Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Performance Corvette articles

The Corvette leaf spring article reads like an essay. I can see little justification for it existing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
If you intend to merge C6 ZR1 and C2 Z06 into the appropriate Corvette articles, count on my support already. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Merge the leaf spring info into suspension, leaf spring, & the involved 'vette pages, & merge or delete the Z pages. They fail notability IMO; it's not like we're talking about the GS... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Support merge, hopefully after the fact.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Yes please, these should be merged with the donor car pages. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
My support above does not extend to the Corvette leaf spring page. It should remain as its own page. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless anyone objects, or decides they wish to do it themselves (which would be perfectly fine by me!), I'll proceed with a merger of the Corvette articles in a couple of days. I'll probably do the same with the vette leaf spring article in due course. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. And for similar Australian cars, especially from Holden Special Vehicles... it's inconsistent overkill CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And I've redirected the Corvette leaf spring article to the main Corvette article. I didn't personally feel that anything was well referenced and written enough to take anywhere - but obviously, if anyone else feels differently, feel free to add it :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Was the group consensus to blank the various performance variant pages or to merge the content? The C5 Z06 page was ~32000 bytes. I see no evidence that any of that content was added to the C5 general page. I have no doubt that some would be redundant but blanking the page is not merging and that seems like a lot of content didn't make it. The C6 ZR1 page is likely missing some merge worthy content. Note the C2 Z06 page was properly merged. We should be careful about simply throwing out "unsourced" information in older articles. Much of that information is probably good but simply was added when people were less attentive regarding citations. If thrown out it may be truly lost to future readers (who reads through the previous versions "just in case"?). It would be better to tag the material with the citation needed tag and date. If it doesn't get updated in a reasonable period of time then remove the content. Note that many of these articles have slower update rates than some hot political topics (presidential candidate pages!). It's probably worth giving a few months for editors to get around to correcting the tags. Springee (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was to merge, if the content was not added and it is worth adding please feel free to add it to the relevant pages. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • All, I'm a biased editor as I spent quite a bit of time on the Corvette Leaf Spring article. That said, I object to the redirect to the main Corvette article which effectively blanks the content. Originally the article was part of the Corvette parent article. At some point it was split off to be it's own article. The reason why I object to the redirect is it effectively wipes the content away from Wikipedia. I think it is worth noting that the article has been cited by external, automotive sources such as Edmund's. As an auto enthusiast the subject is notable (in a narrow field) given the number of times both auto writers (Edmunds http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette/2002/long-term-road-test/2002-chevrolet-corvette-z06-the-mystery-of-the-leaf-spring.html ) and enthusiast talk about the car's "leaf springs". I would rather see the article be part of the main Corvette article but I think simply blanking the content is wrong given the references contained in the article. I would not object to reworking much of the format (I never really tried to fight that one) so the article would be more concise. Would anyone have suggestions as to where to put the content and how to get access to the old article? Lukeno94, any suggestions? As a final note, the article content didn't really fit into the standard "leaf spring" article because it was very specific to how the Corvette suspension worked. PS, as a car person, I would be happy to help with this part of Wikipedia Springee (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Springee, I saw a hell of a lot of objections from several years ago to the page on its talkpage as well by a couple of different users - most of which are valid concerns that were never addressed. There is nothing particularly notable about the Corvette's suspension system; certainly nothing that deserves a massive essay written on it. And that is what the "article" was; a very poorly sourced essay, full of opinions and original research. There was pretty much nothing that was worth merging into any other article. Had it gone to AfD, it would almost certainly have been deleted altogether as per WP:TNT. The article can still be found in its history. Most of the other suspension-related articles fall a long way short from modern standards as well, but that isn't much of an excuse. An article on transverse leaf springs may have a place, but content not fitting anywhere else is not always a good reason to have an article on it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As I recall the primary objection came from one user who was not interested in having a forthright discussion on the issue. The article was not poorly sourced and contained sources for much of the information. I strongly disagree with your view that the article was without merit given the number of external links to the article and the fact that it has been mentioned by other media. While I understand the issues with contacting editors of pages, given that I'm currently active I think it would have been nice to have a chance to address the issue you see rather than just deleting the page. Regardless, how would you suggest I get the material back up and running? One of the great things about Wikipedia is that we CAN have these smaller articles that wouldn't make it into traditional encyclopedia. This article is a great example of such. Springee (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Lukeno94, I do understand you are making a good faith effort to clean up the automotive section of Wikipedia. I would like to ask you to, for the time at least, revert your redirect edit of the Corvette Leaf Spring page. The consensus was general and regarding mergers. The Corvette leaf spring page was redirected without transferring content (WP:D-R) thus it was an effective delete rather than a merger and thus the above consensus doesn't apply. There was also no discussion of the redirect was made on the article talk page and it does not appear any editors were contacted. I do understand you are making good faith edit so I would like to ask you to undo your redirect and then we can work on addressing some of the concerns you rightly have pointed out. Thanks! Springee (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The consensus was for the page to not exist. Exactly what was done with the content is, in effect, irrelevant; and I'm not the only editor who has voiced the opinion that it shouldn't really exist in any form. It was my opinion that nothing was worth moving, due to the various issues (essay-like writing style, very poor sourcing, apparent OR, inappropriate "for and against" type section). So no, I'm afraid I won't revert my redirect, which was entirely valid an action to take and has consensus, and any discussion here takes precedence over a far less watched place than an article talk page (particularly such an obscure one.) If there is any content worth saving, then people can still go and retrieve information from the history and copy it across, with the appropriate re-wording and attribution. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus was two people for merging information. You didn't follow proper procedure to notify editors on the talk page. The page was clearly notable as it was referenced by Edmunds and a number of automotive writers have specifically mentioned the leaf springs of the Corvette. Edmunds even ran an article short on the subject prior to the C7 launch. I will revert the article as it is notable in the automotive enthusiast community. We can then try to fix it (people can address their topical concerns on the talk page) or we can merge the material into another article with proper notification. Fearing that you wouldn't want to undo the notice I've started to gather some better references so at least one of your concerns (a legitimate one at that) can be addressed. Springee (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • General discussion here clearly outweighs any discussion on the talk page of an obscure article, and I'm not a fan of pointless bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. There were more than enough responses here for the actions I took to be valid, and you not liking it is not relevant. I've reverted your revert as you are clearly defying consensus - the issue is not just that the article was in a terrible state, it's that it shouldn't exist in the first place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And when 90% of an article has no in-line references whatsoever, there is nothing that really can be merged. Particularly as there are generally adequate mentions of the suspension system in each of the generation articles, and I'm going through and adding it where it isn't present. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article did have reasonable sourcing given the nature of the topic. I'm not saying improvements can't be made but your 90% claim does not due the sources justice. I have since found a few more sources, including peer reviewed sources. The contents of the article are clearly notable as I've shown. There was a previous merger discussion with consensus to keep the article as stand alone. You failed to notify those editors or note the previous discussion. You failed to follow guidelines. This is why I'm asking you to undo the redirect. With that done we can, on the article talk page, address how the article should be handled. Springee (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have now completed a selective merge into the various Corvette articles, so there is no justification for your "request" (which is a thinly-veiled demand) for the redirect to be reverted. And for the millionth time; the discussion held here takes precedence over any discussion at a specific article, as there are far more eyes here. Consensus here was very clear for a merge, a merge has now been performed. Previous discussions are academic when they were 6 years back at least - and I note that there are opinions from as far back as 2007 that the page should be deleted altogether. And I see 0 evidence of there ever being a merger discussion on that talk page. Any content that hasn't been merged was clearly a long way from satisfying any guideline. If the page had gone to AfD, it would probably have been deleted altogether. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed your edits. They do not cover the content of the blanked article and are not a reasonable substitute. While I believe you operated in good faith, the process of blanking the article did not follow Wikipedia guidelines. While there are older opinions that the page should be merged, there are others that say otherwise. The subject is WP:NOTE by virtue of the external, reliable automotive media's referencing the page. You claim the page would have been deleted in an AfD but that is just your opinion. You not liking it doesn't mean the page lacks notability. I think the next steps are to get more inputs on how to recover the information that will be lost with the current plan. 15:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Springee (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


  • That is fair that you aren't the only one. However, I don't think you or the others adequately notified per Wikipedia guidelines. Did anyone post a RfC or similar on the Corvette main article? There was no talk page discussion either. Furthermore, the small consensus was the information should be merged into another article. You have not done that. The core contribution of the article was a technical description of how the system functioned and how it provided a higher roll rate than a similar rate coil spring system.

You are correct that the article could have been cleaned up but I believe you are overstating the issues with the article. It's references included peer reviewed articles as well as expert opinions in the field. You claim to have merged all the relevant information into other articles. Well where is the anti-roll part (that had IIRC at least 2 reliable sources)? I do not know who "Shelbychevette" is. I think we should avoid accusations of bad faith. It appears that editor is concerned about the removal of other content (transmission and engine types) that is often of interest to people reading articles about an enthusiast car. Perhaps that suggests that the recent edits are too heavy handed. Regardless, I have nothing to do with that account and the implication should not have been made. I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer ways that we can keep the notable content of the article even if we don't keep the actual article. Currently the edits you have made don't do that. Again, while I disagree with you I know you are acting in good faith so please take all my comments as such. Springee (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The Shelbychevette comment was just frustration and coincidental timing; it wasn't actually seriously aimed at you (and I wouldn't pay any heed to their remarks, which are pretty obviously inaccurate and not representative of what I did in the slightest, particularly given that they're clearly not a legitimate account.) I'll get that out of the way first. Anyway, all you seem to be doing is wanting more bureaucracy. Did I post an RfC template? No. I'm not required to. Did I post anything on the talk page? Again, no, I'm not required to. I opened up a discussion at the global WikiProject, and the discussion was open for ten days before I executed any edits based upon it. This was not a hasty action that I undertook, nor was it one I did on my own whim. As to exactly what was merged; I generally merged what was sourced to an actually usable source. Things sourced to images of cars or to patents are not usable. And I did make some mention of the anti-roll effect on at least two of the articles, although that was added a bit later on and I can understand that you may have missed that. One thing you seem to be constantly skipping over or missing; the sourcing in that article was woeful. Half of the sources were either to images or patents - neither of which are really usable, particularly as the patent references were generally just used to prove that said patents exist. Of the rest, I took over some of the ones that I could, and that's about all that was doable. The vast majority of that article - I'm talking 80-90% - didn't have any inline citation or anything approaching a reference. It was also not written or laid out in a manner that was suitable for an encyclopedia - and the advantages/disadvantages section is one precise example of that. If it had been usable, I'd have taken it over. And something being notable does not mean it justifies an article (WP:NOT for example). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment about the other account. I can understand that frustration. Again, I want you to understand I totally see what you are doing as good faith work. I don't agree with this part of it (and actually I disagree with the removal of engine year information as well but that's a different section). I'm not sure that you aren't required to post some type of notification on the article talk page before effectively blanking it. Regardless, the failure to contact editors associated with the article or editors who are associated with related articles does undermine the quality of the consensus. The fact that I'm here says we don't have a clear consensus. While what you did merge as "generally" sourced, I noted some errors in the articles created by your insertions. They are minor and arise from a loss of context. But you failed to include the anti-roll properties of the setups used on the C5-C7. That is actually one of the most notable parts of the design and it was referenced to a reliable source in the original article.
We have WP:NOTE and WP:RS. The question should be how best to include the information. Would it be reasonable to add some sort of "Corvette technology" page to the main Corvette article? That would preserve external links such as the Edmund's one (and many car forums that have linked to the article over the years). It would also remove the article as a stand alone reference. This is actually how the information was originally added to Wikipedia. At some point a previous editor(s) split the article into it's own article.
Again, I know you are operating in good faith, what is the best way to get the notable information into Wikipedia and how do we preserve the external links? Springee (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You've made a complete mess of the formatting here; it's getting impossible to work out exactly what replies start where. You still seem to want bureaucracy even where it would not be of benefit, and the consensus here was solid enough. I have nothing more to say on that matter, because I'm fed up of repeating myself. Yes, I may have missed some bits when I was copying across - so please go and add them. Same goes for any errors I made. Maybe a technology section on the main Corvette section may be justified; but that article was not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The consensus is not solid if editors do not all agree. I don't agree. You have a consensus that didn't consult those who guidelines suggest should be notified. The problem with your method of addition is two fold
  1. External links to the article effectively fail. Even if the information still exists somewhere links posted to the old article redirect to a main article without telling readers where to look next.
  2. The information was about a particular type of technology and logically spanned generations of the Corvette as well as relating to several other cars. If you think it would be reasonable to merge it into another, non-Corvette article please make a suggestion where. Springee (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus has never required all editors to agree, just a clear majority. And there surely can be no question that there is a clear majority here, which equals a solid consensus. Everything else to do with consensus and the discussion/notifications I have already refuted numerous times, and do not care to do so again. If there are any links (and I'm doubting there are that many, although I will confess to not yet having checked that - the main Corvette article didn't link to the essay, and that says everything IMO), then those can be very easily cleaned up. An article on transverse leaf springs, which is what the technology is generally about (at least, the relatively novel interpretations of leaf springs) may be justified, but then, that topic is covered to a small degree by the independent suspension article, although the section definitely could and should be expanded, and is both poorly written and unsourced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree it doesn't require "all" but the consensus is not as strong when we have clear disagreement. It's hard to say how many external links there are to the article. The fact that a mainstream auto site links to the article is clearly a sign that it is notable. You have not refuted that claim. Anyway, we the editors of the article have discussed other places to put the information. No consensus was reached. The issue is classification. An article on "transverse leaf spring suspension" would throw together rather random stuff ranging from the Model T Ford's rigid axle to the Corvette's IRS. An article on independent suspension might be a good place to put it but the level of detail is higher than other articles. People might question why one type of spring gets so much focus. Basically we didn't think a stand alone article was the best idea but it seemed the best given the circumstances. BTW, the Lamm book as was linked went to a scanned image of the page in question. That link can easily be replaced with a proper citation. I think Wikipeida upgraded their citations between about 2010 and now. Much of this article dates from pre-2010 but that doesn't mean it should be blanked rather than fixed. Again, I'm open to suggestions for how the content should be saved. I would greatly appreciate if you would offer some. Springee (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Clear disagreement from one editor makes no difference to the consensus. Exactly what is done with the content is also irrelevant; there is a clear consensus against the page existing, and I'm staggered you're still either denying that, or trying to get around it by various means (which you clearly still are). And no, the fact a mainstream auto site links to the article does not make the topic notable; what it means is either that site got very lazy when they were doing their research, or they just looked for something appropriate to link to on Wikipedia. It's still academic; notability is not the question, and never has been. I could sit down and list a fair few guidelines and policies that the article failed by a long way, but it would take a while - there are a lot. People were raising serious issues in 2007 about the page, and as far as I can tell, they were never close to being addressed - this is hardly a change in Wikipedia practise... WP:TNT applies when an article is this bad, and it really is that far from being acceptable. So yes, the page should be blanked, it should be a redirect, and the small amounts of usable content (which really are small) should be taken into the relevant articles if they haven't already. That is the consensus. Wikilawyering around the level of content is not relevant or appropriate to the page being restored, which it obviously should not be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My point about the disagreement is you claimed it was strong consensus. It was consensus but not as strong as you claim. I doubt that you looked carefully at the article or the previous talk discussions before moving to blank the content. The same is likely true of the other editors. That isn't an indictment just as statement suggesting that I doubt people really considered the question which is understandable. However, that is also why failing to notify the article talk page is an issue. Wikipedia has guidelines for such things because we might not always know the full story even if our actions are in good faith as I think yours were. Your claims that the content was largely unsourced are untrue (a previous editor made sure to challenge every claim resulting in many added citations). Your claim that the article wasn't notable based on the opinion of a few editors yet does not stand up to a WP:NOTE review. The subject of the article absolutely meets the notability guidelines. The only question is should it be stand alone or integrated in another page. I'm OK with integration but would ask where you think it's best. Note that previous discussions, and posts by Autostream should be taken with a large grain of salt, never agreed that the material was not notable. It was a question of where it should go. Wiki guidelines on notability state that once a topic is notable is should remain as such (WP:NTEMP).
  • In closing I would like to start by thanking you for taking on what is sure to be a thankless task (as the engine edits you chased showed) and a hard one at that. I do hope that we can work together to figure out how to handle this material and I would be happy if you wanted to suggest an alternative forum for the discussion. All I ask is that you give it a fair shot. Springee (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • While the talk page on the Corvette leaf spring page suffered from some abuse, here is a previous proposal to merge the article with the general leaf spring article. The consensus was 4 to preserve the article as stand alone and 1 to merge the content. None said the content should be removed.[[1]] The one who wished for a merger specifically noted that the information he wanted in the Leaf Spring article was actually in the Corvette leaf spring article. Springee (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've refuted your claims about consensus enough times already, I don't intend to do so again. Consensus can change, and you're talking about a discussion that ran from 2006 to 2007, and had very little response at all - which is the precise reason I held the discussion here. Standards have changed enormously since then, and the discussion is so old that it is no longer relevant in the slightest. Whilst I can't claim to have gone over the minutiae of every little detail, I did read through the majority of the article, and found it to be a long way short of various guidelines - and, for that matter, I had a quick read of the talk page. It failed WP:V, it failed WP:UNDUE to a certain degree, it failed WP:NOTESSAY, many of the sources used failed WP:RS for numerous reasons (patents being used as sources, links to images of a car, cuts of text that are hosted in a wonky GIF by a forum with no actual indication in the "source" itself - and that's just from the first four sources!). And how can you still be claiming that everything is sourced? It isn't even close. Racing concerns? Not one source (name dropping a book is not a source.) Traditional usage of leaf springs? Not one source. Motion of a transverse leaf spring? Not one source. Several of the other sections have just one inline citation - take the "Transverse leaf springs in other vehicles" section, where the only thing that has a reference is... a non-notable car that didn't deserve a mention anyway. And that's a dead link. And the wikilinking in that section has been extremely poor since day 1. You cannot just start dumping text from a badly sourced essay into other articles at will, it is not 2007 or 2009 any more, and that is what you are failing to understand. You keep trying to misdirect things by talking about notability and made-up issues with consensus, and yet those are not remotely the issues that are relevant; it is everything else, and besides, WP:NOTE does explicitly state This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.. Why do you not see that there is nowhere, given 2015 standards, that this mess can go? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


I have a suggestion that might allow both of us to win here and might be a useful method to solve other topical disputes when editors of what might be called specialty articles protest changes. I propose a 1 month reprieve for cases such as the Corvette leaf spring article. During that time the redirect will be undone and interested editors will have a chance to fix the problems identified problems with the article. Notification tags can be placed on the article (NPOV, RS, Cleanup needed etc) so that external readers can see the article is tagged as having issues. At the end of the 1 month period the group can decide if the article should remain stand alone, or merge etc. Remember that many of the articles are old and likely stable thus previous editors haven't felt the need to keep up with updates. Also, many of those editors likely don't follow discussions here so they aren't aware an article they would support is about to be heavily changed or blanked. In this particular case we are dealing with a long time, stable article. I don't think giving it an extra 30 days is going to hurt anything and could result in a lot of articles getting improved without conflict. Would this work for you?Springee (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The redirect absolutely should not be undone because the consensus was to merge, and a merger has been performed. Exactly how much was merged is academic at that point. To revert would be to violate consensus, and frankly I don't care how many times you claim that the consensus is somehow flawed or weak or whatever, because you're flat out wrong on that front. The article was terrible, yes, but it should not exist in the first place, and that was a general consensus (people were saying as such 8 years ago as well.) Fixing it is not going to make any difference whatsoever. Tag bombing that mess would help nobody. For goodness' sake, just accept that consensus did not fall your way and move on, find something else to discuss, because this is getting to the point of being WP:IDHT levels of disruptiveness... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You did not have consensus to blank the information. You failed to follow guidelines by blanking notable content. You did not follow guidelines by placing notices on the page to notify concerned editors who might have more insight into the subject. You failed to acknowledge the previous consensus on the subject. It is far better to take the compromise path than simply refuse all efforts to fix the problem. Springee (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You're deliberately making up things in order to further your own position. The consensus was to merge; a merger was performed. The merger may have been imperfect or incomplete, but the simple fact of the matter is that I did follow consensus and you are trying everything you can to violate said consensus. Reverting the redirect is out of the question, end of story, because the only person here who has so far shown any vague support for its existence is you - and that's a fact. Content being "notable" does not mean it has to be included, and that is yet another thing you are deliberately ignoring. There is no requirement for me to notify any individual person or group before a discussion, which, again, is something you have fully chosen to ignore. The last discussion there was in 2009; as far as I knew, no one was even active any more. The previous "consensus" was extremely vague, did not come about as the result of any discussion whatsoever, and was fragmented over about a year - and it was 7 years ago, long enough back that it simply isn't relevant any more. And, as per normal, you've completely ignored the major sourcing issues and such things that made most of the content unmergable. WP:IDHT appears to be your standard defence, which is disappointing. You need to realize that Wikipedia's standards have changed since 2009, and actually begin to comply with them - because right now, you aren't doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As a general point, I think it is fine to have many of these smaller articles so long as they link back to the primary article. Take the ZR1 related articles. How should they be covered? To put all the history of the Corvette into a single article would result in a very long article. An obvious alternative is to have a side article for each generation of the Corvette and all sub-models would be contained in that side article. However, that fails if someone is interested in knowing about say all 3 generations of Corvettes to wear the ZR-1 badge or if, as in the case of the leaf spring article, we have a single technology that spans several generations but doesn't really fall into a general tech discussion article. I think redirecting results in loss of knowledge from Wikipedia. A better way to handle this would be to post a notice on the article talk page with sufficient time for those who track the article to have a voice. If it is decided that the article should be deleted, the editors can still discuss if the material belongs in other articles. Springee (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus is for these sort of articles to not exist. It's just standard practice. The Volkswagen Golf GTI is far more notable than the Corvette Z06, yet it doesn't even have a general article, much less individual model articles. Most of the Corvette ones were redirects. Where articles on the separate versions do exist, it's because either they're significantly different from the base model (Ford Escort RS Cosworth, which isn't really an Escort at all underneath, being one example), or they simply haven't been considered for merging yet. Again, any discussions affecting multiple articles - which this did - should be held here, and the consensus was clearly unanimous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that the GTI is more notable than the Z06. However, if reader looking for information on the Z06 finds it on the general C6 or Corvette article then the information at least exists. In this case you blanked the content with a redirect. The consensus view was to merge the content. Springee (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Z06 did not have any effect on anything else; the Golf GTI started (or as a minimum, popularized) a whole class of cars, and a host of imitators. The Z06 isn't even close to being as notable as the Golf GTI. And now that a selective merger has been performed, your demands are not valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Recovering the Corvette leaf spring article content

This is quick and I'm coming here from the ANI notice but I'm closing this now as such: there was some consensus from above for a merger of the article but it seems there's consensus against the speed and method of the merger and for further discussion about a merger. As such, I think the most fruitful thing is to start a new RFC on the article talk page [which I think is more appropriate than removing the article based entirely on a discussion at this page] and to restore the article (so that people can, during an RFC, revise it if they want to sharpen its focus or whatever and keep it then). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AndyTheGrump, Lukeno94, TREKphiler,  Mr.choppers | , OSX, I would like to propose a method for handling the review and blanking through redirect of niche automotive articles. While I am focused on the Corvette leaf spring article, I think this could apply in other areas. The Corvette leaf spring article (CLS) is an older article and not surprisingly it doesn't meet contemporary Wikipedia standards. However, the content of the article does meet standards for notability. I propose that if editors of an older article who are probably not following discussions here object to a redirect or blanking through redirection (a discouraged practice WP:D-R) the changes should be undone for a period of 1 month. The appropriate edit tags should be placed on the article and changes can be made. At the conclusion of the 1 month period consensus can decide the fate of the article. This gives editors, such as my self on the CLS page, a chance to address concerns and make arguments for how to handle the page in question. This is a general proposal that I would like to apply to the CLS page (arguments below).

The CLS page was effectively blanked via the redirection action. The topic content is notable. This is established by several books discussing the topic (at least 5 off the top of my head). It is also established by the specific mention of the unusual suspension setup used by the Corvette in a large number of articles including 4 by Edmund's. Edmund's found the Wikipedia CLS page of note and linked reader to the page ([[2]]). The article has been mentioned many times on various auto enthusiast websites (indicates an interest in the topic). As a notable topic Wikipedia says the information should not be removed. That doesn't mean it stays a stand alone article but it shouldn't be deleted and a redirects should preserve the external links.
There was a previous discussion regarding merging the article with the general leaf spring page or leaving it as a stand alone article.[[3]]. The consensus was stand alone. A good argument was made for merging with the leaf spring article by an editor who said he went to the leaf spring article in an attempt to find content that was actually in the CLS article. David R. Ingham, now a semi active editor but one with an impressive list of non-Wiki publications, made a strong case for keeping the content. He noted that the topic is very specific and the people interested in that specific level of detail may not be interested in the more general topic. This also implies that we shouldn't judge based on our interest but should ask if it serves the interest of other reader.
Lukeno94 does make some legitimate arguments about the need to clean up the article. I would agree but that can't be done if the article doesn't exist. The layout is one that I haven't liked and of late have felt like changing but I didn't because it takes time and the article was stable. The citations do need to be improved. Some are to reliable sources but need to meet current syntax standards. Others should be replaced. Much of the technical content is supported by a few key sources but at the time the sources were not repeatedly cited (once was enough sort of thinking). Regardless, these are fixable problem.
With that, I would ask that we give this article, and others like it, a proper chance for cleanup before we blank their content. Note that at worst this means the old page, one that has been largely unchanged for half a decade is up for another month.Springee (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I said above IMO the content should be merged into the involved 'vette model pages. While I was aware the leafspring was an innovation, I had no idea it was as big a deal as all that. If it is, perhaps (& I have no idea what the guideline is) it deserves a keep. So long as the content of the page is preserved somewhere, however, I have no particular interest in where it is; I expect anyone with an interest will be able to find it. Perhaps, if the page is to be removed, we need additional pointers to aid finding the content again? TBH, all I can think of is a hatnote at leaf spring, which doesn't appear it would be too helpful... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This is getting utterly ridiculous in your levels of WP:IDHT. You're selectively interpreting a small number of guidelines, or parts of guidelines, whilst disregarding any guideline that may not support you. David R. Ingham made that comment in the previous decade... it's barely relevant at the very most. This is ridiculous bureaucracy and a deliberate attempt at bludgeoning people into keeping article that should not be kept at all. Whilst there is definitely a debate that can be had about more content being merged, that's not what you seem to want in the slightest; you just want your pet article back. And, by the way, I'm getting fed up of you evidently stalking every edit I make to other pages. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to merge the content. I think it has stood alone for a long time because it was never really clear where it should fit. It applies to several generations of Corvettes and thus it becomes a mess if you put it on each generational page. Merging into the general leaf spring (suspension) article might be better but it's really pretty removed from designs such as the Hotchkiss or Model T transverse setups (among others). These were previous discussions that typically left with people feeling it was better to leave it as a stand alone topic. I think it might be better to put it into the independent suspension article. Do you think that merging so much content (quite a bit of it actually can be salvaged via reliable citations) would make something like the independent suspension article seem imbalanced? Springee (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that the vast majority of it would need a total rewrite with sources to go anywhere. I would agree that a section might be worth adding to the main Corvette article, but, again, it needs sourcing, and not to be just full of OR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ironically I had thought about perhaps doing a big restructure but given it was a stable article I didn't feel like rocking the boat nor did I feel it was worth the effort. This recent discussion may be the spur that's needed to put in the effort. In the end the article might not stay as a stand alone page but it will provide notable and verifiable content regardless of where it goes. With that in mind would you support the plan I outlined above?Springee (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Doesn't matter. I do not support the restoration of the Corvette leaf spring article regardless of intent; it has no place here and the existing actions taken were perfectly valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have a suggestion with regards to repairing the broken external links? I can attempt to update the article in my Sandbox but that doesn't allow for other authors to give their input. Springee (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This list shows that very few articles link to the article, and those can be easily removed (indeed, I'll do so now). Anything external to Wikipedia is out of our jurisdiction and is also irrelevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And, indeed, two of the links should never have ended up pointing to the Corvette leaf spring article because they were about general transverse leaf springs that were not specifically linked to the Corvette at all... and the other was a See Also link. This only emphasizes the fact that the article has no place here at all. A new article on transverse leaf springs written from scratch, perhaps; an article on the Corvette leaf spring, no. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • External indicate the content was noteworthy. Regardless, I will proceed with working on updates while we get opinions from others.
  • Assuming the content can be repaired and is well sourced, I've been trying to decide the best location for the material. As I mentioned, it was never really meant to be stand alone but it was rather specific for the general Corvette page yet applied to several generations of cars. What would you think about adding it to the independent suspension topic? It wouldn't be referenced as "Corvette leaf spring" (also a title I wasn't ever really happy with). Perhaps a subsection of independent suspension discussing the use of transverse leaf springs? That would allow mention of the Corvette as a car that uses the system. It would also mention others such as Volvo, several Mercedes models (Sprinter, Smart), FIAT (with steal springs) and other GMs. The part I'm most interested in preserving is the description regarding how the movement of the spring creates an anti-roll effect. This is something that confuses many people and is one of the reasons why I've seen many car forum discussions link to the Wiki page. Springee (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The transverse leaf spring section needs expanding on that article. External forum links are not relevant in the slightest. Any general TLS stuff should be added to there, with some short facts about some of the cars it was used in where they're notable. Most of those cars had no sourcing whatsoever; only the fact that Volvo used it, the Corvette used it, and some random non-notable car used it was ever sourced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Luke, will you please stop removing links to this article with the summary "rm see also to redirected article". You didn't merge or redirect this article, you deleted it by blanking it. Nor, per WP:NOTBROKEN, would a redirect (an appropriate one, such as to a section within a broader article) be reason to remove a wikilink. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I did merge (selectively) and redirect this article (nice lying once again - you must be a pathological liar, do you know that?), and of course, you're not paying attention as per usual (why are my surprise levels at zero?) The link I removed was a see also link - if there's no article present, then the see also link should not be present. The other two were retargetted to a section that was more relevant to them anyway, since they were not Corvette leaf springs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What a curse it must be when that inconvenient "other people's reality" refuses to recognise your version of events. On 21st July you blanked and redirected the Corvette leaf spring article, a 20k article. Four days later after a whole bunch of ructions on other articles and adverse comment here, you "merged" the content to other Corvette individual model articles: Chevrolet Corvette (C1) You added about 200 bytes to each one. You haven't added any content to the Chevrolet Corvette overall article.
In what way is this rather delayed merge of about 1k of content in total, completely ignoring the overall car article where such a design overview section might belong, a competent merge? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section break

I started a new RFC at Talk:Corvette_leaf_spring#RfC:_Should_this_page_remain_or_be_merged_away.3F with a single discussion section there. Any other discussion about Performance Corvettes can continue here I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes thank you! Springee (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to let people know I've been working on a rewrite of the article. As I told Luke, citing the material, especially the material he likely felt was OR such as the racing section and the pro and con section hasn't been hard. What is difficult is the lack of Wiki approved illustrations and sometimes figuring out the best way to phrase things. The update as it stands is here.[[4]] I would be very interested in comments (leave them on my talk page) and suggestions for a new yet usable name. I'm trying to make the article general (easy to do) but coming up with a short yet direct name isn't.

When completed I would like to link a number of other articles to this one including the articles for the specific cars mentioned and several of the suspension articles. Springee (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Great work, I have made some stylistic changes to the article for you. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OSX, thanks for the fixes. I already posted the article to the CLS page. A few edits were made after I posted it. Would you like to add your changes to the live article or would you like me to add them? If you have a suggestion for a new home for the material or keep it as is I would be interested in your view. (see the section below) Thanks for the help and support! Springee (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ooops, my bad. I have merged my edits to Corvette leaf spring. I think transverse leaf spring is the best name proposed so far. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Transverse leaf spring is easy to say but if you look at the leaf spring article you can see that "transverse leaf spring" suspension could be anything from a Model T Ford to an AC Cobra's front suspension that uses the leaf as an upper A-arm to the C2's rear end (IRS, just supported with a steel leaf spring) and finally the stuff in this article. This is why I added a section at the bottom of this talk page asking about suspension classifications. Please don't take this as being obstructionist, I'm just pointing out the issue I see with simply saying "transverse leaf spring". Then again, perhaps I'm going at this the wrong way. Perhaps the question I should ask is, what search term will curious readers use to try to find the information? In terms of the Corvette, well Corvette leaf spring was likely the best choice. However it excludes Smart Fortwo, XC90 etc owners who are looking for the same information. Maybe your suggestion, with pointers to other related articles is best. Anyway, thanks for the merge! Springee (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Corvette leaf spring article updated

I have updated the Corvette leaf spring article. The new text only focuses on fiber reinforced plastic transverse leaf spring setups. This means the Volvo XC90 also gets significant mention. While the article still heavily draws on the Corvette and related information it is no longer specific to the Corvette. I would like to come up with a new title but so far the best I've come up with is "Independent Suspension Utilizing a Dual Pivotally Supported Fiber Reinforced Plastic Transverse Leaf Spring" It really tells you what the article is about but doesn't really roll off the tongue. Springee (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to give people a week to look at the article before I start adding pointers from other articles. I was primarily thinking about adding pointers from the articles covering vehicles mentioned in the article and to several of the related suspension articles. Springee (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As of last year, the Corvette Leaf Spring article was precisely what it purported to be: a reference on the use of leaf springs in Corvettes. The article then became more about the transverse leaf spring in general as other vehicles were added. As of now, almost all of the Corvette-specific history is gone. I propose recovering and moving that Corvette history to a subsection within the main Corvette article. The current Corvette Leaf Spring article should be merged as a Transverse Leaf Spring subsection of existing Leaf Spring article. Many of the engineering implications are obvious from the images to anyone with an engineering background; the requirement for sourcing is not quite as stringent as has been conveyed. I'm personally of the opinion that it's better to include unsourced information if it's likely to be accurate and there's no specific reason to believe that it's inaccurate. Sourcing may come eventually, but it will never come if the information doesn't exist. On a unrelated point: I'm keen to hear from Luke what comprises a suitable writing style for an encyclopedia. He gave only one specific objection: the pro and con section. Otherwise, I'm at a loss for what he deemed so offensive about that article. Alexdi (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexdi, I agree with basically everything you said with one minor thing I will get to. I was torn with this rewrite. The article of course started as Corvette specific and mentioned the others cars almost as if to say "others are doing it too". However, that created the risk that people would question why we have a Corvette specific article and why this isn't part of a Corvette page. I'm not sure there is a great solution. I didn't see a big deal with the old layout. My biggest issue was many of the pictures were redundant. The Pro-Con stuff worked for me but clearly not for some of the other editors. I also agree that some of the sourcing is a pain. For example, when I say the Indigo 3000 sports car used the leaf spring I sourced a PDF the first time. That PDF is gone but there are plenty of web forums stating it uses a leaf. Same with the Smart ForTwo. However, I don't want to actually use a forum post or a vendor catalog page as a source. I ended up leaving the Smart ForTwo unsourced because, as you say, anyone who doubts it can search for that quite easily. As for the one part I disagree with, I don't think this should be merged with a transverse leaf spring article. If anything I think it should be added to the independent suspension article as a sub type. We could have a pointer from the old Corvette leaf spring title, and from the transverse leaf spring article to that page.
I think Luke decided he had made his choice and didn't want to revisit the issue. I think some of the original article did read a bit too much like a report and given the lack of in line citations I can see how he felt much of the material was OR (he would have had to read the references to know otherwise). Really, I didn't think his original objections were unreasonable. I just felt it was unreasonable to dig his heals in when I objected and asked for a chance to fix things first. As I said, what could it hurt to give an 8 year old article an extra month just in case?
Anyway, I'm glad to see your input. Given the quality work you did in the past would be happy if you gave the thing a crack and changed anything that you aren't happy with. I have more faith in your ability to make it understandable than I have in my own! Springee (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Using a name like Independent suspension utilizing a dual pivotally supported fiber reinforced plastic transverse leaf spring is probably just an invitation to have the article nominated again for deleted due to the topic being obscure or not notable. I suggest an easily digestible name, even if such a name is less accurate. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You make a very good point. What about "Corvette type leaf spring". It now suggests it applies to more than just the Corvette but that the Corvette is clearly the notable application. Many of the XC90 articles I found note the similarity to the Corvette when mentioning the transverse rear leaf spring. The only issue I see is that someone might wonder why the XC90 article has a link to something "about the Corvette". Springee (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel this does not help with the naming issue as those who take issue with "Corvette leaf spring" are surely still going to dislike "Corvette type leaf spring". Would it be plausible to use the title "transverse leaf spring" and expand the article to encompass other variations of this kind? E.g. Ford Model T. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are saying about "Corvette" in the title. I just get hung up on the categorical logic of the name. I don't think people would normally group the live axle of a Chevy Tahoe with the independent, strut type suspension at the front end of a 911. But both are coil spring suspensions. I have trouble reconciling the inclusion of the very primitive Model T suspension (beam axle) and the Cobra's "leaf as upper link" independent system with what is arguably one of the most recent classes of suspension design (multi-link/A-arm with dual pivot mounted transverse FRP springs - first seen in 1984). What was really an article trying to cover that annoyingly long name becomes a mash of generalized statements about a huge range of potential suspension types. What about dumping it as a stand alone article and adding it to the independent suspension article? As a type of suspension I think we should follow the same lead we would if the thing used coils. In that case we first say independent. Next we say leaf. Thoughts?Springee (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
That could work. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Just "Transverse leaf spring suspension" and expand it to early perch bracket suspensions and pre-war independent suspensions too?
Or leave the pre-1960s designs out, but do cover the '90s resurgence of transverse leaf springs for IRS, both simple and torsional. This doesn't overlap cleanly with the Corvette though.
I did consider a post-war scope that would include the Triumph Herald rear swing axles (and a few other swing axle cars) but couldn't think of a consistent reason (other than an arbitrary WWII date) that would exclude the (rare) sophisticated pre-war IFS systems, or the pre-war FWD systems like the Alvis. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
What about Modern transvers leaf spring suspension? Yes modern is a non-specific word but I think it allows the clean break between old multi-leaf Model T stuff as well as newer (but still obsolete) designs like the Triumph rear end. We could use the 1970s as a rough cut off. I would note the C3 rear suspension as it was the first to use the FRP spring. The Fiat 128 and Yugu (a rebuild of the 128) can be mentioned as they used the dual pivot setup that offers anti roll properties. Does that work for everyone?Springee (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1970s would be after the Corvette? I also think my Fiat 850 (what a junker) had one on the front.
They were sold as "Yugo" in the US. Typo or different markets? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Good questions! I'm using a "flexible" definition of modern but the distinction I use is the suspension either has a FRP spring, the Corvette was the first to do that and it didn't come out until 1980. All previous Corvettes used multi-leaf steal springs. However, the 1980 design, like many older designs was rigidly clamped in the center and thus behaved like two independent springs. The other distinction, and we could throw this one along with the Fiat 128 (and the Yugo) out is a system that uses the dual pivoting mounts so that the leaf spring acts as an anti-roll bar as well. The Fiat 128 is the first car I'm aware of that ever tried to take advantage of that property. The earlier 850 rigidly clamped the spring in the center. This picture (kind of) shows how the spring is supported near the suspension arm pivots and not in the center (the middle part is a bump stop).[[5]] The Fiat was forward thinking in using the leaf as both ride and anti-roll spring (starting in 1969). The Corvette didn't get the anti-roll feature for another 15 years. Having said all that, I can see how it would be confusing to call the 850 old while the 128 counts as "modern". Perhaps we should just cut it off at any system that uses FRP springs? BTW, the Yugo was a Zstava Koral built car based on a Fiat design. I'm not sure what markets got the Yugo name.[[6]] Springee (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Outside POV. Are you sure you want to limit to “fiber-reinforced plastic” mono-leaf spring? Otherwise, Andy’s “Transverse leaf spring suspension” sounds pretty good, they overlap and you could take/add to leaf spring. That would give you a lot of room.
I think you have way too much stuff to put into independent suspension. You could punch that up a touch and link back to you. You should, anyway, whether you keep FRP or go to Transverse. Sammy D III (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I'd go with Transverse leaf spring suspension as a name, define the scope as independent suspension with transverse leafs, then write the article scope to begin with the pre-war transverse leaf IFS and the RWD swing axles. Just ignore the transverse sprung non-independent beam axles. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sammy, an outside POV is good in this case. I'm not sure I want to limit things to FRP springs. My primary concern was trying to figure out how to avoid washing the article out too much. This article started life in part to address the question that was asked on many car forums... why would GM decide to use leaf springs on their premier sports car? We could break a "transverse leaf spring article" into contemporary (the subject of the article), early independent, and early rigid axle. Alternatively, we could just say that things like the Model T setup goes in the non-independent suspension article. I think I like that version the best. I agree that this article and the independent suspension article need to link to one another. I also will give the independent article a crack at some point. I worked on the twist beam one a while back but the citations are limited.
Are people OK with making a new article (the Corvette leaf spring will redirect there). The article will start with contemporary transverse leaf spring designs and then have "historic section" where we can cover the older designs. I would like the Corvette leaf spring article's redirect to be a manual click through so people know the article was moved. The auto redirect can sometimes be confusing. Springee (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I have another CLS article question. I noticed that this LED article [[7]] does use the "pros and cons" type section. Would it be better to have something like the old pro/con section? Does that improve readability vs the paragraph form? Springee (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well things appear to be stable with the Corvette Leaf Spring article. We haven't come to an agreement on a new name yet though it does seem like there is some weight behind the idea of "Transverse Leaf Spring" with a notation that the article would cover either "modern" or perhaps only "independent" types. I'm going to leave that open for the moment. In the mean time I'm going to start adding links in other related articles. Springee (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested page move notification: Facel→Facel Vega

I have proposed that an article within the scope of this Wikiproject, Facel, be moved to Facel Vega. Discussion here. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Potential deletion of all images by Bull-Doser!

See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bull-Doser

Remember Bull-Doser? I guess most of us would rather forget about those unpleasant times... however, he is still active at Wikimedia Commons. Currently, there is a review going on at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bull-Doser which is proposing to delete all of BD's photos on the basis that they are copyright violations.

This issue began when recently when Bull-Doser uploaded a picture with incorrect copyright [8], however, another editor decided that this meant that all BD's photos were copyvios because while checking the user's uploads of the past year, was able to find pictures taken with 16 different camera models.

I agree that at face value, the uploads look suspect, but a deeper analysis shows that this is not the case. BD admitted he pulls old cameras and phones out of recycling bins for old electronics found in department stores and the like [9]. Considering the devices used are never particularly new, this story can be corroborated by the uploads he makes. All the photos follow a consistent "style" of poor quality that is unique to BD (as detailed by Ubcule) that I am sure most of us are familiar with. The photos are almost always taken in and around Quebec, those that are not are part of a series of very occasional vacation shots (usually Mexico or the Dominican Republic). He has followed this pattern since 2005 when he began as Take Me Higher. If Bull-Doser's (claimed) own images were actually copyvios, we'd expect a more diverse range of styles including higher-quality images (i.e. DSLR sourced ones) and photos from more places that just Quebec. Out of the 15,299 files (including deletions) he has uploaded to Commons as of today, 336 to the Wikipedia, and 427 files uploaded by his old Take Me Higher account, we have one proven copyvio of a file transferred from Flickr with an invalid licence [10]. No one knows for sure as to whether the file was in fact licenced as Creative Commons at the time of upload and then changed back to "all rights reserved" soon after. Furthermore, no one has been able to locate an original source for any of the other 16,062 files in question that have been uploaded prolifically for 10 years (99 percent plus of which are as claimed as his own work). Something would have come up well before now if there was impropriety going on.

Based on the current discussion, opinions are evenly split and it is looks like there is a possibility that all of Bull-Doser's files may be deleted based on the suspicions of the multiple devices used to capture the images. Some may exclaim this is a good thing due to the low quality of almost all of his uploads. I believe he makes a valuable contribution despite uploading a bunch of unusable garbage to go along with the odd useful file. I have no doubt the work is his own. I have not come across any suspicious activity regarding fake copyright with Bull-Doser's "own work" ever—not even an inkling of doubt. I have nominated many of his photos for deletion on the grounds of "low quality", as a look at his user talk page will testify. I have also nominated hundreds of other car photos from other users as copyvios based on suspicious circumstances, so I am certainly not allergic to deletions of otherwise useful images.

Given the above, it would be appreciated if any other editors familiar with Bull-Doser's work are able to participate in the review. Even if you have incriminating information that would support the deletion of his files, this would be useful as it would at least clear things up. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili articles' titles

Good day everyone. I'd like to have some opinions and possibly reach consensus on how to consistently title articles about Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili vehicles. As I see it there are three options:

1
A.L.F.A.		 2
A.L.F.A		 3
ALFA

Personally I'm for solution number 3 (ALFA), for the following reasons:

  • Conciseness
  • Accessibility: acronyms crammed with periods are complex to type, especially on mobile devices.
  • Common usage: even in period people simply wrote ALFA or Alfa, just as they did with FIAT/Fiat.

Naturally this is only concerning the article titles, not the content.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh goodie... I love votes. I'll pick option three as well. Periods for acronyms are a bit old fashioned in my view. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Also option three is consistent with other brands like SEAT, BMW, GMC, MG, SAAB, TVR, HSV, FPV, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I pick 3 as well, only because of the FIAT reference (and would have you shot run over by a 4 HP for putting up Option 2!) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I too vote option 3, although I do like the look of the periods for aesthetical reasons.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm also for option 3. As was mentioned, it's just easier to type. I also agree this applies to titles, not content. Springee (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I have performed the page moves as per option three given the above unanimous support. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why you changed these as its very clear the company name was officially spelled as A.L.F.A, just need to see Alfa webpage, even car names are spelled there with periods , cant be compared to SAAB or BMW those names have never been written with periods. And if you do these changes please fix all pages, also main Alfa Romeo page , In my opinion this change is wrong anyway. Is this thing even votable?, what says WIkipedia policy? -->Typ932 T·C 19:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I simply followed the instructions of the discussion above. I note that you never participated until after the changes had been made. The official name for the Volkswagen Up is Volkswagen up! but we do not use to the manufacturer's name, but rather the "common" English language compliant name. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Blame me, not OSX! I started the whole thing, because I don't think it is clear at all how the name was spelled. We have cursive Alfa scripts, this famous ad prefers A.L.F.A though the badge in the centre has no dots (badges always read ALFA), it's ALFA on the chassis number plaque of the 24 HP too (which looks like this), and A.L.F.A. on the new museum's panels. Proof of this confusion is that out of four Anonima Lombarda articles, three used two different spellings of the acronym, and the fourth bypassed the problem being titled Alfa Romeo... Bringing up the issue here seemed to me the best way to reach a modicum of consistency. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Now when its changed should the main Alfa page also fixed? there is written A.L.F.A in many times? >Typ932 T·C 05:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Riley Pathfinder

An 'anonymous' IP editor with one of those user-names that is just a long string of numbers and letters has deleted the supplementary infobox on the Pathfinder article relating to the Riley 'Big-Four' engine. I seem to recall some discussion about these secondary i/boxes a while back but can't seem to find it or recall the outcome of the discussion. No reason has been given for the deletion (no edit summary). Anyone able to advise what the position is/should be. Thanks, Eagleash (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Update; I've replaced the secondary box, for now. If someone else wishes to remove it again, then fine. Eagleash (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Japanese car template deletion

FYI, two templates have been nominated for deletion, Template:Japanese Supercars, 1957–present and Template:Japanese Supercars -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_41&oldid=1142154988"