really good post. Sorry. I didn't see you by the rail.

You've found the car people and you are understanding. Edit add: no, you're not. They're interesting and there are a lot of old British cars. To make a talk page go here (I think). Don't make a "User page" yet. Have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear chap, the photograph of the 1932 Woolf Barnato 20/25 car is not a good example of the model! In a way, its too good, its rakish lines give it the look of a phantom 2, and not of the humble Rolls Royce 20/25.

I feel that any image used, should show the difference, the essence of the small horsepower car. I’ve been driving Rolls Royce motorcars for 30 years, the mark means a great deal to me, as does the 20/25 model.

I want to discuss the image, firstly I’m not sure Richard would be happy that you've lifted the image from his web page, and not being of a malicious nature, I’m not going to tell him as he is rather hot on intellectual property law.

The wedding car statement also needs to be addressed - The image used was outside a hotel in Marlow, it was my nephews wedding, and as such he requested the use of BMG443. I don’t own a wedding car hire company, my cars are for personal pleasure use only, so please retract your statement regarding the use of the Wikipedia platform to sell a service, this is incorrect, and has no basis of truth.

Ill go further! In 2015 BMG443 was being sold on ebay, she had just come from ten years of wedding car service. They had really abused the car, it took over £50’000.00 to restore this very original Rolls Royce in a sympathetic manner. Im not a fan of rare and valuable cars like this being worked to death.

BMG443 has one of the most interesting histories, and the leading Rolls Royce expert who has known the car for over forty + years stated that she is one of the most original 20/25’s he has ever known.

enough about the car. Lets move on to the igniter of this internet fire!

I note that you have done this before! in fact a few times! and thats ok if you truly have a love and enthusiasm for the subject matter!

In this case you don’t! From your own data its clear that you’ve not driven or owned a 20/25, so you have no direct connection with the brand & model, or the experience and expertise of ownership.

So why not let the people who spend their spare time and money to keep these wonderful cars have a say, let us tell the world about the cars we treasure. Lordruss1969 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Lordruss1969 Late reply. Firstly, who is Richard? Is he the owner of the GX 41? I definitely didn't steal any image from his website and wasn't even aware he had one, I was the one who photographed it. I formally apologise for thinking your car was for a wedding company but with the images that you uploaded, it did looked that way. As other users pointed out, NOBODY is stopping you from driving and owning it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your car, it great that the car has such a rich history and is being loved and cared by an enthusiastic owner.

The reason why I removed your images was because of the photo quality, you photographed it front facing which is highly discouraged unless it being used to specifically show details such as the grille. We prefer cars being photographed at a 3/4 angle which you did in one of them albeit in portrait, which is why I cropped it and reuploaded it but due to the dark red colour against a dark background, it difficult to make out any details.

Unknowingly you did helped me find out what coachwork the GX 41 was since at the time of photographing it I couldn't figure out what coachwork it was or find details of it. Vauxford (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello - Again.....

I'm once again shocked to see that you have been out with your magic marker! To clear this up, the image of the car you use is not a good representative for the 20/25. It has more of a Rolls Royce Phantom look. Also if you want to highlight any car, then why not use one that people know.

I've looked at the comments made by other Wikipedia members, and I take them on board. So I have created the image with no background noise to highlight the best view of the car.

I hope this will stop this rather odd issue.

lastly, could I suggest that you leave a gap between switching sign in's to make your multi personality comments. I've reviewed your activity on this page, alongside other issues you have created, and there is clearly a pattern of multi account user-names and the "very close" related timeframe replies! This is a rather ridiculous practice and is unfair to others.

Lets hope this will be the close of this rather unfortunate matter.

Its a sunny warm day, switch off the computer and enjoy. Lordruss1969 (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate your effort to make the image better. The cut-out is a little rough in places but it's much better than the previous image with background. I removed the "1932 Rolls-Royce 20/25 HJ Mulliner Limousine" caption on the assumption that your car is not a 1932 HJ Mulliner - I'm not an RR expert, so please correct me if I made a mistake.

Not sure what you mean by multi personality comments. Vauxford, Sammy D III and myself all have long, independent and (generally) respected histories on Wikipedia. However, we do get a bit over-passionate at times on similar pages to each other, so our paths tend to cross often.

By the way, it's a drizzly mid-autumn day here in Australia - can't have beautiful 40C days everyday :)  Stepho  talk  11:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Lordruss1969 There no multi-accounting involved. That is known as sockpuppeting and is against Wikipedia policies. Like Stepho-wrs said, we all edit on the same type of articles - automobiles. I created this talkpage and asked other automobile editors on here to give their opinion on what to do with this dispute. We concluded that the cream car or the black Rippon limousine were a better choice. Removing the background seems to be a desperate attempt to get your image used on the infobox even though it is already used as a HJ Mulliner example in the gallery section, plus it looks poorly done and weird. Please don't revert edits in spite the fact the talkpage discussion concluded that the red car image should NOT be used on the infobox. --Vauxford (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I will do whatever I see fit, as I’m not one to be bullied by the likes of you. And to confirm, you have no mandate to make such decisions, apart from your other selves!!! the true consensus was split. I will go further and write the the RREC and the RROC as I think the final word on this subject should be voiced by the majority of club members who own and drive Rolls Royce 20/25 cars, and not some self absorbed individual who’s track record for this activity is clearly documented. Lordruss1969 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Lordruss1969, your new front image of your car has a few problems:

1. The background is mildly distracting from the car itself. As already mentioned above. See WP:CARPIX.
2. Front 3/4 views are preferred over front on views. As already mentioned above. The front grill view makes it look just like any other early Roller. Better to have a view that shows aspects particular to this model. See WP:CARPIX.
3. The camera angle makes it look like the suspension has collapsed at one corner. Note the angle of the grill and the angle of the window top. Most unflattering.

To me, your cropped image was acceptable. So was the cream image. This new image is not.

The rules of Wikipedia for formatting, choosing images, etc is to follow consensus formed by editors. The opinions of RREC and RROC have no official bearing on Wikipedia. Their opinions would only matter if their members become editors (always welcome) and contribute directly to this discussion. I'm not sure if this would violate WP:CANVASSING - ie, if you found members of RREC and RROC that agree with your position and invite them to this discussion but did not invite members who disagree.

"I will do whatever I see fit". Um, no. See WP:CONSENSUS.

For a single person to present as multiple accounts in a discussion is strictly against Wikipedia rules. If you think that we have done this then please report us to WP:SPI. The procedure is listed at Wikipedia:Dealing_with_sockpuppets and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry.  Stepho  talk  23:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs So what should we do? Are we using the cream one or the background removed one? I thought we already reached that consensus that we can use either the cream or the black one but Lordruss1969 refuses to accept that and this is becoming borderline editing warring again. I tried to solve it with this discussion but this isn't going anywhere. If the cream car isn't feasible then the black one should be used since I personally believe the no background version shouldn't be used since that image is already used in the article. --Vauxford (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with the cut-out red car (but not its original full photo), the black car and lastly the cream car. I'm willing to accept Russ's expert opinion that the cream car it is not the best subject matter but photographically I have no objection to it (I am not a subject expert). Front-on images are all photographically unsuitable for our purposes. In the discussion below the black car was my choice but I'm not dogmatic about it. Cutting out the red car made it much more acceptable but cut-out images always have that slightly unreal look.  Stepho  talk  21:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Photos he used for the infobox:

• 
• 
• 
• 
  Obviously used as a wedding car hire

Proposed edit:

• 
  Infobox image
• 
  Cropped version of the BMG 443 taken by Lordruss1969, could be used as a HJ Mulliner example in the gallery
• 
  Infobox alternative

The front-on images can be ruled out for not being 3/4 angle images, as per WP:CARPIX. They would only be useful for specifically showing details of the very front of the car - eg if the grille was specifically being mentioned.

The other images of the red car show a dark car against a dark background. This makes it hard to make out any detail. These would only be suitable if there were no other images. Even the cropped image is hard to make out the detail due to dark red and black being the dominant colours. If the you can take more pictures then try for a contrasting background (grass and sky?) in bright light.

The black car is at a very good angle that shows the features of the car well. It's all black but there are enough highlights that it shows up well. Spoilt by reflections in the windows. This would be my choice.

The beige car is much brighter but doesn't show the side view well and the background is competing with the car. Looks like a short 2-door even though it is a long 4-door. Not bad if there were no better photos.  Stepho  talk  22:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The image of the red car is too dark and it's very difficult to make out any details. Just looking at the thumbnail I struggle to even make out that it's a picture of a car, I need to click on it and view it at a higher resolution. The black and cream cars are both good-enough images if something better isn't available, but both have issues with the darker parts of the car contrasting poorly with the darker parts of the background. I slightly prefer the cream example for lighting and contrast, but the black picture is taken from a better angle. If I had to choose I would go with the photo of the black car, but would not oppose using the cream one either. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't photographed the red and black one, that the one the wedding car hire person tried to insert. The cream one was photographed by me and I admit it doesn't show the side view well since it was moving and I had to be quick. I originally replaced the red and black one almost two years ago because there was no better one I could find. --Vauxford (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

With no photo experience I don't believe any of the BMG 443 should be used. Too dark. Maybe for front detail, but... GX 41 (Infobox) is clear and bright, probably good for an ib. KY 2736 is the best of the batch, except for that windscreen.

Side peeve: I try for a LF (driver's) shot, but I'm US. Should a Br car be RF? Is LF US-centric? Just a thought, no position from me. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

As the owner of BMG443, I feel she is the best ambassador for this model.

1. She is one of the most original cars. As stated by one of the world leading Rolls Royce experts, who has worked with this car since the early 1970s

2. Her HJ Mulliner body is one of the best for looks and proportions.

3. She is known worldwide for her film and television work

4. Her contribution to the local community.

I’d also like to point out that she is NOT a wedding car, but was used at my nephews wedding.

I saved this car from near destruction in her 10 years in the hands of a wedding car company.

The other images used of other cars are not good examples, the last photo used, of the yellow car, really gives you no indication of it being a 20/25!

BMG443 is known to be a 20/25, and with her HJ Mulliner body makes her the better example.

I’d also like to add that as an owner of theses cars, and other Rolls Royce cars of the period. I’d do feel that I’m better suited to offer advice on this subject than others who just want to self impose their rather arbitrary opinions to others. Lordruss1969 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, to add - if you call me a wedding car hire person again I will take legal action for damages!!! I’m in fact a millionaire playboy who spends he’s rare and valuable spare time replying to silliness on the internet!

I make this offer, if you want to see this fine car, and it’s Phantom 2 stable mate then let me know and I’ll gladly walk you through the collection.

if your very good, then I might take you for a spin in my 1924 Bentley, another un molested original car.

My little old BMG443 is doing no harm, and I stand by my statement that she is a good ambassador for the model

kind Regards

lord R Lordruss1969 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The car is great - nobody has complained about the car itself.

Your status as a playboy millionaire, a saviour of classic cars or otherwise is a side issue - we're only interested in the pictures.

Unfortunately the pictures are of a great car that shows up as a black/red smudge against a dark background. The photos don't do the car justice.

Since you are the owner (I'm taking your word at face value), is it possible to take some more photos in brighter light with a contrasting background so that the car stands out more and shows its true beauty?  Stepho  talk  21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I vote either GX41 (beige and black) or BMG443 (red and black) of the three above. I prefer the looks (more representative, as our playboy/minicab operator friend pointed out) and the angle of BMG443, but Stepho is also correct in that the photo is rather dour and lacking in contrast. Anyhow, the full frontal currently used is wholly unsuitable.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)