User talk:OSX/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Can you help?

In light of the recent deletions of Category:Large family cars and Category:Small family cars, I've been having a discussion with User:PrinceGloria recently about sorting out our car classification categories; see User talk:PrinceGloria#Car classification categories for more details, and some of the many problems that need sorted.

Since car classifications are region-specific, I plan on creating a parent heirarchy based on areas, and then daughter categories for North American, European, and Australian classes. But looking at the FCAI's website, their "official" classes don't tally with how I've heard Australian cars referred to:

• Light
• Small
• Medium
• Large
• Upper Large
• People Movers
• Sports
• SUV Compact
• SUV Medium
• SUV Large
• SUV Luxury

I'd like to get everything organized before I go to WP:CARS with my proposals, so could you give me any info on whether these would be the right class names to use for Australia? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these classes are the "official" titles, but the situation here in Australia is mixed. Publications interchangeably use Australian and U.S terms in the same sentence. For example, "light" is almost always used, "small" used more than "compact", but "compact" still gets its fair share of use. "Medium"/"mid-size" seem to be interchangeable, "large" is generally used as opposed to "full-size", however, GM Holden frequently use "full-size" in lieu of "large" (subsidiary of GM U.S). I don't think I've seen the term "upper large" used outside of FCAI before, and the remainder of the FCAI terms seem to be used exclusively. That is however, except for SUVs, which are often called 4WDs (and occasionally 4x4s).

Historically (1960s and prior), Australia was tied very closely to the U.S. in terms of the automotive industry. The U.S. classification system was probably used here and hence its modern-day use. FCAI would not have come about until the 1970s at least, and the FCAI vehicle classifications are also very vague. There does not seem to be any particular criteria in classifying vehicles, hence why I use the superior U.S. system. Please if you must standardise classes, choose the A-segment, B-segment format. This seems to be the least region-specific solution. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, there's no problem simply omitting the FCAI classes if they're too vague or undefined, or insufficiently used. The A/B/C-segment stuff would be good except for two problems: (i) I can't see any American editor accepting them as a replacement for their existing US EPA-based classes, which are much more widely used, and (ii) the segments are really more marketing-speak instead of being strictly defined by a single body (US EPA, EuroNCAP, etc), and in these days of niche marketing I think a lot of cars straddle multiple classes. For example, I've heard the Nissan Note Mini MPV referred to as a "B+ segment car".

Nothing is stopping us creating categories for A/B/C-segments in the parent Category:Car classification though, which are independent of the regional stuff. --DeLarge (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Omitting the FCAI classes completely would be a bad move, but mentioning them would suffice. I had a look at the discussion at your talk page and at PrinceGloria's and would like to build onto it having article on:

• Car classifications
  • North American car classifications (with a link to the EPA and/or the relevant car class article)
    • Mid-size cars, Compact cars, etc (sections, not sub articles)
  • European car classifications (with a link to EuroNCAP)
    • Small family cars, Large family cars, etc (sections, not sub articles)
  • Australian car classifications (with a reference to the FCAI)
    • Light, Small, Medium, Large, Upper Large, etc (sections, not sub articles)
  • Japanese car classifications (with a link to JAMA)
    • Kei cars, etc (sections, not sub articles)

Then have articles as following:

• A-segemnt: incorporating light, subcompact etc.
• B-segemnt: incorporating small, compact etc.
• C-segment
• ...

Doing it this way would avoid region issues; Americans will still have an article (one) detailing each of the classes, with main articles pointing to the individual segment articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess I wasn't looking to touch the articles, only the categories. They're in a bit of a state, but that's a step too far for this editor, who's not sufficiently enamoured with WP in general and WP:CARS in particular to want to help out. I do agree with the idea about mergin though; I thought the best approach with EuroNCAP would be to redirect each individual car class article to a section listing all the classes in a table. --DeLarge (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore

Do you know the type? File:AFP - Holden VE Commodore.jpg and File:AFP - Holden VE Commodore (front view).jpg. Bidgee (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

These are both 2008 Holden VE Commodore (MY09/MY09.5) Omega sedans. I have edited the image description pages accordingly. For future reference, all VE models with the steel "chaser" wheels are Omegas with the Police option package. The continued use of steel wheels on Omega Police models is somewhat surprising, given the standardisation of alloy wheels on the Omega in March last year. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ident needed

I'm in need of the year and generation for this Toyota Corolla Ascent WT-i. Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee, this is a 2007-2009 Toyota Corolla (ZRE152R) Ascent sedan:

File name: File:2007-2009 Toyota Corolla (ZRE152R) Ascent sedan 01.jpg

Image description: "2007–2009 Toyota Corolla (ZRE152R) Ascent sedan (with optional 17" × 7" Kappa alloy wheels)". OSX (talk • contributions) 05:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Bidgee (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please delete the white Holden Nova/Toyota Corolla that I accidentally uploaded over the top of File:1990-1991 Holden VQ Statesman sedan 04.jpg? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bidgee (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This image is possibly unusable for Wiki but do you know what type of Porsche it is? Bidgee (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

1997-1999 Porsche Boxster (986) convertible. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific dates

Thought I'd discuss here a bit before we get revert-crazy..

My feeling is, adding specific dates puts too much focus on announcements and press releases and not on what actually happened.

For example, which is more important, this:

On May 13, 2008, CarCorp announced that it would close down the Gadget plant later in the year.

or this:

On September 13, 2008, CarCorp closed down the Gadget plant.

I've seen a lot of car articles lately turning into news blogs. As soon as a press release comes out, someone adds a new paragraph, starting with "On Exact date, year, CarCorp announced that..". This is not how encyclopedia articles should be written. Notable events should be summarized into paragraphs by topic, and focus on what actually happened rather than when someone announced that it would happen. Not saying you do this, but it tempts a lot of people to add every news item they find because they feel the newest events are the most important, when WP:NOTNEWS.

Dates are useful to create a timeline of related, closely-occurring events (e.g. On May 13 the Space Shuttle launched, on May 15 they changed the Hubble's oil). But really, is the exact date that an award is given important? Nothing is happening before or after the award, so no context needs to be established by the date. Saying every date is inherently important is like saying every car specification is important so they should all go in the article. Besides, that's what references are for. They usually contain the exact date of a news article or a review, so if the reader wants to know the date, they can click on the reference and read more there. --Vossanova ^o< 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would I want to click on the references to get the dates? Including dates does not turn an article into a news blog. If someone was to write a book about the Chevrolet Cruze, the dates would be their, just as they are in Autobiography, a book about the Holden VE Commodore. If the Holden section of the Cruze gets too lengthy, then the dates can be safely removed and the section summarised and the original content can be moved into the Holden Cruze article (currently an SIA). Until such length is present, I stand by my edits of including such information. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 04:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm bringing out a bad-case example. Check this out: Chrysler#2008 financial crisis. Now, the Holden Cruze section is not close to that, but, it's an example of what happens when people add every news item and a specific date to it. It resembles a news blog to me. Yes, dates are somewhat valuable in that Chrysler section, but to me, starting a new paragraph with every event, and starting each one the same way, is just bad writing to me. WP:PROSELINE and WP:RECENT have some guidelines and tips. --Vossanova ^o< 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Chrysler page been poorly executed, but that does not make the information unnecessary (as you said), as it correlates with events similar like GM and other financial crisis-related issues (remember, if done properly it would work). It provides context, which in the case of the Cruze is less important, but nevertheless still so. I counted just three dates in the "Australasia" section, and information regarding the unique-to-Australia/NZ Cruze-based car will most likely have its own article, just like the new Astra does/will. Hence, I do not believe that this section going to become overkill anytime soon. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Holden Apollo

Congratulations :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Create an account

Well, I don't know about all my edits being useful. But thanks, I really do appreciate the offer but I don't plan on editing articles on wikipedia much longer. It's just I have an injury which forces me to be fairly sedentary, but that'll change as soon as I can get back to whatever it was I did before. But I really do like what wikipedia is and am very thankful for the people who make it what it is. Thanks again though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.224.246 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Suzuki Ignis

I reverted Ignis back to full article. It cannot be a redirect to Suzuki Swift, it was developed by Suzuki Europe to be sold in Europe and was never sold in Japan with a Suzuki badge, as the Japanese Chevrolet Cruze was a rebadged import. --Pc13 (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The original 2000 Ignis was developed by Suzuki in Japan and sold as the Swift (it was in fact the first generation Japanese Swift, as the previous generations were sold as the Suzuki Cultus). The Ignis name was only used in Australia/New Zealand/Europe (maybe others as well). The updated Chevrolet Cruze-based Ignis was only sold in Europe as a Suzuki, but this is not enough to warrant a separate Ignis article since we already have the Ignis and Cruze articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure the Ignis Mk.II was the Chevrolet Cruze? The Gen.II model was 15 cm longer than the Gen.I (377 cm vs 362 cm). Wasn't the Chevrolet Cruze still 362 cm long? --Pc13 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Suzuki Ignis MK.I in Europe [1]. Suzuki Ignis Mk.II in Europe[2]. Suzuki Swift SE-Z in Japan [3]. Chevrolet Cruze in Japan [4]. The Japanese models retained dimensions from Mk.I while the European model was enlarged. That means the Mk.II was European exclusive, not a Japanese model. And a history of the Suzuki Ignis in Europe [5]. --Pc13 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I have thoroughly looked at all those links trying to work out where the 15 cm difference is. Basically, the original Ignis formed the basis for the Cruze, and the Cruze formed the basis for the updated European-only Ignis. However, it appears from photos (updated Ignis, Cruze) that the updated Ignis has an extra 15 cm at the rear (compare the size of the side-rear window). To me (and by project standards), this is not enough to warrant a separate article. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it more thoroughly, I agree. However, it needs a few corrections: the 15 cm enlargement was a European exclusive, it was not made available for the Asian models or the Holden Cruze. I'm still unsure whether the Ignis Mk.II should be a subsection in the Chevrolet Cruze article instead of the Suzuki Swift. --Pc13 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lexus LS GA nom

Good day, OSX, and greetings to you. At your suggestion, I have nominated Lexus LS for GA status at WP:GAN#Transport. If you have the time, your input and suggestions for the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!

You're doing a nice job on the Holden VE Commodore‎ article. I've tried heading to the local Holden dealership but all of its new vehicles are in the show room now. Today I tried to get a photo of a Holden VE Commodore‎ V 60th Edition but the damn battery in the camera died! Bidgee (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bidgee. You're right, probably best to avoid indoor photos, they never look very good under the artificial lighting. Any way keep up with your excellent image uploads at Commons. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea!

Thanks for your great research. Help me get it done!! Please vote to support change.Vegavairbob (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I need to two Support the change.(Inline-four engine) anyone you know? ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't, but even if I did, "vote baiting" is very much disliked (Talk:Straight-four engine#Canvassing). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Kia Optima Page Change

Hello OSX. I have noticed that you have edited the Kia Optima page and removed much content that has been worked hard on by several people. Just to get things straight, The new Optima and New Magentis are a continuation of the previous Optima and Magentis. It is true that its name was changed in Korea, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the same in every other market. A name change in one market doesn't necessarily mean that it is not just the next generation. The 2005-6 Optima was just a generation change, not a vehicle change. Please do not remove the information again. Thank You.Lovemykia (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Titles. Even if we went by the new proposed changes here, original market name would still qualify. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to the current situation, since the vehicle is sold as the Optima/Magentis in all markets but Korea, there is nowhere else to allocate the information for the "MG" Optima. I will make some revisions. Lovemykia (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well we cannot have duplicate information either. It is not about what name most markets receive the car as, it is original market name. If the Lotze was called either Optima OR Magentis (only one) in ALL English-speaking markets, the proposed policy would allow that name as the title. But this is not the case, and too avoid arguments about which market is more important, we go by original market name. If you don't like the policy, my user page is not going to change it; at WP:CARS you may have chance. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Kia Motors, the Kia Lotze IS the second generation Optima, renamed in the Korean market. Lovemykia (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link? OSX (talk • contributions) 02:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Scepter reply

Rather than continue off-topic in the main discussion page, I'm bringing this here:

I'd think the most elegant solution for both the Accord and Camry pages would be splitting the articles by generation, a la Subaru Legacy. As it is, the Accord page is a bit long and the Camry page is very confusing.

I wouldn't want to see them as truncated as the main Toyota Corolla or Volkswagen Golf pages, but that would seem to be the best way to put each generation and version in a place it can easily be found without stretching one article too far. IFCAR (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, both the Accord and Camry articles are far too long, and a split is definitely required. But, that still wont solve the problem (of the wide-body Scepter Camry and narrow-body Camry). "Shoving in" the American/Australian Camry (1992-1997) is confusing; there are two generations of narrow-body Japanese models compared to one single International wide-body model. The only way that I think this might work is if it is possible to split part of the article into two columns (unlikely):

Second generation (1986-1991) ... ... ...
Third generation
Japan (1990-1994) ... ... ...	International (1991-1996) ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Fourth generation (1994-1998) ... ... ...
Fifth generation (1996-2001) ... ... ...

Can you think of an easy way to represent both in ONE article, without causing confusion? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Honda Odyssey article incorporates different vehicles simultaneously using the same name. All we'd need is a section following the JDM Camry generations called "1991-1996 Toyota Camry (International)", same as the other generations, so it's easily locatable from the main Camry article. As it is, the Toyota Scepter is mentioned in only a small link on the main article, and it's very easy to miss. IFCAR (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Honda Odyssey is poorly set out in my opinion. A better solution would be to have a common Odyssey article with just the 1st generation, then sub Odyssey articles (international, North America). Getting back on track... how about a compromise: we keep the Scepter article as is for now (it's too long to merge back) and split the Camry article's third generation section into Japan and international? The international will only be brief (two or three paragraphs), and retain the "Main article: Toyota Scepter" tag. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that's what I had been suggesting, but I guess I wasn't very clear.

Of course, the Scepter article will need to be re-named if the WP:Name suggestion goes through as currently proposed. IFCAR (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, but I"ve decided to leave out the infobox, because when the article is split, these will be removed anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The model I was hoping to see this article follow, the Subaru Legacy, does include infoboxes for each generation on the main page. It's just the more extensive details of what the car and what it is like in all of its various markets that could be split off. I really wouldn't want to see a repeat of Toyota Corolla where there's nothing left on the main page. IFCAR (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are the infoboxes on the Subaru Legacy page (except for the lead)? By the time you've finished pruning the boxes back, what is left? Name, image, aka and production. I don't want a repeat of the Corolla page either; two or three paragraphs per section, a couple of images (galleries may be needed again) and a Main article: Toyota Corolla XV... link at the top would work well. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was misremembering infoboxes. Hm.

However, there is precedent for boxes in articles on various cars from the BMW and Mercedes lines. An infobox plus three paragraphs on the main article plus all the other information on Camry in different countries and so forth in the generation article. IFCAR (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. I will get around to splitting the Camry article eventually (I have tagged it though). So long as the infoboxes remain very basic, and they do not overflow into other sections, I have no issue with retaining them. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mazdaspeed Axela

I think this should use the "Mazdaspeed 3" name- the name "Axela" is not used in English-speaking countries. See a similar discussion at Talk:Mazda_Axela#Requested_move. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than making bold changes, I think we should wait for the final decision at WP:CARS. I agree, Mazdas should be titled, 3, 6, 626, etc; but by moving them at the moment I think you are inviting other users to propose moves that should otherwise not be done (i.e. Daewoo Kalos ---> Chevrolet Aveo). So please, let's wait for the official word. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, why not use "Mazda 3", the "make, space, model" format is used by all others automobiles? Yes, I know Mazda markets their cars that way, but still. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose either Mazda 3 MPS or Mazda Mazdaspeed3 would be suitable names too. I don't care at all about WP:CARS - I care more about the project-wide practice of using the most common name for things. Friday (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME

Dear OSX,

Since I believe little attention is being paid to the fait accompli tactics being used in the frontal assault at our dusty little naming convention, we absolutely need to formalize it. OTOH, I believe I might be alone among the disputants in seeing the systematic bias in those discussions, and I am very said to be in this position. To cut a long story short - I am considering suspending my participation in Wikipedia, but it would be totally wrong if the issue of naming convention would just fall through. I believe you are capable of forging a consensus, and have proved to be a very committed, professional editor and a dedicated community member of both Wikipedia in general and the WikiProject. Could I thus ask you to try and gather our capricious brethern around this idea to get this formalized? Thank you in advance - I hope you will continue to have a lot of fun with Wikipedia! PrinceGloria (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I felt the same way some time ago, but just either take a break or edit articles that do not have controversial names (am I right that your considerations are a result of the discussions at Mazda 3 and Mazda 6?).

But do not feel alone; I feel that nothing is going to happen either. I believe our WikiProject is only taken seriously by a few users, the rest do not have any real participation in discussions surrounding policies/issues. This is not the case in other WikiProject factions. PrinceGloria, the only way I feel we will get anywhere is if we write down the proposal the way we want it to be officially (and by that I mean properly written). Here is mine:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (automobiles): For article titles, use the original market name (automobile's country of origin), except where the original, non-English speaking market is isolated in using that name. For example, the Mazda Axela (like most Mazda automobiles) is known as the "Mazda Axela" only in Japan, the automobile's country of origin. All other international markets use the "Mazda 3" name. Therefore, the naming conventions favors the Mazda 3 article title. Lexus vehicles follow a similar convention, until Lexus's 2006 introduction in Japan, Lexus vehicles were branded as Toyota, despite the utilization of the Lexus name in all international markets. If the automobile is known under a number of international names, then original market name takes precedence. For example, the Daewoo Lacetti in South Korea is known elsewhere as the Buick Excelle, Chevrolet Lacetti, Chevrolet Nubira, Chevrolet Optra, Chevrolet SRV, Holden Viva, Suzuki Forenza and Suzuki Reno. To avoid systematic bias in choosing the "most common name", the original "Daewoo Lacetti" name shall be used.

PrinceGloria, please make any changes that you feel are necessary to my above proposal, and then we shall submit this to WP:CARS for approval. If successful, I will take this to WP:Naming conventions. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming in from the sideline here, I'd like to say I have given the matter a great deal of thought over the last couple years, and I have come to agree in large part with PrinceGloria. The text ↑proposed↑ by OSX resolves just about all issues I have with project naming coventions, and I would strongly support its formal adoption. I would copyedit it for flow and readability, thus:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (automobiles): Each article shall be titled with the subject vehicle name in its original home market, except when the name is unique to a non-English-speaking home market. For example, the Mazda Axela is known as such only in its original home market of Japan. In all other markets, the car is called the Mazda 3. Therefore, the article would best be titled Mazda 3. Similarly, vehicles badged Lexus worldwide were branded as Toyota in Japan until 2006. Under this naming convention, the preferred article titles would be Lexus. If the automobile is known under different names in various markets, the original market name takes precedence. For example, the Daewoo Lacetti in South Korea is known elsewhere as the Buick Excelle, the Chevrolet Lacetti, the Chevrolet Nubira, the Chevrolet Optra, the Chevrolet SRV, the Holden Viva, the Pontiac Wave, the Suzuki Forenza, and the Suzuki Reno. To avoid systematic bias in choosing the most common name, under this naming convention the original Daewoo Lacetti name shall be selected for the article title.

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that Scheinwerfermann. That sounds much better; it usually takes me a couple of copyedits to get the wording right, but you've done that for me. Cheers. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear OSX and Scheinwerfermann,

Thank you for taking interest and constructive action. My personal feelings and opinions aside, here's a proposition of the structure that would make it easier to apply for somebody not really interested in the current debacle and the history of the issue:

In case of automobiles marketed under various brand and/or model names, the article should be titled with the nameplate used in the automobile's original market. Exceptions to the rule is made when:

1. There is a common name used in all markets but the original market AND
2. The original market is a country where English is not an official language

Then, the name of the article should be the one used in all markets but the original one.

Clear and concise, isn't it? I would refrain from referring to any examples or reasons - we'd leave that for the discussion on the convention.

Having said which, we need to precisely define what constitutes the "original market":

The automobile's original market is the market the automobile was originally designed for. Unless a source can be found with a statement from the manufacturer directly identifying the market, it is assumed the original market is the market where the vehicle was made available for purchase first. In case this cannot be determined, the country where the manufacturer's headquarters are located is assumed to be the original market.

Off the top of my head, this definition and the above rule should cover for all cases.

As a sidenote, the reason our project is not taken seriously is exactly because we have never got down to submitting this to WP:NAME, and a lot of parallel conventions to appropriate WikiPlaces, and also that such discussions are taking place in your backyard talk page, OSX. The participation in the WikiProject is spotty (yes, I am among those who have little right to throw stones here), and we're hardly constructive and coordinated in our efforts. In order to be taken seriously, we need to change that, and I hope this is the first step. As in - the first, but not the only.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. Please note we need to deal with the issue on what to include in one article and what "merits" a separate one in another convention (i.e. the never-getting-old Mercury Sable vs. Ford Taurus or Toyota Voltz vs. Pontiac Vibe stuff). I am not sure what is the "mother" convention/guideline/policy for that (corresponding to WP:NAME in case of article titles).

Sounds good. PrinceGloria, Scheinwerfermann, to speed this up I have submitted PrinceGloria's proposal to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello OSX, it has been a long time since drinks hasnt it? I'm interested in editing again after my extended period of absence (due to study and also social commitments) but I am not sure where I can focus my attention. Is there anywhere in particular that you need help with? HarrisonB - Talk 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, great to see you back. I am currently working (back and forth) on the Holden Commodore article (want to get FA on this one) and List of Holden vehicles by series. I do have a list of my own here, so I guess if any of those articles interest you they are a high priority. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Car indents

I've uploaded a few photos needing idents on Flickr. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Optima/Lotze

From what the Kia Lotze article seems to state, it does not appear that that name is used anywhere but the South Korean market, which is not English-speaking. Per all of the proposals for a new convention, the information would be in one article entitled either Kia Optima or Kia Magentis. Your changes are not only far more confusing but seem to be contrary to the burgeoning consensus.

Thoughts? IFCAR (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought original market name would apply here. Why? Because how are we going to decide between Optima (U.S. and Canada) and Magentis (Europe and Australasia)? Basically unless there is a very clear "common name" then wouldn't original market name apply? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada uses Magentis, not Optima. The US may be the only Optima-user, which makes Magentis a perfectly suitable common name for both generations. Especially in a case where it would split a car marketed continually under the same name -- whichever name that may be -- in all or most markets but Korea. IFCAR (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case the Optima name would be best suited, because it was used in Korea initially (first generation). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference between the two names; I'd just like to see it all kept in one article for better clarity. IFCAR (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat irregular for a multi-generation vehicle not to have a top infobox. Is there a reason you removed it in your revisions to Kia Optima? IFCAR (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty peeved about User:Lovemykia's response ("If I do get blocked, I have other people lined up to do this. I believe that this is to policy.") so I did a pretty crappy job of fixing the article up. I've since fixed this up and overhauled most of the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that comment was quite an "argh" moment. I just wanted to check that you didn't have a reason for omitting the box before making the change myself. IFCAR (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Your request to delete Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Automobiles doesn't really seem to come within any of the speedy deletion criteria. The page was marked as inactive, and I see no harm in keeping it for historical purposes. Is there a consensus among members of the WikiProject to delete it? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The page has been "historical" for a long while now, and it serves absolutely no purpose, it is simply an old list of articles needing attention, yet these article have been mostly fixed up. Considering the shape it was in, the didn't think anybody would care if was deleted. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chrysler 180#Good article reassessment

I admit I went "a bit" emotional when I saw you do that. Is there any good reason you suddenly embarked on this WikiProject self-policing quest against the poor Chrysler 180, with articles like Chevrolet Cobalt SS, whose sole existence is questionable itself, and the contents and (lack of) adherence to WIAGA or any other norms or standards downright revolting, infesting our preciously small GA list? If you want to be Brutus and give me the last stab, please wait until I'm done with Lancia Flaminia...

Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I see you didn't actually delist it (as a matter of fact, the act of "delisting" is rather literal, you have to remove it from the Good Article list. Actually, neither did you provide a proper Good Article Review - see the one @ Talk:Lancia Flaminia as an example. So I took the liberty of perceiving it as a good-faithed mistake and undid it.

To explain why it changes the emotional gravity of this to me, let me say that it saves us (me?) a lot of effort of going through the GA process with this article. If I manage to brush up Lancia Flaminia (which is in a much worse condition than the Chrysler) and get it through GAR, I guess it will serve as a muster case for other automotive GAs and thus passing the GAR on Chrysler should not be too much of a chore.

I am absolutely open to discussing your spontaneous action on this article - given that you did not provide the usual full GAR, I assume you are not an active GA-sweeper, so if there is some good motivation that urged you to perform that, I will gladly get to know it and perhaps help you should there be need to take some action.

You might want to undo your change to our local WikiProject GA list, which is only a reflection of the GA and FA lists and has no constitutive qualities.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I was not up to date with the good article reassessment process. I am (or was) still under the presumption from 2007 that "if you find an article listed as a good article that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it". The fact that no one had made any significant changes in that two year period, I didn't think a review would motivate anybody to fix up the article. If you plan on doing so that is really good, but there is a lot of work to be done.

By the way, do you have any sources on the Talbot Tagora that can be used to fix the last remaining issues on the FA reassessment there? I have fixed up what I can do, but I have nothing on this car. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear OSX,

1. Thank you

2. I don't think this particular of WIAGA changed significantly over the last two years. If it was a good article then, it still is now IMHO, the lack of changes would actually be a merit here (the only significant one was the addition of an unsourced paragraph, duly removed). We might discuss it though, I haven't been that active in WikiProject Good Articles for the last two years either.

3. Reviews have proven to motivate people to fix up those articles that are "attended", that's why they're done at all! It is a good way to quickly promote brushing-up of the articles that passed when the standards were different/lower, and to help editors pinpoint what actually they need to fix. Given that this article is for the most part "attended" by myself, I can assure you a review can promote action on my side (see abovementioned examples)

4. I am afraid I used all the (sensible) sources I could find writing the Tagora article :( There are apparently some obscure print sources (self-published manuscripts, plus the obvious vintage un-obtainable car mags). I doubt it we'd find any more info than there is in the article, I actually think some of the info there is quite verging on unencyclopedicity, but I put it there in a fit of enthusiasm for finding ANYTHING on the obscure car.

5. I don't think the Tagora actually fails the FA criteria. If the reviewer insists on failing the article, I'd get involved (I didn't because I didn't see the need, your reaction was swift and by far completely satusfying the reviewer's concerns IMHO). The article did pass a valid FA assessment, and the FA criteria or the article haven't changed since then in the way that would merit changing the verdict IMHO. It is now actually further improved by your and Typ932's edits.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So I am guessing you are the same person as the long retired User:Bravada? I have kind of suspected that for a while now. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Paseo reply

The problem with the angle I had on the light blue Paseo image is that it seems to be looking down on the car, distorting it. (Perhaps because the photographer was up on a curb.) And to me -- a personal preference, mind you, not any sort of WP guideline -- aesthetic issues are most significant in the top image, which is illustrating the entire model line as much as or more than any particular model of the car.

I don't love the other blue one either, but I do prefer it to the first, so I guess we can go with that in the interest of compromise. But we'll all be looking for other Paseos to photograph in the future, I'm sure. IFCAR (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Corolla chassis codes

Just to let you know that in AE90, the A stands for the A engine family, whereas the EE90 has an E series engine. Stepho-wrs (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Some time ago I actually thought that the "A" stood for Australia! OSX (talk • contributions) 06:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Here's a more detailed breakdown of the codes. [6]

This reminds me of the EA Falcon. E stood for mid-size and A stood for Australia. So of course the successor should never have been called the EB but it inevitability was :) Stepho-wrs (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Car terminology

I do not want an edit war with you, but you need to understand the difference between a disambiguation page and an article. A disambiguation page does not normally have citations, it refers to pages that are article which have citations. I moved material to appropriate pages, and provided some missing citations there. What you put at Car terminology is not an article, but is a mish-mash of several list-type materials. Please look at the articles which I placed on the disambiguation page, and see if the material that you are looking for is there. If there is something that is not covered, please let us work together to find the place, and a most likely looked for place, for that information. --Bejnar (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at American and British English differences#Transport/Transportation, it may be the place that you are looking for. --Bejnar (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very much aware of what a disambiguation page is. My point being was that the information at "Car terminology" seems to be incorrect (and therefore I have a good reason to want sources). Definition of "terminology": "the body of terms used with a particular technical application in a subject of study, theory, profession, etc."

"Car terminology may refer to":

• "Automotive design": boderline; I can sort of see why this has been put on the page, but it really does brush on being original research and/or incorrect usage.

For example, tailfin, ponton and cab forward. I don't see how forwarding to an article can be called original research. --Bejnar (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Automobile parts see List of auto parts and List of vehicle instruments": completely logical, "car terminology" should redirect to the former.
• "Car designation, see Vehicle registration plate": completely wrong. Nobody says, "My car terminology [registration plate] combination is 'ABC-123'."
• "Car models": again, this vaguely fits in with "car terminology". Car models are the vehicles' code name, such as the "W204" series Mercedes-Benz C-Class, or the trim/specification level, such as the "Honda Civic GL" or "Saab 9-5 Aero".
• "Lexical differences in American and British English regarding transportation, see Transport/Transportation in American and British English differences": this fits, but seems redundant to List of auto parts, which also discusses the lexical differences in American and British English regarding transportation.

OSX (talk • contributions) 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Daewoo Royale

Hi, the Daewoo Royale in the 1980s was the Opel Rekord with the rear end of the Opel Senator, not the front. See this TV ad I thought that the Royale was like the Commodore (with a Senator front end as well, but if you look at the car in [this ad], you'll see that it's the other way round.

On the other hand, there was an Opel Commodore in South Africa, with the 1982 Senator front end - the Rekord surived in South Africa until 1990. Quiensabe (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Senator A (facelift) ---------------- 2. Rekord E -------------- 3. Rekord E (facelift)

1. Senator A (facelift): the front-end design of the pre-facelift Senator was used by the Holden VB Commodore.

2. Rekord E: the rear-end design of the pre-facelift Rekord was grafted to the front-end (bonnet forward) of the Senator and used as the basis of the Holden VB Commodore. This same hybrid design was also utilised as the Opel Commodore C (and Vauxhall Carlton/Viceroy) and the Daewoo Royale.

3. Rekord E (facelift): as far as I am aware, Holden did not utilise this facelift design on any Commodore. However, facelift versions of the Daewoo Royale seem to use this design (this is the design the two example ads you provided above utilise).

Now, Daewoo did seem use the "actual" Senator in some for or another as the Daewoo Imperial (see this ad). Rather than having such a large "sixth window" behind the rear door, the window seems to have been partially covered up by the vinyl roof fitted. Because I have no written sources about the Imperial, the "sixth window" design used may have otherwise been derived from the Holden VK/VL Commodore version (this was different to the Opel version, it was Holden's own design). Now considering Holden (as far as I am aware) stamped the body panels for the Daewoo Royale at least in the early 1980s, I would not be surprised if Daewoo had purchased the old VB/VC/VH/VK/VL body stampings from Holden and used it as the basis for their Imperial model which remained in production until about 1991 (Opel ended Senator A production in 1987, Holden ended VL Commodore production in 1988). If not, I don't know where else they would have sourced the Opel bodies from, because besides South Africa, all production had ended by 1988. For the record (no pun intended), I am led to believe Daewoo Imperial production began in 1989.

Regarding the South African Opel Commodore C, that car was introduced in Europe in 1977. The Opel Commodore is basically the same as the Holden VB Commodore: that is, it was the Rekord E bodyshell with the front grafted on from the Opel Senator A. Holden designed this car, and Opel subsequently adopted it (although it was made in Europe) as an "in-between" car to (cheaply) fill the gap between the Rekord and Senator. According to the Opel Commodore article, the German version ended production in 1982, the same year the South African version began production. This suggests that General Motors South Africa purchased the old tooling from Opel, and used it to produce the Commodore themselves until 1990.

So in summary, the Daewoo Royale was like the VB Commodore, a Rekord-Senator hybrid. The Daewoo Imperial was either a lightly revised Senator OR a Rekord-Senator hybrid with the Holden-designed six-window glasshouse. I hope this answers your concerns. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 01:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, sorry. When I said 'rear end', I meant the just the boot lid and the rear lights. Yes, the Daewoo Royale was a Rekord/Senator hybrid, but different from the Holden/Opel/Chevrolet Commodore and Vauxhall Viceroy. That was my point. After 1987, you are correct, it was like the VK/VL Holden Commodore, with the the Holden-designed six-window glasshouse.

True, the Daewoo Royale Salon featured here does indeed look like the VB/VC Commodore, at least from the front and side.

However, if you look at the pictures of the Daewoo Royale here, there are quite a few hybrids - there's one with a Rekord E1 body and a Rekord E2 front end, called the Royale Prince. This model looks almost identical to the Rekord E2 - but the rear end is that of the Senator. This model is yet another hybrid, with the Rekord E1 body, and the Senator rear end. (It looks a bit like a Holden with those hubcaps).

As regards South Africa, the Opel Commodore sold in the mid 1980s was a design unique to South Africa, with the Rekord E2 body and Senator A2 front end - what the Opel Commodore/Vauxhall Viceroy would have looked like had it continued in Europe. The Senator A2 was not sold in South Africa, the Senator A1 remained in production until 1984 (possibly along with the Commodore C). Perhaps it was then that the unique The Opel Rekord E2 was kept in production by Delta (created after GM divested in 1986) until about 1990. There can't have been that many of them - I don't recall seeing any in SA, older Chevrolet-badged ones were more common.

Phew!

Quiensabe (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that, I see what you mean about the rear lights. I found this one too: a Daewoo Royale Diesel ([7]). However, it seems to be a complete rebadge of the Rekord (not a Rekord/Senator hybrid). This is all very confusing.

Also you stated that the Daewoo had the Holden-designed six-window glasshouse after 1987. How do you know that it's the Holden design as opposed to Opel's. I can't tell them apart my self. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned in your earlier message that it was a Rekord-Senator hybrid with the Holden-designed six-window glasshouse - admitedly I wouldn't know the difference between the Holden and Opel one either. I remember reading in Wheels magazine in 1989 that Holden were involved with design of the Daewoo Prince. To confuse matters further, here's a picture of a Daewoo Royale taken in Jordan - and the rear looks just like the Rekord E2. This Prince looks just like an A1 Senator - see front as well. Daewoo certainly made a lot of different models out of just one (or two)! Quiensabe (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"You mentioned in your earlier message that it was a Rekord-Senator hybrid with the Holden-designed six-window glasshouse": I said it was either the Holden-designed setup OR the Opel Senator version. Anyway, I found the source: Robertson, David (1984). "A new contender". Modern Motor. Sydney, New South Wales: Australian Consolidated Press. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Quoted below is everything the article mentions about Daewoo:

• Page 31: "...a car called the Royal [sic] made by Daiwoo [sic] using Holden Commodore body panels shipped from Melbourne and Opel 1.9- and 2.0-litre four-cylinder engines..."

• Page 32: "Meanwhile, the biggest automotive link between Australia and Korea is that between Daiwoo [sic] and GM-H. In the 1970s it was Daiwoo [sic] that provided the Opel-designed 1.9-litre four cylinder engine that powered the Holden Sunbird. Currently, Commodore panels, pressed by GM-H, are used in the Daiwoo [sic] Royale. But that contract won't be repeated. While I was there they were installing a new line of presses that will, by November, be pressing the panels."

• Page 32: Caption: "Daiwoo's [sic] 50 percent tie-up with GM is evident in the styling of its Royale Prince, left."

Based on this article, I would say it was more likely that Daewoo used the Senator's six-window design, but it cannot confirm it. Also, according to Carfolio, the Royale used recirculating ball steering (like the Rekord and Senator), as opposed to the rack and pinion type used by Holden.

Regarding the Wheels magazine article from 1989, do you still have it? If so, could you please scan it and upload it or quote directly from it if it is only short? Also, when you state "Daewoo Prince", are your referring to the "Daewoo Royale Prince" or the "Daewoo Prince"? OSX (talk • contributions) 04:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm back

Glad to hear you're back. You're one of the more reliable editors.  Stepho  (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

777 FA review

Greetings OSX, and welcome back! As the reviewer who helped with the Boeing 777's GA evaluation, you might be interested to know that the article is undergoing FA review. It's the first time I've nominated at the FA level, and as you are a veteran of the process, I'd appreciate any advice for future success in that area. If you're not too busy, any contribution, however small, would be appreciated. I've been asking for more reviewers because there haven't been as many comments on the FAC page as in prior noms. Thanks in advance, SynergyStar (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi SynergyStar, I'll take a look at the article over the next couple of weeks for you (just like I did with Lexus LS article). Please be aware that FA is not my forte (GA is). While I have been partially responsible for two FAs thus far, the last one (Holden) was made FA about 18 months ago and the standards are constantly rising. Also, airliners such as the Boeing 777 do not resonate particularly well with my automotive interest. Nonetheless, I'll do my best to give you a thorough review based on what I do know. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks OSX for the reply. Naturally one does best when dealing with topics of primary interest...I've just been looking for more FAC commenters, given that it's been nearly a month since nomination and some of the reviewers haven't returned to the FAC page; however some have since I left the earlier message. Indeed, the FA standards keep rising, as I have been learning. The FAC review may be closed soon, so a later review is probably not needed. I completely understand that you are busy and the article is outside the automotive focus. Thanks for your help earlier with the GA review on that article. SynergyStar (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as I was starting to go through the article, I refreshed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777/archive3 and I noticed that FAC has ended: the article is now FA. Nonetheless, I will still give you a comprehensive review over the next few days. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. The article is excellent, I can not find much to complain about, so I'm scratching:

• Citations: rather than "Norris and Wagner 1999", I would use "Norris; Wagner (1999)". Whether this is a MoS guideline or not is another matter, but it seems to be the prevalent style.
• Citations: link citations such as "Norris; Wagner (1999)" to the bibliography below. That is, replaced Norris; Wagner (1999) with [[#Norris; Wagner (1999)|Norris; Wagner (1999)]]. For an example, see Holden Commodore#References.
• Citations and bibliography: I know you had reservations about doing so on the FAC page, but not using {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}, et cetera can lead to stylistic errors and/or inconsistencies. It also looks more professional if all Wikipedia articles stick to one style. If you can be bothered, it would be good so see that done.
• See also my (modest) changes here. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks OSX for the helpful suggestions and comments! I agree, it would be an improvement to link the authors, and I've done that using {{cite book}}, etc. templates. I'd like to add back the {{cite web}} templates, which I had used before, but someone converted them a while back...wish it were easier to restore without having to do all of them manually. Perhaps in the future. Thanks for your help! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention

Replied in my talk pages. Thanks, PrinceGloria (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason why I insist on that, the convention needs to be clear and unambigious, not just move the discussion to another, more abstract level. See my talk page, PrinceGloria (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I always reply where the discussion starts. I cannot stand the back-and-forwards reply structure many editors use, especially when following back on older discussion threads with archives involved, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I replied in my talk again :) - Cheerio, PrinceGloria (talk)

GM Daewoo update

Hello! As you maybe already saw, I updated the GM Daewoo page, and would like to have your help for some points, as I am not at all a "Wikipedian" or whatever you can call Wiki passionate people lol. I am a passionnate of Daewoo and wanted for a long time to update this page.

Would you be able to change the logo 'DAEWOO' which is the former EUR spec one, to a GM DAEWOO or hangul one? I'm sure it's quite simple but I did not succeed myself! Thanks in advance, hope we can talk one day! - Daewooarca (who does not know how to sign a message too :p) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daewooarca (talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Daewooarca (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daewooarca, if you could give me a link to do so I would be able too, as I am unaware of this newer logo type. Cheers. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello! For the GM Daewoo logo, I can suggest you this one > http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/09/28/479167.1-lg.jpg or http://www.seeklogo.com/images/G/GM_Daewoo-logo-744A79F299-seeklogo.com.gif

The better would be this one with the new slogan : http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gsj68JgObbtQ/439x.jpg ...

Will update you soon, thanks for your precious help, keep the good work! :) Daewooarca (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, please see GM Daewoo. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Just one more thing I wanted to check with you > the exact name of Daewoo Group's Automotive division was Daewoo Motor and never Daewoo Motors. Check the logotype : [[8]] and also the blue, red and white spare part box [[9]] (sorry for the quality, have some boxes at home but no photos lol) which mentions "Daewoo Motor" and to finish, on the DMS website, the 5th and 11th elements of the CI infomations : [[10]] (all of these would be very interesting to add on the corrsponding pages on Wikipedia by the way).

Another thing is that GM Daewoo is considered as a marque, contrary to the "GM Holden", as you can see on all TV advertisements of GM Daewoo, today in Korea, you don't say anymore a "Daewoo Lacetti Premiere" or "Daewoo Veritas" or "Daewoo Gentra" - but "GM Daewoo Lacetti Premiere" as an example. The name of GM Daewoo is translated as 지엠대우 or GM 대우 (as one single expression) and no more 대우자동차 (Daewoo Motor).Daewooarca (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daewooarca, I'll take your word for it then. I think titles should be "Daewoo Lacetti Premiere" and not "GM Daewoo Lacetti Premiere" because Daewoo is still the most common name. I've use this example before elsewhere, but it the same reason why the "Ford Taurus" is titled as so and not as "Ford Motor Company Taurus". OSX (talk • contributions) 04:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert of MOSDASH at Holden

Hi there - you reverted my punct revisions at Holden, and I wasn't sure why. They were intended to make the article consistent with the Manual of style. Any particular reason? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted based on a couple of reasons:

• References: the "MoS dashes" changed the headings of webpage titles, which are to be quoted no matter how bad a MoS violation.

• Holden 48-215: the other changes affected the Holden 48-215. The car should written as "Holden 48-215" not "Holden 48–215". OSX (talk • contributions) 13:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Holden Commodore SV6 ute.

Hi OSX, Just needing an ident make year (MY09.x) for a white ute that I've uploaded onto Flickr. Bidgee (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it's a "2007-2009 Holden VE Ute SV6". There is no way (from the exterior) to tell the difference between 2007, 2008 and (pre-SIDI) 2009 SV6 Utes. The new August 2009 onwards SIDI models have the green EcoLine "SIDI Direct Injection 3.6" badges. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a 2009 as all the other utes the WWCC has have the old WWCC sticker and are not washed very often (Not a reliable way of identing I guess) but you do have a valid reason though! I've just uploaded a photo of a NSWPF Holden Commodore SS AFM. Bidgee (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The license plate of the SV6 Ute is of the (ugly) yellow NSW style. If the plate used a combination such as BC-00-AA or BD-00-AA then it would almost certainly be a 2009 model (BB-00-AA probably as well). I know it's a personal choice, but why do you blank the plates out anyway–it's completely legal to leave as is as you stated on my Commons talk page? And you also leave them un-blanked on police cars etc, despite the fact that once they reach three years old the government sells them to the private market–with the original plates unchanged.

AFM Commodores were only introduced earlier in the year, so the AFM SS definitely a 2009 model (not sure if it's MY09.5 or MY10 though). OSX (talk • contributions) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks, I've been working on the Chevrolet Corvette and Chevrolet Corvette C3. Will hit the other five soon. They all need work. Happy Holidays! (Vegavairbob (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Holden Colorado/Rodeo

I am going to do a separate detailed page with the holden rodeo and Colorado because I feel that the Isuzu D-Max Page doesn't have specific info on the rodeo it is just a summery and if i were to add more information there just wouldn't be enough space and even though the rodeo is based on the D-Max it should have its own page detailing more info on older models including photos (example: Opel Astra and Holden Astra) and what i had done did not fall under wikipedias police as it was not low in quality or say the same thing my page included more in detail and was a work in progress.In future I would prefer you write me a message before deleting so i know where i've gone wrong or listing thing i could do to make it better thanks. And a note on one of the messages above the AFM (Active Fuel Management) is on MY09.5 V8 engines only. aaaaplay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaaplay (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Holden Rodeo/Colorado: there is plenty of space left to add more information about these Holdens—the article is not really that long. If the amount of information you added became overwhelming, then certainly a separate article could be considered, but until then, policy would suggest that the articles remain merged. Imagine if other editors made separate articles on the Chevrolet D-Max and Isuzu KB as well? It would become very difficult to navigate. Separate articles are generally not required for purely badge engineered cars. Without adding information that should be on the Isuzu D-Max already (such as design and development) the only information I could see you adding is that the Holdens had a unique grille insert and badging and also that the Holden came in different trim levels. Total length, about two paragraphs. Your analogy to the Holden Astra is a slightly different case as the Astra is not only based on two different cars—the Nissan Pulsar and Opel Astra—but there seems to be a sufficient amount of information and differences to warrant a separate article. Again, if the Holden section on the D-Max page became too long, then it may well get its own article.

AFM V8 engines: Holden introduced the AFM V8s for the MY09.5 update and they continued (unchanged) into the MY10 update. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch edits plz

I dunno what happened here, but it rather mucked up the article. Q ^{T C} 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for pointing that out for me. You're right, I also have no idea how that happened. I am guessing something got corrupted on the way to the sever or something because I definitely would not make strange edits like that. To be honest, I am surprised it lasted six weeks without being reverted. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 06:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Land Cruiser

A pom is requesting some help at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#A challenge. Bidgee (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee, I've added a little, but right now I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to Wikipedia (see addition: [11]). OSX (talk • contributions) 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cruze reply

My feeling in any case like this is that anything covered in an infobox generally belongs that infobox, and that if one of those cars is so different that it doesn't represent the line well that it should be in a different article. I'm particularly disinclined to favor Chevrolets in this case because there aren't any decent photos of them yet. (The fact that multiple versions without the Chevrolet grille are covered in the article means that one of them isn't especially obscure.)

Obviously this is just my interpretation of image guidelines, but quality is typically going to come first for me. (And I'm also typically happy to see vehicles with different names, styling, countries of sale, and marketing appear in their own articles -- solving this in another way -- but that's another question.) IFCAR (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ford Falcon GT Interceptor

Was there actually such a car or was it just a nickname for privately modified cars? Perhaps it should be AfD'ed as there is no referenced material that could even really be merged into Ford Falcon GT. --Falcadore (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not actually sure my self. I don't know a a great deal about pre-XD series Fords. RedBook.com.au has no mention of it, and a cursory glance in: Easdown, Geoff (1987). A History of the Ford Motor Company in Australia. Golden Press. ISBN 0730201120. also has no mention of the GT Interceptor.

I have left as message at Greglocock' talk page, but either way, there is no reason for a separate article. If it turns out to be a little-known, but official model, then keep the contents and merge it elsewhere. If the GT Interceptor is merely a nickname for privately modified cars as you suggested, then delete it without question. Cheers. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only got one FoA history book and it doesn't mention Interceptor in the Index, or anywhere that I could see at a glance. I thought that was just a name for the original Mad Max car? Greglocock (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope I'm not interrupting a private conversation but I was under the impression that police interceptors were not an actual model in their own right but were just the base V8 with an option code to allow the addition/deletion of certain components (sort of like RPO83). I suspect the interceptor name was used by the police themselves to differentiate them from the Falcon paddy wagons.  Stepho  (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

All sounds like good reasons to raise an AfD. If there is some evidentiary explanation, maybe the AfD process might bring it up. --Falcadore (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been PRODed. --Falcadore (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My goodness it's become a hideous mess. --Falcadore (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected the page to Ford Falcon GT, but I don't believe that this page should have an article of it's own either. Ditto for the Australian Futura, Fairmont and LTD (should be merged with Fairlane).

There should be a summarised Ford Falcon (Australia) page along with dedicated sub-pages separated by model: XD, XE, XF, EA… etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

GM Holden

The Holden article is being repeatedly edited to include "US-owned" in the description. The Opel article states that Opel is a German automaker and the Vauxhall article states that Vauxhall is a British automaker. Why is Holden being singled out here? The Holden article states elsewhere that the parent company in GM. Any reader can go to the GM article to find which country owns it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPStech (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied to at Talk:Holden#GM Holden. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks so much for the thorough and in-depth review! Had one question... Airplaneman ✈ 00:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award OSX this well-deserved barnstar for his extremely meticulous and thoughtful review of and contributions to MacBook Pro, which helped it immensely in its journey to Good Article status. You also taught me a great deal about article writing and reviewing in general, which I will be sure to apply to my future content work. Thank you, and keep it up! Airplaneman ✈ 00:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Macintosh Featured Article Review

Hello OSX; thanks for offering to review MacBook Air when I nominate it for GA. Right now, I have begun to focus on Macintosh, which is at FAR. If you'd like, please comment at the review and/or help fix up the article. Currently, there aren't many contributors, and your opinion would be helpful. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 21:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, MacBook has been nominated for peer review here, so I'm holding off on improving MacBook Air to help with this. If you have a minute, any comments would be appreciated :). Airplaneman ✈ 22:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it is going to take me a while to do a thorough review. I am going to leave it for now; I will give one in a couple of weeks when I have time to give the proper review that the article deserves. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry if it seems I'm bugging you (just tell me and I'll stop) but someone else has nominated MacBook Air for peer review here, targeting GAN later this year... Airplaneman ✈ 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that I need to have the time available to review them properly. I'll get around to them both in the next few weeks. Whether or not the "official" peer reviews are still open or not is irrelevant, as the suggestions will be the same. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo cropping and angles

Hey,

I was noticing that a lot of your recent photos are leaving a lot of extra space on either side of the car, which squeezes the car portion of the photo very tiny into a thumbnail. I'd recommend coming in tighter.

Also, I think you're not showing the front of the car enough in your angles -- the view obviously shouldn't be front-only, but you want to be able to have a good look at the front fascia. IFCAR (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I had a quick look at my recent images and compared them to some of your recent work. I agree with you on both points and will work on the angles and crop.

The poor angle criticism is due to me taking the photograph from 10–20 metres (30–60 feet) away and using the zoom lens, so I will have to work on perfecting that one. I've really only started doing it recently because taking the photograph too close to the subject, meant I was ending up with poorly proportioned images such as this. I noticed that you photograph many of your images this way, but a camera with a good image stabiliser is necessary to get sharp results (as evident in your earlier 2006/2007 work).

As for the crop, that is probably a result me trying not to end up with photographs like those taken by Bull-Doser, who arguably crops his images too tightly among other shortcomings (see this one for example). OSX (talk • contributions) 03:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've only noticed major proportion errors if I'm right up against a car, so close it barely fits in the viewfinder (which I'd do only if there's nowhere else to stand). Sometimes standing far away creates its own problems -- as you've found, it's hard to get a good front-angle that way. (I've certainly done from-a-distance photos, but usually not intentionally; cars are just sometimes on the other side of a busy street, for example. For best results, there's definitely a happy medium between extreme close-up and extreme distance, and both should be reserved for times where there's no convenient alternative. (And on a side-note, I don't think that Corolla image is "poor")

It's also interesting that you mention past history, because I also had a stage in which I uploaded photos cropped like your recent ones. (Compare the two version of this photo.) IFCAR (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Below I have created a gallery of essentially identical cars, taken at varying distances. If you can get the front-side view balance of the car right, then I feel that the long-distance style shooting yields the best results: you get good proportion, and you eliminate the distortion that the lens creates closer to the subject (the white Corolla below is almost there, taken 8–10 metres or so away).

What I also like about from-a-distance photos is that it is less obvious that you are taking a photograph of the car. I personally feel a bit uncomfortable if there are people around when taking close-up photos, as I have had some strange looks from people. Does this aspect of photography bother you at all?

My biggest problem with though is eliminating distracting shadows. It’s possibly not such a big issue for you in Maryland, but because it is sunny much of the time here in Sydney, you get the accompanying shadows. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Close-distance
• 
  Medium-distance
• 
  Long-distance

There certainly is the "privacy" advantage to distance shots, but it doesn't typically produce the ideal photo; the car often looks odd as you go toward the front and doesn't show enough front if you don't. "Medium" distance shouldn't cause any significant distortion.

Also, we do have sun in the mid-Atlantic U.S. -- just not exclusively. (I usually just don't photograph on sunny days unless I happen upon something that needs a photo.) IFCAR (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

80 mm

Sorry if interpreted my above statement the wrong way. What I was trying to articulate was the fact that the sun is more of a problem here in Sydney than in Maryland.

Back on topic... with my latest batch of uploads, I have worked on the angle and crop. The angles for some are still far too skewed to the side-view angle due to other restraints (such as the positing of cars on the opposite side of the road, et cetera). However, I think that you would notice an improvement with some of the others. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest to take pictures with a focal length (in 35 mm film) between 60 and 85 mm. Using this focal length you will produce the best images. Regards -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not being into high-end photography, I am afraid I'm not sure what that all means (although I have heard of it before). OSX (talk • contributions) 00:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Citroën indents

Took some quick pictures of Citroën's but didn't note them down, http://www.flickr.com/photos/bidgee/ . Bidgee (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added details for the models I know. I'm not sure about the rest (including the latest Mustangs). I would just upload them and wait for other users to identify them for you. Then you can rename the images using the rename function.

Also, I found this image that you uploaded to photobucket last year when I was going through my Commons talk page. It's a 2006-2009 Holden VE Calais V sedan. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that! I worked out that they are Citroën Traction's. Heheh totally forgot about that 2006-2009 Holden VE Calais V sedan image! I've just added 3 Monaro image's which I took in 2004 and just need the years and the models. Bidgee (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Camry Hybrid

It appears to be you and me against the rest of the word. I still support your desire to merge the Hybrid article into the Camry article but you have to decide if it is worth the battle. I suggest a graceful withdrawal.  Stepho  (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I was a little suspicious how all the opposing voters replied so quickly. The answer lies in Mariordo unfairly canvassing votes via user talk pages: [12], [13], [14],[15], [16]. This is not allowed per: Wikipedia:Consensus#Improper consensus-building. I think I might just close the discussion for now, because the results are now going to be inevitably skewed. This guy seriously has no understanding of basic policy: I had a consensus, and he said that because it wasn't held on Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid that it is automatically invalid (untrue); then he canvassed votes that would support him; then he tries to tell me that merging a page doesn't involve redirecting the content to another. And finally, he now claims that the Mercedes-Benz S 400 Hybrid page isn’t justified because the hybrid technology is less advanced than Toyota’s. Since when is “less advanced” a valid reason? Neither page deserves to exist. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy#DEMOCRACY and follow-up the links available over there. In 3 years of experience I learned that a close vote means "No Consensus", and the article is kept, followed by more discussion. Because I will not fall for an edit war I have already called for an admin to check on the discussion. With such closed call it is common sense that a party involved shouldn't have been the one closing the discussion and enforcing his interpretation. In such cases it has to be a third party not involved in the discussion. Check how AfDs are dealt with.-Mariordo (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For someone with soooooo much knowledge of all the rules and regulations here, I find it interesting that you are unaware of this one: Wikipedia:Consensus#Improper consensus-building. Take a look at the four users that support you in retaining the article—you personally contacted all of them and unfairly canvassed votes via their user talk pages: [17], [18], [19],[20], [21].

So, if you were to keep the voting fair, this would be the result:

• Oppose: Mariordo.
• Support: DeFacto OSX, Stepho-wrs, and Wfrmsf.

That's 4 to 1: a clear consensus. So, revert! OSX (talk • contributions) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As explained in the link you left at my page, a neutral friendly reminder or call of attention is not canvasing and it is allowed. I also appreciate if you refrain from leaving shouting messages in my page. Cool it (see Wikipedia:Civility) and wait for the admin to show up.-Mariordo (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As Stepho-wrs says, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over this, no matter how it ends up. Let's follow through on the RFC and see where that leads. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In the current RFC, you write, "The two articles have already been merged at Toyota Camry (XV40) (same contents as Toyota Camry Hybrid)." This is clearly not the case. The independent article is substantially different from and longer than the section in Toyota Camry (XV40). I don't want to clutter the RFC section with debate between the two of us on points like this, so I ask you to either delete or correct your recent comment in the RFC section. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's true though, and as I've said before, it would be good if you guys would actually take a look and read what changes I have made rather than scrolling to the Hybrid section and not reading a single word. I had placed the market-specific info in the market section. I have moved it to one placed now. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Camry

OK. I'll include a separate paragraph for details of the manufacturing plants. My question is should it go before or after the market section? Thanks. Wfrmsf (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would probably include it in the "market" section, just before the section on Australia. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you provided the additional details of the manufacturing plants for the SXV20 generation, I will go ahead and do the same with the other generations. Wfrmsf (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I got the reference about the Thai manufacturing from a Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toyota_manufacturing_facilities. Also, I knew that some XV30 models were produced in Mexico because according to my 2003 Camry owners manual some of them are made in Mexico typically for the SE trims. Also, this model sold in Canada has slight differ from the one's being sold in the United States. I'm going to check and see about that. Wfrmsf (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, resolved the Canadian version Wfrmsf (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's another problem with the classifications. It's about the V10 and V20 models. Their market-share era exists alongside with the Corolla which is already classified as a compact car at that time around the globe (Tercel/Corsa/Soluna as subcompact). How can the Camry V10 and V20 be labeled as the Toyota compact car along with the Corolla E80 and E90? Camry as Compact cars only applies to the Japan-only narrow-bodied models V30 and V40. I think there's further work that needs to be done. Wfrmsf (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Easy, those generations of Corolla are a "small" compact cars; V10 and V20 Camrys are "large" compact cars. At the time, the Toyota Cressida would have been the company's mid-size offering. The current Camry, while officially mid-size is almost full-size in dimensions. Compare this to the Suzuki Kizashi, which is also mid-size, but is quite small for a modern-day mid-sized car. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean. A similar case for Chevrolet Corsica when it was replaced by the Malibu. Wfrmsf (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was incorrect in my above reply. When the Camry was a compact (V10, V20), the Corolla (E80, E90) was actually a subcompact. They both moved up a class in 1991 when the XV10 (Camry) and E100 (Corolla) were introduced to the United States. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, we both edited the Camry article at the same time and it looks like WP threw away both of our changes. I'll try again latter in the day.  Stepho  (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed now. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ES reply

No worries. It was clearly unintentional. IFCAR (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Volkswagen Polo

Hi... I'm curious why you decided to change the photo illustrating the Polo IV (facelift) in this article to one of a Polo GTI, as the GTI is quite distinctive visually, and hence not very representative of facelifted Polo IVs in general. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC).

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images:

"The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other."

If you feel that another image better meets the WP:CARS requirements, feel free to change the image to something else. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the same guidelines also state: "Low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image." Of course, both these guidelines pertain specifically to lead infoboxes, though I don't see why they shouldn't also be applied to section infoboxes too. Letdorf (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC).

The GTI is not particularly low-volume, unusual or unrepresentative. Examples of this would be Bitter Cars like those based on the Opel Insignia et cetera. A Polo with a black grille insert, pin stripping, and Golf GTI wheels is not out of the ordinary. Bring it up with WP:CARS is you disagree. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lexus template

Hey OSX, I got the widths under control, but the (blank) cell I used now has a white border down the middle. Some sort of css ought to take care of it; I just haven't got time to find the right element at pres. Got any good ideas? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for that. I've really got no idea either; wikicode of that level always causes problem whenever I start trying to make changes. Let's hope that someone who knows what they're doing fixes it up. Regards. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Templates (again!)

Hi, OSX. I note with some dismay that articles like this one (until the edit I just saved) are still/again peppered with the improper "ft·lbf" unit for torque. This has been discussed at great length; see here, here, and here, and the torque unit lb·ft is prescribed in WP:AUN. I'm not sure what might be a good solution; template:convert appears to spit out "ft·lbf" by default, though it can be made to spit out other improper unit expressions such as "ft-lb", and oh yeah, it can also be forced to spit out the correct output by the rather unwieldy syntax {{convert|215|Nm|lb.ft}}. The easy way around this (template:auto Nm) was deleted, which seems to have brought the unintended consequence that crafting articles to contain correct units now requires extra steps that are not widely known. I'm retired from this project; do with these comments what you will. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I never liked the {{auto}} templates because they only outputted units in abbreviated form. WP:MoS states that units should be spelt out in prose and abbreviated in infobox/tables. Other things that I like about {{convert}} is the ability to choose U.K./U.S. spelling and to output the unit in adjective form. None of this is possible using old now deleted {{auto}} templates.

Because "ft·lbf" is the "correct" form for use in non-automotive applications, then I guess we have to accept the inconvenience of adding "lbft" to the template if we want it to display the unit as "lb·ft".

It is possible to have a bot setup to insert "lbft" into articles that use "ft·lbf", "ft·lb", or are left blank (which in turn automatically favours "ft·lbf"). All the bot would have to do is check if the article is tagged with Template:WikiProject Automobiles. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)