Jump to content

User talk:OSX/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

GA Pass Holden Commodore

Congratulations that the Holden Commodore article is now listed as a good article. Are you planning for it to be a featured article?SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I don't have any real aspiration to get the article to FA status. But that is not to say that it won’t ever happen. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Congratulations on raising Holden Commodore to GA status and also tirelessly working on a wide range of other Australian car articles. VectorD 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar VectorD, I really appreciate it. I will also use this as a chance to thank you for all your hard work you've done around here. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Caprice pic

The picture you added to the Holden WM Caprice article is a really great image.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Senators, but the credit should really be given to Chris Keating at Flickr. I only uploaded it from the website, because it was relicensed as Attribution Creative Commons 2.0. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Nissan

The359 already moved the page back to Nissan Motors, also the edits made by Ddgonzal (talk · contribs) can be reverted using the rollback feature (for admins that is). It's marginally faster than reverting with a script like Twinkle or popups, but generally disapproved of in cases like this because it leaves an automatic edit summary. I'll undo the changes with AWB unless there is a piped link, so I leave an edit summary and don't make unnecessary changes. This way Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. can remain as a redirect, I'll only change the ones with the full Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. actually visible in the article. James086Talk | Email 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

task collaboration

Hi OSX, eventually I want the Toyota Aurion article to be classed as a Good article so on the way there I have started this thing that list the tasks that need to be completed on a article it will look like this. So I need your help to list just below here, to list tasks that you think need to be done on the Toyota Aurion article. I will then add the to do template to the Aurion discussion page and your comments to it. SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made some alterations to the to-do list started by HarrisonB, and can be found here. Quite frankly, I do not see the need for such lists, given that it is usually relatively obvious what needs doing. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
To most people it is not obvious, it is a better organization technique.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

OSX, I would like to questio you why you reverted some of my previous edits on the Toyota Aurion article. Why? Both Senators and I agreed that it we should have a Toyota Avalon photo in the article, and in my opinion the 'Design' should have it's own section, and not be a part of the 'History of Development' section. Why do you think otherwise? HarrisonB Speak! 09:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the Avalon image serve an essential purpose? The article is about the Aurion not the Avalon, why confuse people by including both. Also, the image depicted is the US version, not the Australian version. The only reason why I have included the Camry image is to show the similarities between the two models. Even now, I'm beginning to regret that decision. Secondly, the "Design" section should be a part of the "History of Development" section, because it discusses the development of the design, and how it differs from the Camry. I would also like to add, that two people's opinions do not have enough power to warrant a consensus. You really need about four people agreeing before you can say a decision was made. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 09:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with OSX, but because the car is rare would a picture of a Australian Avalon Taxi be appropriate because they are common.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess so, and I apologise for taking a bit of a tone with that but I do believe that there should be a photo of the Camry and the Avalon on the article, so the reader can get an idea of what the roots of the car's history is. Anyway, at least you know about it now. HarrisonB Speak! 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FA Status

Rather than getting the Aurion to GA status, I would like to get it to FA status, for the purpose of having 3 or 4 FA aticles for the portal. What do you think? HarrisonB Speak! 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

that is a big taskSenatorsTalk | Contribs 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, getting an article to FA is the equivalent of getting three articles to GA status. However, if you are prepared to undertake such a task you have my full support. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thanks for helping us at GAC backlog elimination drive OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler 180

Hi, I've just popped in to say I am most grateful for all your work on the Chrysler 180 article - I guess it really needed it. I see it is currently, apparently, being reviewed, so I am really hoping your efforts will be rewarded by a GA promotion. I am thankful either way! Gracias, PrinceGloria 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm sure you'll be glad to know that it has been listed as a good article regrettably by myself. I just didn't check the WP:GAC page beforehand, to see if it was already in a partial review, my bad. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoopsie... I guess you could notify Laxplayer to see whether he'd be of a different opinion/have some comments... PrinceGloria 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I did already, but thanks for the advice anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

Do you live near a Toyota dealership? HarrisonB Speak! 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, about five minutes or so away. I take it that you want me to go down there and take pictures of the Aurion, is that right? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah if you could; because I don't even know where one is near me, and I can't contribute with photos really. Could you get a couple of photos of the Aurion's interior, and some photos of the Aurion that look like the Holden VE Commodore's photos? HarrisonB Speak! 10:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to make a promise, but I'll try. By the way, I've just uploaded some images of the TRD Aurion 3500SL from Flickr, so theres the issue obtaining photographs of the TRD versions solved. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 10:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good photo. I agree with Senators, the TRD Aurion will probably not be successful. You can by a Subaru Liberty GT tuned by Sti for that price, and the Sti would easily beat a heavy car with a supercharger attached; especially around corners. You could also buy a Holden Commodore SS, which is more 'bang for your buck' in my opinion. HarrisonB Speak! 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The TRD Aurion

The picture you uploaded to Wikipedia looks really good, but unfortunately I don’t think that the TRD Aurion is going to be a successful car for Toyota. Having a supercharger in a car is really impressive even to people that don’t know much about cars but 241kw of power is simply not enough considering you have to pay $58,000 to get the base model TRD Aurion. You can get a turbocharged Ford Falcon for less then $45,000 that has 245 kw of power. Toyota claim that it is trying to target the Asian sports cars, like the Nissan 350Z and the Skyline but these cars are GT not family cars. The TRD looks good though. SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Statesmans v Holden Statesmans

I see that you have just undone the actions taken to redirect "Statesman" to "Holden Statesman" and it got me thinking that perhaps the HQ to WB Statesman text should be moved from "Holden Statesman" to "Statesman" leaving only the real Holden Statesman model details on the "Holden Statesman" page. It may cause some drama initially but should improve matters in the long run. What do you think? GTHO 10:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. I've actually considered it myself, but thought better of myself to avoid conflict. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 10:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in (due to the Chrysler 180 thing I still have your talk page in my watchlist), but I believe this is a contentious issue. I am not Australian for sure, but first I hear the original Statesmen weren't Holdens. To the outside world, it didn't appear so, but I guess it's just a matter of accounts not being detailed enough. Am I to understand the situation is similar to Chrysler Imperials being promoted to a separate make in the 1950s? Or was it a more fine-tuned approach?
Anyway, I guess there isn't THAT much to be said of the Statesman marque alone apart from what there already is in the article, if you don't count the stuff on the actual vehicles. So, I guess for the sake of not creating additional articles that would only confuse readers, I would keep ALL the content @ Holden Statesman, instructing the reader of the marketing arrangement for the first Statesmen. PrinceGloria 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right in that Statesman was a seperate make (ie not a Holden model) from it's introduction in 1971 through to it's demise in 1985. The name was revived by GM in 1990 for a new model within the Holden range, ie the Holden Statesman. The original Statesmans were based on the 1970s Holden Belmont/Kingswood/Premier platform whereas the Holden Statesmans were/are based on the Holden Commodore, so they are quite different cars. The very fact that you had never heard of this before is all the more reason why we need to make it crystal clear in our articles. And what better way of doing that than having a Statesman page and a separate Holden Statesman page, suitably cross-referenced of course. Cheers GTHO 10:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you're right. As long as there is no content overlap, this sounds fine. That said, we certainly do not need a List of Statesman vehicles! PrinceGloria 14:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who redirect it , sorry for that, I saw both have the same picture & name, I Didn't know that it was seperated from holden at first. MJKubba —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've merged all the information over, but there are going to be some long-term issues. And that is referencing. I've searched the web for sources, but information is scarce. Would you GTHO, be willing to reference the article for me? I ask this of you, because in a previous discussion you proved to me that the Statesman brand actually existed, with multiple sources. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks OSX! While we are at it, wouldn't you think Holden Caprice could be merged with Holden Statesman - there is excessive content duplication if we keep them artifically separate. PrinceGloria 08:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) To be honest I don't know. I can see your point with all good intentions, but there may be some objections and other contentious issues. But then if you look at the opposite end of the spectrum, the two vehicles are like specification levels, so a merge would be more than suitable. I personally would like to hear the opinions of others before we rush out and merge the two. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as ungrammatical as General Motors–Holden's sounds, it was actually the name of the company back then. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, it DOES sound so... Is it mentioned anywhere in the Holden article? Concerning the Caprice - I of course just wanted to start the discussion, not to push for merging ASAP. That said, we're doing fine without a separate Holden Calais article, and I believe this is a very similar case... PrinceGloria 08:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is mentioned in the Holden article under "Early history". Anyway, I do see where your coming from, I don't think we've sent anyone to an early grave by not having a Holden Calais article. So I guess it could be done, thats said it would have to be done properly. Not copy paste, copy paste, save, done, end of story. Basically, in each of the article's current state, they could all do with a major overhaul, so it is not like we are going to stuff-up any first-class articles or anything. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the referencing issues for the Statesman article. I think we still need the "List of Statesman Vehicles" as it plugs the gap that some may think they can see in the "List of Holden Vehicles" but perhaps it could be be merged with the "Statesman" page. Cheers, GTHO 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I somehow didn't notice there is a list of Holden vehicles, but I don't think we need it either. There is a category already, I believe all the info that is there can be found elsewhere, it is pretty redudnant for me. As concerns the Statesman list, I don't see a reason for which any salvageable content couldn't be merged back in to the Statesman article... PrinceGloria 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. Happy holidays, OSX :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceGloria (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that both Lists are well worth keeping whether they are part of the main articles or otherwise. Some people find tables more informative than lots of words. Some don't. Let's have both. GTHO 08:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people also like trivia listings and such, and some people would prefer the articles to be written differently, and we do not provide them with different versions for their reading pleasure. I believe redundant content needs to go. PrinceGloria 09:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No big deal

I had meant to pass it and totally forgot about it, it's probably better that you took it over. Thanks. Laxplayer630 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GA for Toyota Aurion

Do you think it is time for it to be nominated? HarrisonB Speak! 09:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I will let you know when the article is up to standard. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What needs to be done? HarrisonB Speak! 09:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Content wise, it's fine, but it needs to be rewritten in places and to be run over with a fine-toothed comb. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
For example... HarrisonB Speak! 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I am not going to write out a list. I'm sorry to say that your going to have to work that one out for yourself. Maybe this recent revision of mine may give you an insight of what I mean. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought that you had some changes in mind. HarrisonB Speak! 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Aurion really assembled in that many places?

I never knew about it, where did you find out about all those locations?

Cheers, Alphabeta777 10:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the locations came directly from the Toyota Camry article. To confirm that the locations stated produced the "Aurion" Camry, I visited each of the respective official websites. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, another thing. Why did you change the table of the month Australian sales into years? I based my table off what was done in the featured status VE Holden Commodore, and that has it by months. Another similar vehicle, the Ford BA Falcon also has it by months too.
Alphabeta777 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sipmle reason, the table was too long. It probably won't to long untill I do the same the VE Commodore article as well. As for the BA Falcon, I haven't a clue what your on about. Form what I can see, it utilises the same style that the Aurion article does. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Issues with the Toyota Aurion article

Well then, what can we do about it? HarrisonB Speak! 11:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Message replied to on HarrisonB's user talk page. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Aurion GA now

I think your right. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Aurion interior shot, OSX. I was going to go to the motorshow this year, but I have a HSC exam coming up, so no. Did you get any shots of the TRD Aurion, that could be better than the one already on the page? Alphabeta777 00:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Kudos OSX. I suppose that some of you were lucky enough to go to the motor show this weekend, I am not one of them :(. I will put it on the GA nominations page.HarrisonB Speak! 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I got quite a few pictures while I was there, including interior shots of the Sportivo. However, the TRD image I took is not better than the one already there. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 09:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Aurion now a GA nominee

Congratulations, the Toyota Aurion article is now being considered for GA status. HarrisonB Speak! 05:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Aurion

Hi OSX, I know I am being unfair and unprofessional, but I don't have enough time to give you a full roundup now, which I duly owe you. I guess I will offer a full review in due course - could you hold on until the weekend (Saturday/Sunday CET)? Thank you for your understanding... PrinceGloria 07:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. One of the more major reservations, for starters, is how the Aurion's other role as the "Asian Camry" is sidelined in the article, whereas I believe it is at least as "important" as its role in the Australian market...
PS2. Please also check for NPOV issues resulting from quoting manufacturer's promo stuff and journalists'/enthusiasts' opinions as fact. More specifically, I would be very careful about the size/class issue and "competition". Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceGloria (talk • contribs) 07:20, October 19, 2007
I do see your point about the role of the "Asian Camry" being sidelined. I brought up the issue before I gave the all-clear for the GA nomination. However, HarrisonB and Alphabeta777 disputed my claim stating that the argument (see archive) was a waste of time and that "sidelining" the information would be been more than adequate. So I decided to do just that, hoping that it would be enough. By looking at your response, you have reinforced that it is not.
As for the NPOV issues, there are not any sources directly from Toyota, but there are some from third-party journalists. However, do I think that myself and the other editors have kept the article fairly clean of opinion, but if you can point out any specific cases be sure to let me know. You also raised concern over the competition. In Australia, it is pretty much accepted that Holden and Ford are direct competitors, just like the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and BMW 3 Series are in Germany. It is also accepted that Mitsubishi and Toyota are competitors to Holden and Ford, but to a slightly lesser extent, so I think we're covered there too. Finally the size/class were sorted ages ago by simply following the official dimensions that dictate the vehicle classless. End of story.
Anyway, I appreciate your brief review and look forward to seeing the rest of it in the coming days. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to OSX for inviting me into the discussion. Well I have to say, as OSX precedingly said; I believe that the infomation regarding the "Asian Camry" is while still important, not as the information about the Australian Aurion and does not need to be mentioned as much as the Aurion. Regarding the NPOV issues; I think they are fine as they are. The journalists have to state fact don't they? If I am misconstruding the issue, please tell me. HarrisonB - Conributions 10:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I now feel compelled to deliver a review of the article, so I would like to inform you that I find my reservations valid (otherwise I wouldn't've made so much fuss about it) and therefore the review would end in failing the article (or at least putting it on hold with listing issues to be offset - but I guess we are kinda discussing that now). I believe this should be considered then ;)
Again, please allow some time for me to get down to it and deliver a more thorough review - but I believe you can start thinking about offseting the above issues now, if time allows. Secondly - some "information", while factual, is rather unencyclopedic (either as such or due to being inherently POV), which makes including it rather inadvisable. I believe you have put a lot of work into creating a really comprehensive article and while doing so, inadvertently crossed some fine lines, such as OR (there are instances in the article). I know you probably feel rather uneasy about somebody nitpicking and demanding changes to what you find a complete work, but unfortunately that's the nature of GA. Have a good weekend, PrinceGloria 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aurion Photo Revert

What was wrong with the image!? It wasn't cropped too tight; it needed some of the background to be taken out and maybe it would be a little courteous to the owner of the car to blank out the rego. HarrisonB - Conributions 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with the image? Numerous things. For starters, the crop was way too tight, so that on the thumbnail view it looked as if the roof had been cut off - not good. There needs to be some background around the image for it to actually look good. Secondly, the whole rego issue is pointless. It could possibly be a violation of Wikipedia is not censored, but more importantly, I could walk out onto any street in my neighbourhood and be greeted to huge supply of vehicles with number plates. Also, how often to television shows blank out number plates? Not too often, unless of course the vehicle(s) were driven by someone involved in some kind of criminal action, even then they don’t always do this. And finally the colour adjustments must have been very minuscule, considering that after comparing the two carefully I couldn't see a difference. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well over the time of leaving the message and now I have thought about it and I apologise. I just thought it would be of courtesy to the motorist; I wouldn't like it if my car was on some website with the rego showing. HarrisonB - Conributions 02:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise. I don't see the issue of the number plate showing. It is not like you can identify the owner because you know the license plate. Every car that is certified to travel on public roads must show a valid license plate for all to see. Now what is the difference if you can see it in person or through another medium like a photograph for example? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Holden Suburban

Hello OSX, I was just reading the Holden Suburban article which has compelled me to ask some questions about it, I chose you because that you have contributed to it quite a bit. Why would they let such a 'gas guzzler' into the country? 159L fuel tank and 5.2m length? For example a 55L tank costs around $70 dollars to fill with 98 Octane fuel, so it must cost over $200 to fill (I know it would be a little cheaper using regular 91 Octane or even 95 Octane) but it still is expensive. Also it has terrible fuel consumption (roughly 20L per 100Km); so why would anybody buy it? HarrisonB - Conributions 02:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question, but you must realise that the Toyota Land Cruiser uses around about the same amount of fuel as the Suburban, and plenty of people buy them. I am not sure if it still is, but the Land Cruiser used to be in the top twenty most popular cars about two years ago. The rising fuel costs have probably tarnished its annual sales these days. Also back in 1998, petrol was dirt cheap, so it was less of an issue.
As for the for length which you incorrectly stated as 5.2 metres (it is 5.5 metres), it does serve its purpose. The vehicle is also capable of seating up to nine people, and would have a huge luggage compartment. Along with this, it would have decent performance for a vehicle it’s that size. By the way, have you ever seen one on the road? When I saw the example shown in the article it was the first time that I had seen Suburban with Holden badges, hence why I took several photographs. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. as for "why would anybody buy it?" That is simple. It would be the same reason why people choose to drive vehicles like the Daihatsu Move and the 1991-1998 "bubble" Mazda 121. This would be because they like them, it fits their demographic/lifestyle, or because that is simply all they can afford. I personally would dread having to drive either of them, but people are different. Coming back to the Holden Suburban, people with large families who like four-wheel driving may see it as a perfect car for their profile, despite the fact that spare parts and servicing costs a motza due to Holden's decision to stop supporting the vehicle. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow what a comment, I can see you know what you are talking about! This is one of the cars that I have no idea on, but I know a little about the Land Cruiser. The Cruiser like all four wheel drives will always be populat as long as there are people who tow boats (I know someone who goes scuba-diving every so-often and carries around 300Kg of equipment with him), and soccer mums (many of the mothers that you see dropping off their kids drive four wheel drives); but that dosen't mean it is right and eco-friendly. And yeah, I remember when petrol was dirt cheap, it was 60 cents a litre or something then I can remember earliest. I didn't realise that my facts were wrong, but I can understand why it didn't sell well in Australia though, it was a wrong marketing ploy for the reason that this was car designed for Americans, who like cars that are big. Australians are a little more conservative (to a degree) and don't really like massive cars rather than wanting a car like a Falcon or Commodore (not to say that these are the only cars that we like, that would be stupid) but anyway, thanks for shedding some light. HarrisonB - Conributions 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Partial Reverts

Do you spend your time here watching my contributions, waiting for someting to come up to 'partial-revert' my edits? I don't know why I bother, the only thing my work counts for is you making me look stupid in the article history, for example on the Toyota Aurion article. HarrisonB - Conributions 07:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are the one who is determined to get this article along with every other Australian car article up to GA and FA status. I don't think you realise how pedantic the reviewers at FAC and GAN are. They will most certainly fail articles the violate fundamental MOS rules. If you want help in getting the Aurion article up to such standards, I suggest that you accept the fact that these articles have to be perfect or reconsider your ambitions here at Wikipedia. I am not going to leave poorly justified edits purely “to not offend you”. Maybe you should take the time to read MOS and you will have a hell of a better chance of passing your work through the good and featured article processes. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to make excuses, but I didn't realise that the reviewers were so anally retentive with the GA nomination process. I apologise, but it seems pointless reverting edits like this 2006 --- 2006. HarrisonB - Conributions 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It didn't offend me, I just found it frustrating. HarrisonB - Conributions 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
To me it just seems pointless to edit an article and add links that are discouraged by the rules stated in WP:MOS. As I said before, maybe you should invest some of your time in reading the guidelines, because in the future they will help you. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Already done. HarrisonB - Conributions 10:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Already done what? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I meant that I have already read the Manual of Style at around 6:30PM EST. HarrisonB - Conributions 10:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Aurion pic?

I personally think it should not be a sports model, but I think it should be at least a picture of the Aurion and not the ASEAN Camry. (main difference being grille design) This is because the article tends to focus on the Australian side of things.

Alphabeta777 09:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100 percent, but unfortunately we don't have an image of sufficient quality to substitute the main image. WikiProject Automobiles also makes no mention that the lead image has to the model by the original manufacturer either. I was reluctant at first to use the Camry image, but after I brightened-up the front end using Photoshop, I felt that it was the most suitable image for the infobox.

AIL Storm

All this time searching the archives for a trace of the reference that I used the same information was repeated in the existing references! Anyhow, I've renominated AIL Storm, so if you still remember and want to review that would be great, else I suppose I'll queue with everyone else. TewfikTalk 02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Aurion photo

OSX, do we have to use the Camry photo, rather than the blue AT-X photo for the main picture? HarrisonB - Conributions 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have to use the Camry picture as the main image, but it best conforms with the WikiProject Automobiles guidelines. The guidelines say that images must be a front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person, and must be taken under good lighting. Unfortunately, the blue Aurion AT-X is overexposed, so the Camry image should be preferably used. I would rather use an Aurion image myself, but there is no rule saying that the lead image has to the model produced by the original manufacturer. I would also like to repeat what PrinceGloria stated earlier in another discussion, and that is that the Asian Camry is just as important as the Aurion, and that it should not be side-lined. Remember, Toyota has sols a lot more Camry’s in East and South East Asia than it has Aurions in Australia, New Zealand, and the Middle East. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 03:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean. Also, I noticed that you reverted an edit on the Aurion article recently. I was thinking of doing the same thing, but I was waiting for you to do that yourself so I could discuss it with you. Remember the massive discussion that took place about the size of the Aurion? Why would it be given a 'large car' award when it is a mid-size car? HarrisonB - Conributions 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Because the mid-size classification is a US standard, and differs from the small, medium and large segments in Australia. Europe also has it's own system that differs from the US and Australian standards as well. Secondly, it's all about marketing. Toyota produces cars not for the love of it, but to make money. Thats the same for all companies, you don't get any thing for nothing. They may tell you if you buy now, you will receive a free accessory, but you don't. It is just bundled in with the cost of the original item. Just remember, companies will do anything to get your business, and Toyota is no exception. Back to what I was talking about earlier, it makes sense to market the Aurion as a large car, rather than a medium car if Toyota want to eat into some of Holden's and Ford's business. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Just a suggestion, I think that your page needs archiving because it is getting quite long. HarrisonB - Conributions 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Aurion

Ah, I noticed that you have archived your page :). Looks alot better now, cleaner. Anyway, is there anything that we can do for the Toyota Aurion article? HarrisonB - Conributions 06:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

When I come to think about it, we could make a mention of the limited edition Touring version ([1]). I probably wont get the chance to make any major changes until next week. Until then, the bias towards the Australian Aurion will have to remain. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the bias towards the Australian Aurion will have to remain"? The Touring SE is for the Australian market, isn't it? HarrisonB - Conributions 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I was talking about the whole Asian Camry vs Aurion issue. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I will edit on it tomorrow, I am quite tired. HarrisonB - Conributions 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have added the Touring SE section with three different references. I believe that it s satisfactory, however don't hesitate to correct, edit or fix it for Wikipedia MoS. HarrisonB - Conributions 10:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey OSX, future images will be in full colour, I felt something eye catching and characteristic of the car's personality would make a nice chance from the rather dull lead infobox images. I should point out that the colour of the car in the image is fairly well unchanged (to the original in Silver Ash), only the surrounding areas of the image and the contrast of the tyres and windows is altered, so the vehicle is for the most part unaltered. I did see the 6th Generation Camry shot, speaking from a photographic view point, it breaks the rules of car photography. Wrong viewpoint level, no polariser used to remove window glare and the background is not controlled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 10:33, April 20, 2008

Not available from 14-11-07 to 16-11-07

Hello OSX/Archive 2, I will not be available to edit for the next couple of days due to being on a school camp. Hopefully the Toyota Aurion article will not pass for GA at this time ;) Anyway, feel free to leave comments but I will not be able to answer them until Friday night on the 16th. Kudos HarrisonB - Conributions 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

GA

Oh my god, it passed :) Thanks OSX for all of your help to bring the Aurion article to GA. Kudos HarrisonB - Conributions 08:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GETRAG --> Getrag

I came across this today after the post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, and noticed your sensible edit was reverted. There's now the small mess of Category:Getrag transmissions and Category:GETRAG transmissions both existing, as well as the associated articles. If you're concerned enough to want to have another go at this I'll help you out. Two users talking to the editor in question instead of one will probably work better, and besides, apart from the basic copy/paste fixes, I think there's copy/paste page moves which need undone with admin assistance (see [2]). ---- DeLarge (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Partial Acronyms as Registered Trademarks, GETRAG/Getrag

Please see Manual of Style (trademarks)discussion regarding issues such as GETRAG and SAAB, which are capitalized registered acronym trademarks, but are not strict acronyms. I'm starting a discussion to modify the manual to address the issue of these names. Too many people disagree, and it appears you have some interest in participating. BTW - I'm sorry about making such a mess of the above mentioned article :-/ . Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Images

Sure. Sorry it took a while to get back to you. HarrisonB - Conributions 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ford Laser

Regarding the Aussie Cars portal, would you say that this car could be included in the 'group'? HarrisonB - Conributions 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No because it is really a Japanese car that was made here, so it's hardly "Australian". That would be like saying the Mercedes-Benz M-Class article could be apart of the "American cars portal" because it is built there. For the "Australian cars portal" I think the vehicles should actually be "Australian". With a little bit more work however, the Ford EL Falcon article could make GA status. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but as you said it was built here and is considered an Australian car. HarrisonB - Conributions 04:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New pics are coming

I have aquired a new digital camera so there will be some good pictures coming in. Check harrison's talk page for two pictures I have already added. Also my family is getting a brand new 2007 Holden VE Commodore SS and there will be many good pictures coming through from this car. If you want any picutres of my car please tell me.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh good-o. I spent a while trying to photograph one of the VE sports models, but only recently got the opportunity to photograph and upload this one Image:2006-2007 Holden VE Commodore SV6 01.jpg, which does not look very good from the thumbnail. When you do get around to photographing your SS, do it outside on an overcast day, in my opinion, those kind of days produce the best looking car images. I look forward to seeing lots of new images from you, but make sure you upload them to the Commons and use a descriptive file name (see: User talk:HarrisonB/Archive2007/November#Images). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It still maybe about two weeks until we get the new commodore. The colour black is highly sought after, it is so rare that the moment it rolls off the production line in south Australia it will already be purchased.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Holden

I will try to give it a look, but it will probably be another 36 hours or so before I can comb my way through the entire thing. — TKD::Talk 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Worked through the 1960s. I'll try to finish after work tonight (UTC-5 time). — TKD::Talk 10:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done part of it and will finish up sometime today. Dylan (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cheers to you both. I really appreciate your work. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Still working through; unfortunately, I've been a bit busy in real life. Thanks for double-checking my work. I often cut a lot of perceived redundancy on my first pass, and sometimes err a little too much. Plus, automotive matters are not my most familiar topic. :) — TKD::Talk 10:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done finally working through the entire article. — TKD::Talk 11:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! — TKD::Talk 13:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto! I appreciate it. Dylan 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi OSX, I have a few suggestions on this article. I won't have time in the next couple of weeks as work pressure is taking all of my energy (this is written while waiting for the coffee to cool !). After my experience with the FAC for Trams in Adelaide earlier this year I think what is most needed is strategic distance as anyone who is as close as you are to the article may not see the forest for the trees. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a has some very good tips, particularly those on redundancy and the value of strategic distance. I'll see if I can get some time this weekend for a full look through but not promising anything. Perhaps you're best to work on something else for a while then come back to this with fresh eyes ? Peripitus (Talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news

I have finally got my SS and the pictures will start coming through, also my focus on Wikipedia is changing to pictures although I maybe only adding 2 - 3 in a two week period the pictures will still be very much need for what ever article they are in. Just check my contributions for what pictures I have added. Also have brought foward a potential problem with the VE Commodore article, I have adressed the problem on the articles talk page.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also devoting myself to adding news articles to the Australian Cars portal. Also I will be on vacation for two weeks in the start of January (Check my userpage for more info on my vacation). I will be changing the news articles once a week, maybe twice a week.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

{{User: HarrisonB/Sandbox2}}

HarrisonB - Conributions 04:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey OSX, I've non-wiki'd Harrison's Christmas Card for now because (you might have noticed when your above "Thanks" note failed to show up) it's causing problems with the pages and causing messages left after it to be hidden or something. Cheers, Sarah 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits

{{helpme}}

An IP user keeps editing the Toyota Aurion article and changing it to say that it is a full-size car, when a consensus was reached to classify it as a mid-size car. I know that the user comes Jakarta, Indonesia because I used the IP tracing tool, but each time he/she edits the page they use a different IP address (I have had to revert at least ten times). This means that I can't even try to talk to them about it on their talk page. Would it be possible to lock the article from being edited by IP users to stop this from happening in the future? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Requests for Page protection is used for getting pages 'locked' (stop either IPs/new users from editing or all users below admin). I would not recommend placing a request there, as the changes are not frequent enough. If it becomes more frequent, you could place a request there. Remember not to break the three revert rule. Thanks, Tiddly-Tom 09:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but how am I supposed to restore the article without breaking the three revert rule? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If it gets to the point where there are three reverts in a day, take it to WP:RPP. If I were you, I would write something on the talk page about it, citing the consensus reached. If you have to revert again, in your edit summery write something along the lines of Please see talk page for discussion before reinstating edit Tiddly-Tom 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Australian cars Portal

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Category:Australian cars Portal. The reason is:

a newly created category isn't speedy deletable because it's empty; CSD C1 requires that it be empty for 4 days. Give it a chance.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

ISBN

Hi OSX, long time no see. Do you know where the ISBN is located in Wheels magazine? HarrisonB - Talk 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ISBN numbers are used specifically for books, but some publications similar to Wheels magazine hold an ISSN number, but I unsure what this looks like. It could be the barcode on the cover, but I can't confirm this. It is most probable that Wheels magazine does not have a publication I.D. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACID

I need you to vote in support for the Ford Falcon article in Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. I am sure that you would agree that this article is in need to become FA status not just for the fact that it is a very important Australian car but for the portal's sake too. Thanks HarrisonB - Talk 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Daewoo Kalos "generation" discussion

Would you consider giving your feedback on the discussion happening at Talk:Daewoo Kalos? Your advice and council would be most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... conceptually I wonder if that whole list under T200 doesn't actually belong under both... since T250 dash and skin were "all" that changed?

842U (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Crewman redirect

Hey, could you please check out the discussion page for the Holden Crewman, regarding your recent edit to that page. Thanks Tinkstar1985 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Holden Ute

Hi OSX, in your recent edit you removed the whole paragraph concerning the VE Ute. Any particular reason for this? Thanks, --328cia (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your right I did too. Thanks for pointing that out, as I didn't even realise I had done so. I've fixed it now. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BA Falcon image

You may want to edit your BA Mk2 Falcon image (Image:2004-2005 Ford BAII Falcon XT 01.jpg) and cover the number plate. Someone could use that to get your details. Mister macphisto (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving things about

No problem. Infact you were lucky to catch me because I've been very busy lately and not had much time for Wikipedia. I've never heard of the Daewoo Royale and a google search brings up only 2310 results. There are several sources that indicate that it's not a hoax though. Perhaps this article won't be anything more than a stub although I'm sure someone who owns/owned one will eventually expand the article. James086Talk | Email 10:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 10:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there were two different Royales, the first Opel Rekord D-based (1977-1982) (http://www.autoreview.ru/new_site/year2002/n23/seoul/1.htm , bottom of page) and the later car based on the Rekord E (or maybe the Commodore C; but as the Royale only had four cylinder engines, I doubt they used the longer Commo front clip). Also, I doubt that the Royale had any Holden genes; if you take a look at available data (carfolio.com for instance), you´ll note that the engines seem to be Opel engines). No "hard" sources for all of that, though, only web sources. Regards, --328cia (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: http://galeon.hispavista.com/clubdaewooracerchile/album1001591.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 328cia (talk • contribs) 11:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded and referenced the article based on the information you've given me. You wouldn't happen to know anything about the Daewoo Prince would you? Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 12:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you´re really fast! The only reliable thing about the Prince I could find is an entry in Automobile Revue, catalogue edition 1995, p. 224: "Four-door saloon based on the former Opel Rekord E, with Opel Senator body and 2 liter engine. Debuted in 1993." Actually, it doesn´t look like a Senator at all, although it has a 6-window glasshouse. http://daewoo.pro-motors.ru/car-1115.htm , http://asiaauto.ru/index.php?name=Catalog&op=SMIP&m_1c=86. Nobody seems to know much about these cars, and unfortunately there are no entries on them in the Korean WP, either. I´ll add a data table on the Prince page later. Regards, --328cia (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Been away for a week and catching up now with what has been going on on wp in the meantime. Please let me say that I greatly appreciate your work on Australian cars! I do have a knack for them although, being German, I won´t ever set eyes on one, sadly. Cheers, --328cia (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment 328cia. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Done, done and done. The old title is used throughout the Toyota Kluger article but I don't have much time right now so I can't fix it. I will get around to it fairly soon (next week) however if it isn't done. already checked for double redirects and changed the lead sentence of each article though. James086Talk | Email 01:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I've fixed up the remaining "Highlander" titles that should have been "Kluger". OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you tagged Image:Mitsubishi 9th gen lancer.jpg by transcluding {{copyvio}}. I've removed the tag because it's the wrong tag and the linked page appeared to have been created after the 2006 upload of the image. For future reference, the tag you wanted is {{imagevio}}, which is transcluded. {{copyvio}} is for articles where it is used by replacing the entire article with the template and due to recent changes must now always be substituted. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The full-size image can be found here or by clicking the thumbnail on the original webpage. By the way, just because the article the article is titled "2008 Mitsubishi Lancer" doesn't mean that it was published in 2008. In fact it was published before the image was uploaded talking about the upcoming 2008 Lancer. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Busy

Sorry but I can not help you with the Holden article primarily due to the fact that I have been very busy lately with my last year of high school.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the Holden article is featured now anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's with the Holden Barina Safety Ratings

Do you really think it's NPOV to take once source of safety ratings and pump it through the article? Your POINT is less than transparent, and somewhat... er... biased, perhaps? 842U (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not POV doing this, because all I did was disperse the information already in the "Safety" section and place it under the correct model sections. How is this POV? The same thing is done on the Holden Commodore article, and that is listed as a good article. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Toyota Camry

The Toyota Camry is a car sold in America, the Toyota Scepter is the car made identical to the Camry in America, but sold in Japan. The Toyota Camry was made in America and sold in America. The Toyota Scepter is made and sold in Japan. If anything the Toyota Scepter should be redirected into the 3rd generation Camry section on the older revision of the Toyota Camry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camryluvr (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles states that articles should bear the name used in the original country, which is Japan in this case. Yes, the V20, XV10, XV20, XV30 and XV40 Camrys have all been manufactured in the United States and Australia; every Camry model has been produced in Japan. That comprises of the Celica Camry, V10, V30 and V40 models not produced in either Australia or the Unites States, and the XV10 Scepter. So with this information at hand, it is beyond doubt that Japan is the original market. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The Toyota Scepter was the 3rd generation(1992-1996) Camry that was made in the United States and can't be used for all the Camrys made in the United States because there are more models than just the 3rd Generation years. We could make two different pages for the Camry, one for the Japanese Camry and another for the one made in America. Also, if you look at the Toyota Scepter ads their slogan is "The Camry from The States".Camryluvr (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Only the Scepter wagon was made in the United States. The Scepter sedan was manufactured in Tsutsumi, Japan, and both were designed in Japan. The only thing "American" about the Scepter Camry is the name and factory where the cars came from. The car itself is Japanese, and thus the Japanese naming system should be used as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles guidelines. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please leave the "Toyota Camry (US Version)" article alone. It is not yours, and i am in the process of updating it over the next month to be a different article with US-exclusive information. It is difficult to find this information in your article, and I do not see any harm in having a second article that is more direct Venomnitto (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on Holden Royale page

I added the tag as the page doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) style. However I do realise that there are some pages for which the style manual doesn't apply (e.g Lists of ships of the same name) but I don't know whether that applies in this case. As it is clearly all your own work I'll let you decide what changes need to be made, if any Tassedethe (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

VE Commodore running changes

Hi OSX. I've had a look at your sandbox's collection of info on the VE's running changes. While I agree a series II of the VE is unlikely to happen, I'm not entirely convinced the model year system is the best way to explain it. The dates on which the changes are introduced seem random. I also suspect there's been a few changes that haven't been included on your list (e.g: Calais with new lip spoiler on boot). The MY system is mostly a North American system and adding 0.5MY at different times makes things a bit messy in my opinion. As far as I know, Holden hasn't publicly announced what their plans are with regards to updates, so it makes things a bit difficult to ascertain at this stage. I think more information would need to be gathered. VectorD (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The model year system is in use by Holden, and has been for along time in Holden VINs. Holden has adopted it "officially" instead of "Series II" and "Series III" et cetera. I know the MY system is an American thing, but GM is an American company. I few other automakers (Subaru) also use it as well.
Also VectorD, if I have made any errors or left out any content, please feel free to update my list. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
At this point in time, I'm still not entirely sure if Holden has officially adopted a model year system. The evidence is inconclusive. Model years are a part of VIN numbers whether the manufacturer has officially adopted a MY system or not. Redbook appears a bit schizophrenic in this regard. Some are listed as having MY like here but other years then subsequently don't here. It would be interesting to keep up a list of running changes as you have already done, but I think we should wait for more substantial proof direct from Holden before coming to any conclusions within the main article. VectorD (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Aurion

Interesting, so comparisons were OK until it was no longer the leader? laughs Greg Locock (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, you remove information from an article which is glorifies the Commodore, but don't like the same to be done to Ford articles (the company you work for). If you take a look at some of my other edits you can see that I am trying to remove bias from articles (e.g. "It found ready acceptance in the market as many buyers steered away from the disappointing Ford AU Falcon" --> "It found ready acceptance in the market as many buyers steered away from the slow selling Ford AU Falcon" (Holden Commodore), "for dramatically improved ride and handling" --> "for improved ride and handling" (Holden VE Commodore). I may prefer Holdens over Fords, but I am not trying to denounce Ford either. If our readers are interested in Commodore/Aurion crash ratings, they would go to the respective articles for that. No need to say the same thing five times, when once will suffice (Commodore v Falcon v Aurion v 380 v Accord). Also, if you look at the Ford articles I have significantly edited (Ford EL Falcon, Ford BA Falcon) you will notice that those articles are not written in an anti-Ford manner thank you very much. As for the VE Calais comparison, all I can say to you is "grow up". No need to be so immature and go rampaging through Holden articles to voice your anger. Think first before you act, because doing stuff like "oh we must adhere to OSX's grand new policy" crap when I never said anything does nothing to increase your standing. Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 09:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
So please can you explain your new policy? Why is it acceptable to include comparison in the Calais article, and not OK to update them as in the Aurion case (Note the comparison had been there for a while, I merely updated it)? I smell hypocrisy here, either comparison, backed up by sources is acceptable, or it is not. I don't mind which way it goes, but the same rules will be applied to all. Greg Locock (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to answer your question because your immature response is ill-informed and wrong. I put up my case for you and all I get is another one of your "10-year-old child"-style responses. All you did was rephrase what you've already said. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I have asked you a direct question. Either answer it in a satisfactory fashion or accept that other people's judgement will be used instead. As I said, I don't mind what the conclusion is, I just think you need to define a defendable solution, since you seem to think you can decide each case on an ad hoc basis, which is definitely not acceptable. The question is "Are comparisons between the relative attributes of cars acceptable in articles, if they are backed by reliable sources?"- Yes or no.Greg Locock (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop exerting your anger on Holden articles thank you very much. So you are telling me it's alright to remove the word "superior" from an article, which in a way glorifies the VE, but heaven forbid if there is any sort of criticism directed to the AU Falcon ([3])? Lets end this saga here, before it gets out of hand. My patience here is running very thin. Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 03:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer the question, or I will decide. Greg Locock (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind (Oh no, your patience is wearing thin. Tremble tremble. Just answer the question)? You don't have to be so rude about everything. Now what is the "question"? And no you won't "decide", because Wikipeida is built around consensus, trust and rules. Three things you don't seem to grasp or hold. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Why bother telling me about your mental state, can't you tell I am not especially interested? The question I asked is "Are comparisons between the relative attributes of cars acceptable in articles, if they are backed by reliable sources?" Yes or no. Note that I did not introduce the comparison in the Aurion article, I updated it. I find it bizarre (that was sarcasm, actually it was entirely predictable) that when the comparison was favorable to Aurion it was OK but when I updated it and put in an equivalent to the Falcon article you deemed it unacceptable, despite WP:RS. You might want to check if other car articles include comparisons, my guess, is that by and large they don't. So, if comparisons are acceptable, then my well sourced comparison should go in, if not then all the various comparisons can come out. Like I say, not a big deal, but let's be consistent and encyclopedic. Greg Locock (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian dates

Looking at this edit, you are in error if you think your changes conform to WP:DATE. Firstly, Australia uses the day-month-year International Dating format, second, linking dates is now deprecated by the Manual of Style. Please check before edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It frustrates me that user:Skyring(Pete) is again edit warring over date formats, like has happened so many times before. I have sent a warning to his talk page.--Lester 05:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Australia actually uses both.
As can be seen in the articles by these major Australian publishers, the MM-DD-YY format is used. Also thank you for sending a message User:Lester, saves me from doing so. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - sorry to but in here but I don't think you are correct. I have noticed the newspapers using American style date formatting, but I think that is their attempt to conform to international (dominated by US conventions). There is a style guide for Austrlaia - used to be published by the AGPS and has now been taken over by Snooks &Co. I can't find a freely available internet verions. The best I can do is http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/info.aspx?page=766 -

Shortened forms on the Web
Abbreviations, Contractions, Acronyms, Initialisms, Symbols and other things.
by Dr Sofia Celic, Web Accessibility Consultant, Accessible Information Solutions at National Information Library Service.
Introduction: The impetus for this study was the result of observations made during user-based screen reader accessibility testing and from recent studies in technical writing.
Unexpected or undesired pronunciation by screen readers of some web page content was identified. This was mainly in regard to contractions and initialisms because these are rarely desired to be pronounced as a word.

When she gets to date format, sheis quite specific on the use of dd/mm/yyyy - I think there is no question that that is the format used by convention in Australia. Should you wish to dispute that format is the convention, I think this should be promptly escalated to a wider audience, for example at WP:AWNB to get more diverse views. --Matilda talk 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Who ever made Snooks & Co the industry standard? That is one person's/organisation's opinion on how dates should be presented. Since the dates are changeable in the user preferences, they should remain linked. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read Mosnum and consider what is the Australian standard --Matilda talk 09:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Check out The Times. Month day year format for England's best-known newspaper. Does this make England the home of American Dating? Of course not. --Pete (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with the others - Australian date format is dd-mm-yyyy, it's the only format taught in schools here, and when one selects "Australian" settings on Macintosh or Windows, one gets that order of date format. The American date format actually looks "foreign" to most Australians, just as international dates looked "foreign" to my Canadian friends when I was over there. Orderinchaos 10:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised those observing have not commented on the futility of starting and continuing an edit war over date formats, actions which are antagonising people all over Wikipedia.--Lester 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note re 3RR

I note you have made the same revert three times in a 24-hour period (Holden VE Commodore: [4] [5] [6]; Ford Falcon (Australia): [7] [8] [9]). Although I believe you to be wise enough to avoid making a fourth, perhaps you should consider whether it is worth getting blocked over a matter so trivial. It is worth noting, also, that three is not an entitlement. Orderinchaos 12:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories of Holden in Commons

Hello OSX, first of all many thanks that you categorized the Holden photos in Commons according to model names. As I just spent 4 weeks in Australia I noticed but that in some sources Holden cars are referred in model generations (FB, FC etc.) rather than in model names (Special, Standard, Commodore etc.). Yesterday I categorized the Holden category according to model generations in surplus to your categorization because I think that some users will find the desired photo better like this. Today I found that you removed my categorization again without giving any reason. I suggest that we should keep both types of categorization for better service to the users and therefore ask you to revert your last changes. Many thanks in advance. --MartinHansV (Germany) (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Only 48-215 (FX) to WB models are actually referred to this way, and it is not really an "official" system. For example, a Holden WB, is actually a Holden WB Kingswood (with WB referring to the model, like W204/W140/W220 et cetera used by Mercedes-Benz). On Wikipedia, we use the <make> <model> format, hence my revert. I didn't bother leaving a talk page message because I assumed your were an irregular editor due to the use of an IP address.
I would not support the revert of all these categories. For example there are two Holden LCs, the Holden LC Torana, and the Holden LC Astra. Only FX-WB can really be categorized this way, so maybe we could make a category like "Holden vehicles by model designation"? OSX (talk • contributions) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at the category "Mercedes-Benz vehicles". There you find the subcategory "Mercedes-Benz vehicles by type" which I completed now. I would strongly support your suggestion to add a similar subcategory to "Holden vehicles". As you seem to know much more about this item than I do I would be glad if you could add this subcategory. Many thanks in advance. --MartinHansV (Germany) (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That is really good thanks. I have always hated that cluttered Mercedes category. I will definitely work on a similar thing for the Holden models (in the next week). Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
And done commons:Category:Holden vehicles by series. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. --MartinHansV (Germany) (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

I am beginning to draw a close to the end of the year so my workload at the moment is probably, without doubt, the highest it has been the whole year. When my holidays start (November-December) I am thinking of returning to Wikipedia for some small to moderate edits. So if you need any help (probably on a LOW PRIORITY automotive/aircraft related article) please tell me now it would be greatly appreciated. I will start editing now then eventually my edits will start to rise as the holidays draw closer. --SenatorsTalk | Contribs 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not editing any article in particular at the moment, but here are some articles that could use some work:
Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

- OK then --SenatorsTalk | Contribs 02:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Holden VE images

Hi OSX,

First off thanks again for your help in identifying my shots, but I would like to discuss a little the image usage in Holden and Holden Commodore. Let me explain why I think my image makes a better illustration:

1. Better Perspective: My image was taken with a 400mm lens. This creates an image with vastly improved perspective. If you look at your image (which by the looks was taken at a relatively wide angle) the nose of the car is heavily accentuated and the proportions of the car are consequently distorted. My image, with the benefit of being taken at a long focal length, has no such perspective issues and the car appears well proportioned.

2. Better Composition: Your image, which appears to be taken at a carpark, has many other cars in the background (and indeed four cars in the foreground). This distracts from the focus of the image (the VE) and hence makes a worse illustration than my shot which shows only the VE.

3. Improved Interest: Flowing from my previous point is that your image shows a very stagnant and somewhat dull scene of the car parked. In no way do I wish to insult you but it's somewhat of a "snapshot". My image on the otherhand shows a much more dynamic scene, showing the car in it's primary function: driving. The sense of motion is enhanced with well controlled motion blur. This (IMO) creates a far more compelling illustration.

Hope that explains my reasoning --Fir0002 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fir0002, as a photo your image runs rings around mine. The reason why I reverted was because:
1. Motion blur: in your shot the moving vehicle does not show the design of the wheels. To an ordinary person that may seem like a pathetic excuse, but the wheel design is a feature that can make it very easy to identify the particular model. That is, in the case of the VE Commodore, the base model (Commodore Omega), the sports models (Commodore SV6, SS, SS V) or luxury models (Berlina, Calais, Calais V). The word around Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles is that vehicles should have the wheels/hubcaps fitted by the manufacturer so the vehicles are in "original" condition. In think we can reasonably say that a wheel in motion and thus blurred can be linked be looked at similarly.
2. Variant: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles also states: "Avoid pictures of heavily customized cars as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance, unless the text in context to the picture is dealing with the customization of the vehicle." The Commodore model in question is the sports-oriented SV6. Compared to the base line Omega (my image) this car has very loud body kit that separates it quite distinctively from the Omega. While the body kit is officially a part of the SV6 model, many others and I tend to favour images of more common variants, or those in a more basic form. These images better epitomize the basic design of the vehicle. However, I have absolutely no problem with having this image in the "SV6" section of the Commodore VE article and also as a featured picture at Portal:Australian cars.
3. Crop: your image has too much background. Any infobox/main image of a car needs have a tight crop so that maximum detail can be seen at only 250px. This one is fairly easy to rectify, and I'll fix it up later. However, the same needs to be done with all your other car images too. If you don't your only giving other editors another excuse at reverting over the motion blur stated above, and the drivers in the cars.
What I would encourage you to do is go to your local Holden dealership (there are plenty around) and use your superior photographic skills to get the "perfect" shot. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm OK - I guess motion blur is an area where aesthetic value may clash with identification. Are the cars sufficiently distinct in the body work or is it primarily the wheels which separate them? I can shoot with a faster shutter speed (I deliberately created the motion blur) so that the wheels are frozen but photographically speaking the motion blur is a strong point. Can you link point me where you got the variant quote? I can't find it on the homepage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles... I did notice the Wikiproject has a featured picture section - in which case you might want to include Image:Mazda RX-8 on freeway.jpg. Finally with the crop this is similar to the motion blur - photographically it is encouraged to have some "breathing space" in the composition - an ultra tight crop just looks awful. And to be honest I can't see what extra detail you expect to see at thumbnail size which justifies degrading the photographic quality of the image by cropping any tighter. Also why would the car's drivers be a detrimental attribute of the images? As you might have noticed I very carefully took the shots so that the faces of the drivers would be obscured by the right door frame (and further blurred where necessary to preserve anonymity of the driver). Thanks for the suggestion, however I specifically chose a freeway to avoid several of the factors which your image suffers from: distracting background and cars, use of wide angle lens, and stagnant scene. So the only real improvement I can see would be removing motion blur (if indeed this is such a significant issue). However since you are obviously heavily involved in the Automobile project I'll respect your reversion and image choice --Fir0002 06:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Below I will best try to answer your questions.
  • The SV6 and SS are identical except that one has a V6 engine and the other a V8. The SS V however, is only really differentiated by its unique wheels. All three models have the same body panels, like sports bumpers and bonnet.
  • The exact location where I got the quote from was: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images.
  • With the crop, I agree images look better with "breathing space", but because this is an encyclopedia, it is the subject that is most important. The crop doesn't have to be "ultra tight", but it does have to be smallish - if that's a word.
  • As for people within the car, this is discouraged for a few reasons. Firstly, for privacy, but in this case I think anyone would have a pretty hard time identifying the person. And secondly, because automobile articles are about the car, and not owners/drivers. People are considered distracting and not a part of the subject.
At the end of the day the perfect photographic situation is hard to obtain: car in original condition, clean, wheels aligned to body sides, front 3/4 view, natural, and but subtle background. Other locations that would be "close" to this are car parks: if you can find a car park with very few cars within it, distractions shouldn't be a major issues. Also, vehicles parked on roadsides bordering trees have limited distractions. I hope this helps, and keep snapping pictures of cars - especially Australian cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUS 200 GA drive

Hi OSX. Per last year, we are now closing in on another milestone for AUS, with 178 current GAs. Well, since you participated in the GA drive last year, perhaps unwittingly, by contributing some Australian car articles, you might want to participate again. This is another rallying cry to WP:AWNB/A. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

concept cars

Hi,

I'm dropping you a line because I notice you originally began Category:Toyota concept vehicles. I've started a personal mini project of moving cars from Category:Concept automobiles into a relevant manufacturers subcategory. I did Holden some months ago, and have done Toyota and Honda this week. I'm bringing it to your attention on the basis that you look like you'd have an interest in this direction (and so might help out ;) --.../Nemo (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cadillac concept vehicles, Category:Mercedes-Benz concept vehicles, and Category:Opel concept vehicles done. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! Category:Audi concept vehicles and Category:Pontiac concept vehicles now also done :) --.../Nemo (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
And Category:Chevrolet concept vehicles. I think I'm done for today ;) --.../Nemo (talk :: Contributions) 03:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Scrollable template

Hi - At least with my window width (and browser) the current version of Template:Holden timeline ends up with two horizontal scroll bars - one for the browser window and the one embedded in the template. This is really, really bad web page design. If you can't get the table to be the same width as the browser window (which I suspect is not possible with IE if you're actually using table markup), I suggest you not use an internal scroll bar in the template (I mean, rely only on the browser scroll bar). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jbarta has tweaked the template some more. Should work now. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Much better. I submitted it to browsershots.org and (not sure how long they'll be there) there are screen shots from a variety of browsers here. Looks like at least some don't show a scroll bar (e.g. Opera 8.54 and IE 6.0), which results in a wide table scrollable with the browser window scrollbar. When I implemented Template:LargeCategoryTOC I didn't know about this site so don't know for how many of the browsers it can generate screenshots this template works. I'm not aware of a specific list that en.wikipedia.org is "required" to support, but I think the general goal is pretty much every browser (see Wikipedia:Browser notes). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Well I would not woory above Opera 8.54, as Opera has a really low user base as a whole let alone version 8.x. Although Internet Explorer 7 reveals IE 6's market share at a frightening 21.53%. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I added lines to the template... see the template talk page. JBarta (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that. Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OSX/Archive_2&oldid=1136156747"