Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:44, 7 May 2014

User	Talk	Sandbox	Contributions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present.

Holden "21h.p." engine

The engine used in the FJ/FE/FC Holdens seems to be the subject of some confusion. In the articles here in WP it is variously quoted as having 2160, 2170, 2171, or 2262 cc. 132.5 cuin is also mentioned. Here (period brochure), it is stated to have a 3 inch bore and a 3.125 inch stroke, which according to my calculations comes out to 132.5359 cuin or 2171.8749 cc. I believe that simple mathematical calculations aren't original research - should all of these various articles be changed to read 132.5cuin/2172cc? "2171" is just a result of converting a rounded number (132.5) rather than the actual displacement.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

According to a Holden history magazine I had handly, the grey motor started out as 2.15 L, 21.6 hp / 45 kW in the Holden 48/215 but grew a few times to max out at 2.26 L, 56 kW in the FB to EJ. My magazine is a bit short on details but I'm sure a decent Holden history book will spell it out. Stepho  talk  23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC) (signing now because I forgot on 15 April)

Hey. Sorry for the late reply—I haven't been editing much of late. This area really goes beyond my expertise, and I suggest maybe speaking to GTHO as much of his editing history focuses on the earlier models of Holden that I have minimal knowledge of. I don't have too many Holden books covering the early models either, except a couple of "History of Holden" type books. I have checked the books I have and they all seem to honour the original imperial measurements as these were the standard at the time—that is, 132 or 132.5 cu in.

Google does not bring up anything of value when searching for "Holden 2172 cu in" or similar, but changing the number to 2,171 does. I agree that conversions are not original research, but I also don't want to give you a recommendation where I feel I don't have enough knowledge on the issue to validly comment. Sorry that I cannot be of much help. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was simply wondering why so many numbers were being bandied about and figured I'd check what the actual displacement (3 x 3 1/8) came to be - which is 2172cc. I guess the question then becomes whether simple math trumps actual sources? In any case, I think that all the articles should use the same metric displacement.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The GMH's Holden 48/215 brochure number 1876 quotes the displacement as 132.5 cu. in.

The Motor Year Book 1951, page 68 quotes the Cubic capacity of the Holden as 2,170

The Australian Motor Manual 1953 Annual page 74 quotes the Capacity of the Holden as 2,170cc

"Comparing the Cars" (ie the new car price list) in Australian Motor Manual, January 1st 1957 page 65 quotes the capacity of the Holden models as 2170

"Comparing the Cars" (ie the new car price list) in Australian Motor Manual, January 1st 1960 page 64 quotes the capacity of the Holden models as 2170

GTHO (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks GTHO! OSX (talk • contributions) 14:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Bah! They're all wrong, I guess since they're from pre-calculator days. Nonetheless, these are nice sources and I don't know that I would even like to trump them - the main thing is that we may now use one single value across all of the early Holden articles, which will make these pages seem more professional. Btw, did Australia go metric in September 1974 as implied by this link?  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I could have just gone here instead, my bad!  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I just read this after making the below entry . First the reason for the difference 2172 / 2170 is rounding for publication in the actual measurements of the bore and stroke and second Holden will have been no, was very anxious to, maintain the US connection for marketing which is why it used cubic inches (with I suppose Chrysler and Ford) but not the rest so it is quite funny to read it being described as Imperial measurements when it is in fact a pure USA carryover. Eddaido (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Archiving web pages

Hi OSX, would you remember volunteering to archive an old Daimler brochure in an Ebay listing? I want to get this one archived very soon, please would you tell me how to do it. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I recall. I use WebCite. Hopefully it sticks around, and does not get discontinued at the end of the year. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thank you very much. . . . it works but only brings up a tiny box where the image should be, will wait a few days.Thanks Eddaido (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Try: . OSX (talk • contributions) 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I waited a few days and came back just now and look what I found! Thanks very much, any idea what I did wrong? Eddaido (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You just need to archive the URL of the actual image for it to work, not the website that contains the image. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've never been keen on shortened URL's - they give no clues to whether your going to a copy of a good website or a copy of a virus laden porn site. Instead, I like the long form which gives readers a clue about where they are going: eg for your brochure the archived web page told me the original web URL and the archive date, so I can turn it into a form similar to what archive.org uses: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/stumpyj/150305929.jpg&date=2013-05-17  Stepho  talk  13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi OSX, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Automobiles talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Misplaced Pages, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Burden

In accord with wp:v, and specifically wp:burden, the burden is on you -- if you wish to re-add material that has been deleted -- to supply an inline ref. WP does not work by one editor adding wholly unreferenced material, or more specifically re-adding wholly unreferenced material, and foisting upon others the burden of doing the work to source it. If you would like to re-add such material, you are of course welcome to do so, but the burden is on you to provide an inline ref that properly supports the material. Not on others. As made clear in wp:burden.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well go and delete 95 percent of all content here—because most is not cited. It is just silly to delete items without attempting to look yourself. I call that disruptive, despite whatever "official line" is.OSX (talk • contributions) 13:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Holden Revert

Dear Mr. OSX,

I made a minor edit to the Holden article. It was under the subsection of "Exports". Here is the section in question;

As you can see, the same information is provided twice in this small section. Therefore, I removed one of the references to take away the repetitiveness. take away the repetitiveness. I didn't notice a reason for your revert in the summary. I can only assume you did not realize that this error existed. I will correct it again. If for some reason you feel this redundancy is necessary, please feel free to revert it to whichever way you think is appropriate, only this time could you please provide some reasoning in the edit summary. Thanks. Have a great day! - thewolfchild 05:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, did not realise it was repeated. Fixed now. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No Problem. Cheers. - thewolfchild 07:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lexus IS

Thanks for the kind words at Talk:Lexus IS. I'm still not sure if he just didn't get what I was trying to say or if I was feeding a troll. Oh well.  Stepho  talk  15:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I really begrudge arguing with thick individuals like Basuraeuropea. I see you have a lot more patience for them than I do. I've seen this type around before, very polite on the surface—but super frustrating to deal with so they make you look like a bully when you vent any hint of frustration. You weren't in the wrong so don't worry. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mazda Capella

Oh boy. What is going on with these at the moment? I would bet good money on this being exactly the same user who tried to claim God told him that the Porsche Panamera replaced the Ford Crown Victoria... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol. I don't know what its problem is but next time I might just join in and think of a crazier tale to tell when I revert. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Colin Chapman appeared to me in a dream and told me that Lotus' first F1 car was the Toyota Prius" perhaps? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Lancer

Hi. I understand that you have a particular care for the Mitsubishi Lancer article and I definitely appreciate it, but I feel that you have been too fierce in defending your work while reverting my edits. I am explaining to you the reason for each of my recent edits in the Mitsubishi Lancer article.

The anchor templates have to be positioned in the section headings, as the Anchor template documentation explains. This is for getting the best results from using it, otherwise positioning it above or below the section titles does not bring the screen to the position intended which is exactly how the table of contents does.

The generation numbers do provide a better understating of the subject, as they use words which are more intelligible than numbers. Also, the most of the automobile articles on Misplaced Pages are structured this way. I noticed you have a preference for sections headers using only years, when things are somehow more complex because of a particular reason, such as here, but even so it's not necessary to use only numbers. As you have seen I have provided references for these edits, from the manufacturer's website. Also, the Mirage generations are also counted which makes generation numbers in the Lancer article even more relevant and less contestable.

The horizontal are placed at the bottom of articles, as stated in the WP:NAVBOX policy. I do not agree with positioning it in the upper section, near the beginning of the article, because the navbox it looks awkward comparing it to most of the other articles on Misplaced Pages. It is probably particularly because of the set of colors of the navbox class.

The gallery descriptions using the the generation numbers provide a better understanding of the subject also. As long as there are a first, a second, a seventh and an eighth generation (referenced), the links to the other Mirage-based should also be described this way. Particularly as I provided a reference for that.

"Marketing" instead of "Market", because "Market" defines something which may refer to something else as well and is not adequate as a section title, while "Marketing" defines more clearly that the section is about the marketing of the car on different markets eventually.

I assure you that have all the consideration for your dedication and interest for the subject and that I want to keep the articles neat as well. I hope that we will settle this issue in a fair way. Best regards, BaboneCar (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, why accuse me of being fierce when you changed it all first? But anyway, I will respond to each point:

• Anchor templates: I now understand that your way is the proper way. It looks like hell, but if that's the usage, then that's the way it is.

• I don't have a preference for sections headers using only years at all, quite the opposite. My preference is for generations, except in circumstances where they do more harm than good, i.e. Lancer, Toyota Camry. How can we have generations when we have issues like Lancer Fiore paralleling production with the Lancer EX in the early 1980s? What is a "second generation" in one market is different to others. Therefore, one should only use generations when they help rather than impede understanding for the majority of users.

• The navbox was created by me to go in the Mirage-based Lancer section to give editors a visual on how the cars fitted together in the major scheme of things. I have done the same at Toyota Camry. It's intended to be a timeline for one article, not a multi-article navbox. I'm just using the navbox template. I strongly disagree that it should go down the bottom of the page in a collapsed form. I'd rather see it deleted than go at the bottom as it's purpose is wasted down there. Let's change the master template from Navbox to something else if we have to as the spirit of its creation was to go where with the Mirage-based models.

• The gallery descriptions: see above—generations.

• "Marketing" to me is synonymous with advertising and promotion of the vehicle. "Market" refers to the various countries that the car is sold, e.g. UK market, Japanese market. I have yet to come across other articles using "marketing" in that context.

I also hope we can reach an agreement. Enjoy your weekend!

Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 13:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I said it because you reverted some other minor edits as well from my revision which did not require to be reverted. Regarding the timeline, I do consider it relevant in the Mirage-based section, but within its own subsection, with a section header above, and below the text. Otherwise, it would look like an awkwardly positioned navbox in the upper half of the article, when everyone would expect it at the bottom. Anyway, I do appreciate the fact that you created it and I believe it does provide a better understanding of the subject.

The "Marketing" term does also refer to how the vehicle was commercialized in a specific market and not only to advertising or promoting. I do not see any problem with using it instead of "Market", which is rather a noun than a verb in this context. It is also used in other articles as well and it seems that it is accepted.

Regarding the generation numbers, I remain to my opinion that they should be used along with years, but, at least for the moment, I will stop doing edits related to this aspect. I consider them totally acceptable as long as they can be referenced. I have found this Lancer brochure, which mentions on the last page that there have been nine generations of development up to the current model. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Image changes by 219.116.115.176

I compared the changes he did. Most of the images he changed were badly done derivatives, ie he removed the derivatives and replaced them with the originals. One of those derivatives was to remove sign writing on the side of the car but most of his changes were for the better.  Stepho  talk  21:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some of the images were better and left those alone. But he seemed to be specifically targeting Altair78's edited images, replacing all of them indiscriminately. Some changes like this and this were definite improvements. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 219.116.115.176 is disruptive. Thank you.

I finally got tired of him wasting my time, so I've reported him.  Stepho  talk  22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Amazing! - he deleted the notification on his talk page 3 minutes after I added it.  Stepho  talk  22:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully he doesn't come back after the block! In fact getting him blocked was a quick process, I was trying to work out what rule he had actually broken recently that I could use as justification. The Chinese Lexus link was left alone for a few weeks until today. I guess being "annoying" is good enough as requirement. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind if he comes back - as long as he communicates with us. Then we have a chance to turn a disruptive editor into a constructive editor.  Stepho  talk  04:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You guys are too damned nice.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes it easier to hide our truly evil work - done when no one is watching :)  Stepho  talk  06:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sylphy

Hi OSX, I saw your work folding duplicate Pulsar content into the Bluebird Sylphy page, nice work. I have a question regarding the renaming, however, as I thought that the policy was to name the article after the original name of the car, unless obviously trumped by later use - hence, not Isuzu Florian Aska but definitely "Nissan Bluebird Sylphy". Not a strong opinion of mine, but I thought I should nudge you on the matter. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I thought the new name "Nissan Sylphy" was a better fit as the new name no longer contains "Bluebird". It still works for the original cars as well as all thee generations include the "Sylphy" suffix. I also note that the latest Sylphy is a more international model than in the past—Sylphy was previously for Japan only, now China and Thailand use the name (and maybe others). Volkswagen CC has been adopted as the title of that page despite it originally being "Volkswagen Passat CC". On the subject of Nissans, any article on a legacy Datsun model that became a Nissan seems to universally use the newer Nissan title (e.g. Datsun Bluebird, Datsun Sunny).

For these reasons I'm not sure if I support a blanket one-size fits all policy to name the article after the original name of the car. It has certainly not been documented at WP:CARS/Conventions, although that does not make it irrelevant if it is based on a previous talk page consensus. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning is good enough for me, especially the fact that the third generation is sold in many more markets. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 00:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Latham

Per WP:BRD, if new information is added, and other editors object for sound, policy based reasons, you need to then go to the article's talk page and get consensus to add it. I've already started a discussion there. Continuing to attempt to force information into an article is edit warring. I'm especially concerned since this is negative BLP info, which is held to our absolutely highest standard. Please do not re-add that until you establish consensus. If we cannot agree amongst ourselves, you can pursue dispute resolution. But the WP:BURDEN is on you to overcome WP:UNDUE and the WP:BLP concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mazda B-series

Yes, Mazda's choices of bodystyles were pretty wacky, and only seem to have lasted for a year tops. There's a brochure picture of the entire BUA lineup which I shall scan and mail to you for your edutainment. I also decided to make a simple line drawing of the B1500, a shrunken interim version can be seen here. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this one! You are a very good drawer—I'm quite impressed. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox automobile

Your recently proposed edits on Template:Infobox automobile are unacceptable: the title style outside the infobox has been in place for at least five years and the template is used in hundreds or thousands of articles. There is absolutely no reason to change it now, once everyone has got used to it. The grey color you proposed for the background color of the headings is too dark and does not match with the bold formatting. I have implemented a lighter version, which the initial editor agreed with. We should not edit war over background colors. The line breaks within a template are not necessary, because it is meant to be as small in size as possible. BaboneCar (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, what are you on about? We have every other editor supporting the changes so stop spinning it as otherwise. I don't care about it being a certain way for five years, the rest of the editors said they were much happier with the new design. So as you said, there is absolutely no reason to change it now. You want to change it back, discuss it first. I will keep reverting your disruptive changes as many times as I have to until you discuss it first.

I prefer your light colour grey (which you would know if you bothered to read the discussion that you seem allergic to engaging in). However, you have not participated in the discussion, so your proposal has no weighting until its been discussed first. If you continue to go about things in this manner don't expect to hold any respect from other editors.

SUMMARY: discuss it first! OSX (talk • contributions) 08:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not the one who wants to modify the template. I reverted the title style to the original state, after a modification was done per the bold policy. There is no discussion on the talk page of the template, yet you re-installed the edits several times. You are the one who should discuss it (see WP:BRD). The fact that this modification is supported is based on vague discussions, where it is unclear whether who supports what. That is not how you do edit a template that is present on thousands of articles. It should be changed only if there is a good reason for it, regardless of the number of editors that support the edit (see WP:DEMOCRACY). Also, you discuss it on the talk page of the template, so that everyone who follows the page can be notified and express his opinion, and with each proposed modification discussed separately, so that a clear conclusion can be drawn on each topic. BaboneCar (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

XC Fairmont GXL

Hi OSX,

I have some concerns with the article “XC Fairmont GXL” and would be interested in your views:

• It purports to be about the (Ford) XC Fairmont GXL but in fact covers the whole Ford XC Falcon range
• The article has been create with no regard to the existing series of Australian Ford Falcon articles, including “Ford XC Falcon”
• It is written in a somewhat biased tone
• The bulk of the article is a statistical summary of the XC Falcon, seemingly lifted straight from http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/falcon_XC_technical_specifications.htm
• Most of its references are quite vague (e.g. “Ford Motor Corporation of Australia”)
• One of the references is “Peter. J. Balikoff (1968- ), 1970s Ford historian” – and the creator of the article is “Balikoff”

Your thoughts? GTHO (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. These pre-XD series Fords are not my specialty, but I agree with what you have to say:

• The article ought to be renamed merged with Ford XC Falcon — I would prefer the title "Ford Falcon (XC)" but that would out of line with the rest of Falcon pages.
• I can live with the bias as it is better to have a slightly biased page than no info. Plus, these offences can be fixed if deemed necessary.
• Anything with a bullet point in front of it should be deleted as it is basically just fancruft. I note a couple of points are of note and should be retained/integrated elsewhere (i.e. production figures).
• I would delete the dodgy references "Ford Motor Corporation of Australia”,“Balikoff”. Anything contentious associated with these references should be deleted (i.e. "...HX Kingswood, which lacked power, style and handling when compared to the new — of course Ford would say that, even though I agree).

Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Gak - that article has more problems than I've had hot dinners!

• Should have 'Ford' at the start of the article name.
• Massive plagiarisation from Unique Cars.
• Syntax errors (eg look for </nowiki>== Specifications ==</nowiki>)
• Covers entire XC range instead of just the Fairmont GXL.
• Biased (especially against Holden).
• Poor grammar.
• Poor documented references (how do you verify something as 'Ford Owners Club of Australia')

One of my early cars was an XB Fairmont coupe with 302 V8 and 4-speed manual. It was a rust bucket but I loved it. The Fairmont used the short wheelbase body of the Falcon combined with the interior of the long wheelbase, upmarket Fairlane. In other words, just a trim level on the Falcon range - albeit a very nice trim level. I don't believe it needs an article separate from the main XC article. I concur with OSX that we salvage what we can from it (NPOV info that can be referenced properly without plagarism) and merge it back into the XC article.  Stepho  talk  13:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added my thought to the relevant Talk page. GTHO (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Triton/L200

I think it might be time to revisit the naming of this article. Since we usually give more weight to the original name of a car, calling this page "Triton" (a name only introduced in 2006, I believe, and only in some markets) is misleading. It should really be either Forte or L200, Forte since it is the original home market name or L200 since it was used in many export markets and truly has seen the most use in the biggest number of markets globally. Maybe we should make a chart or something. You raised a point of L300 being called Delica, but then again the Delica name was never dropped in Japan where the Forte name only had a brief run. Tell me what you think.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I find either of these names difficult to support to be honest. L200 is a good choice if we want to keep the current article as a single entry as it was used for all generations (AFAIK, "L200" is the only name that applies to all generations). Triton has been used since the second generation in some export markets. I support the separation of the article into Forte, Strada, and Triton as per JDM terminology. I too would prefer to keep the page together ideally, but I can't find a workaround that is permissible to me. The Delica/L300 also bothers me from a page title consistency perspective. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I could see a separation, but I still think that keeping them on one page as it is clearly a single line of trucks that just so happened to have been sold under a myriad of names. Another good reason for L200 (besides consistency and multiplicity of usage and "first name" status in many markets) is that it is titled thusly in most other language projects. What's the issue with consistency regarding the L300/Delica? Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the page is relatively short, splitting is going to give us three stub articles. However, bunching these models together based on their continuity as a pickup truck line of vehicles goes against project norms (e.g. Mitsubishi Grandis replaced the Chariot and both are separate pages). You argue that we could use the name "Forte" as it was the original name. I'd go the other way and argue that "Triton" is more relevant and far less obscure (and in some markets covers three of four generations, not just one). With regards to the Delica, having an L200 article and not an L300 page is not really very consistent. To properly adhere to the convention for page titles I feel a split is the only way to achieve this without resorting to ignoring the policy (which I conveniently do for Opel articles that should possibly be renamed Vauxhall in accordance with the convention). OSX (talk • contributions) 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to make clear that I do not think calling it "Mitsubishi Forte" is a good idea. "Delica" trumps L300 because it has been consistently used in Japan and the Delica series has always been available there. Since the Forte etcetera has only ever been sold intermittently in Japan, it is hard to say what the car's "home market" is. L200 Express was also the original name used in Oz. Where was Triton used for the 2nd gen? I don't see it mentioned in the article. The L200 range was offered in Japan 1978-86, 91-99, 2006-11, so I don't reckon the JDM naming is really of much relevance here. Lastly, L200 has been used on some version of any and all generations of this series somewhere in the world.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll let's do L200. I still have my reservations, but because it has been sold on and off in Japan our naming convention won't neatly apply so can be trumped by WP:Common name. It's been Triton in Australia since the second generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, we'll put it up on the talkpage - I just wanted to feel you out before I brought it up there again.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Avalon vs Lexus

Stepho-wrs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Yep. Sorry about that. It is clearly a troll. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

How does the famous quote go - "never attribute to malice what could be attributed to stupidity". I prefer to think of him as a drongo rather than a bastard. :)  Stepho  talk  06:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

But I may be wrong in this case  Stepho  talk  06:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do as he keeps changing his IP address (which is quite an unusual style that I have not seen before with letters and numbers). Blocks would be futile as he seems to just go IP hopping. There are signs that give away the misinformed genuine cases from the trolls straight away. When I get the inkling, I do not respond favourably as has been shown. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The funny letters and numbers are because his computer is using an IPv6 address instead of a more common IPv4 address.  Stepho  talk  10:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Holdenpaedia

What do you think the copyright rules for photos such as this one might be? I think at least some of them are original work.  Mr.choppers | ✎  09:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late reply, seems alright to me. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cruze

Hi. I do not agree with the arguments you issued for reverting the layout of the Chevrolet Cruze article. I explained in my edit summaries the clear reasons why the infobox should be placed in the "2008–present (J300)" section. It describes the sedan car therefore that is the right place where it should be placed. In fact it does look better as it is equally a set index article as you prefer to maintain it (and I agree with that) and regarding the fact whether it is conventional or not, all or the most majority of the articles have the infobox that is describing one particular generation of the car in that particular section. Also the most of them have a main infobox at the beginning of the article that contains fewer, essential information about that car, as an overview (but not when there are two or more different generations or versions of that car). I will re-install the infobox into the sedan car's section and add a main infobox, as well as information about the upcoming second generation. If you want to further clarify other details you may do it here or on the talk page of the article. Please leave the article layout as it is now and if you have further opinions about it discuss them, but let's not engage into an edit war again. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Car articles typically have a lede infobox and left-aligned TOC—not a right-aligned TOC and no infobox until later on. However, I am satisfied with your recent revisions to the page that seem to alleviate both our concerns. Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Toyota LiteAce

Hello! Your submission of Toyota LiteAce at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ke4roh (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Mirage article

Hello. You, without discussion, removed a caption I put in for the infobox image in the Mitsubishi Mirage article. I thought it would be relevant where the car was shown, and the year. Your comments say it's irrelevant. I'm not so sure it is indeed irrelevant. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. There is no need to discuss every little change—not much would get done if we were that bureaucratic. You have taken issue to my edit and expressed this to me—that is fine. In relation to your caption, the date and motor show location of where the Mirage was photographed is not important. The picture having been taken at the Paris Motor Show in October 2012 is of no more relevance than if it were taken parked on the Champs-Élysées last week. Neither of these attributes (date and motor show location) add information that serves to contextualise the car itself. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

SIAs

Thanks for your help in finishing this half-hearted effort of mine! Somewhat related question: was the Alto-based SS40 "Hatch" only sold with the 543cc engine in Oz, or did it later get the 800cc engine? Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. But to answer your question I have no idea but will investigate later tonight for you. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oz market SS40'sSS80's hatchbacks were known as the Suzuki 800 and had the 796 cc engine (which my brother-in-law calls "the big block"). The SS40T Mighty Boy was stuck with the 543 cc engine. I'm not sure if we got the 543 cc engine in the hatch but I think we didn't. All mechanical parts are interchangeable.  Stepho  talk  05:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh - that sounds as if there never was a "Suzuki Hatch", if its official name was "Suzuki 800"? I feel as if I've seen some stuff to the contrary. "Big Block" is pretty funny...  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It had "800" badges, so we always called it the 800. But I won't swear to its official name. Used to see them around in the late 1980s but they're getting rarer. Saw one circa 1988 that had exhaust stacks just behind the doors (like a full size truck).  Stepho  talk  07:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Unique Cars and Parts the Suzuki Hatch had the 543 cc engine, but in 1981 the "800 pack" became an option with the 796 cc motor. RedBook claims the 796 cc engine came in 1980 (staying until 1984) but also mentions 1985 models (543 cc only). As per ja.wiki the SS40 ended production in September 1984, so our cars may have been built in 1984 but complied upon entry to Australian ports in 1985. But who knows. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle Size Classification

OSX, What's the final word on vehicle sizes? Should we classify cars by their EPA classification or their marketed classification. Such as the Dodge Dart (PF) which is marketed as a compact car, but it is classified as mid-size on the EPA's website. Thanks! VX1NG (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Since 'marketing' is often synonymous with 'lies' (or at least, 'exaggeration'), I'd go with the EPA classification. We did the same thing with engine sizes (eg Ford mustang 5.0 L engine is actually 4.9 L - in spite of marketing's claim).  Stepho  talk  23:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The official method is clearly flawed as both the Dodge Dart and Chevy Cruze fall into the mid-size class according to the EPA where they compete "head-on" with the Toyota Avalon, Bentley Mulsanne and Audi A8 (these are really full-size). We all know that the Dart is of similar size to the Corolla, Civic, Mazda 3, VW Golf, etc—all compacts. Mid-size cars are the larger Camry, Accord, and Mazda 6. The full-size category contains the Chevy Impala, Toyota Avalon and Audi A8, S-Class, etc. This is more of a case where the marketing departments are correcting a technicality issue that the EPA ought to fix up, and until such time be ignored. P.S. I agree with you on the 4.9- versus 5.0-liter part. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, OSX. So, how do we address the issue that older cars marketed as compacts (or any size classification) are significantly different in size than the compact cars sold today? VX1NG (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all relative to the time/context I guess, but do you have any examples? The mid-size Camry used to be smaller and was considered compact. The compact Corolla used to be sub-compact. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

These classifications are by necessity vague and confusing - and whenever someone decides to clarify matters, things only become worse (viz EPA classifications). If all WP editors were sentient beings, then this would never be a problem (current Dart would compete with Jetta, Mulsanne would be elsewhere) but WP's apparent need for spelled-out policies makes this issue impossible to answer. If we were allowed to be less legalistic and to follow our mass gut feelings, then these concerns could all be resolved with less trouble.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

All, I apologize in advance, it is not my intention to cause trouble. I am just trying to find out how we address the differences between older models and newer models, that use the same classification. Such as the Dodge Shadow and the Dodge Dart, while both are marketed as compact cars, they differ significantly in size. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=3346&id=34559 13:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kia Pride

In all honesty, I don't know about this model code for sure - an editor (Chu, an unpleasant character) changed it in the Commons and then I saw that it was changed at the Korean Kia Pride entry, so I assumed it correct. I don't exactly know how to find out for sure, though...  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The reason why I reverted your edit was because I mistook it for vandalism (I was not paying enough attention I guess). When I realised you made the change I reverted back. I'm happy to leave the model code as "Y". Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 09:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Re: This this edit, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Altimgamr. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Tuckey (2003), p. 120.
2. Cite error: The named reference Holden Announces Next Stage Of $1 Billion Export Drive was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference Holden at a glance was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ "Vehicle Exports". GM Holden. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
5. Gover, Paul (2009-05-01). "Pontiac pays the price". Herald Sun. The Herald and Weekly Times. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
6. Hammerton, Ron; Pettendy, Marton (2009-07-13). "Holden in US comeback". GoAuto. John Mellor. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
7. "Very Last Holden Monaro Up For Auction". WorldCarFans.com. Black Falcon Media Group Oy. 2006-02-01. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
8. Pettendy, Marton (2007-04-11). "Holden's Chinese Buick". GoAuto. John Mellor. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
9. Mathioudakis, Bryon (2008-09-05). "First look: Veritas a veritable Statesman". GoAuto. John Mellor. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
10. "Financial Results 1998 – 2003". General Motors. Archived from the original on 21 July 2008.
11. "Vauxhall VXR8 6.2 GTS". Autocar. 26 February 2011. Retrieved 17 January 2012.