Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:08, 30 June 2006

Headline text

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! It's nice to have another contributor to the automobile articles! Just a few comments - are the dates you're putting in model years or calendar years? We've normally listed the former. Also, your images need a copyright tag - I suggest {{Fairuse}} for the corporate images. --SFoskett 20:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

And the WikiMedal goes to...

Feel free to move it to your user page, I didn't want to place it there to interfere with your desired layout. You surely do deserve it, and I hope you will continue with your precious work even after receiving this :D Bravada Talk to me! 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. BTW, is there any way we can have better control over templates and images floating in articles? I see that you are probably using a lower screen resolution than I do (1024x768 fullscreen), and I gather that what looks good on my screen looks terrible on your, and vice versa.

User:Bull-Doser

You beat me by 5 seconds to the removal of that bad Oldsmobile Achieva photo :-) But what can we do about this? I find his behaviour as bad as any vandal's, especially because his awful pics waste megabytes of server space. DonIncognito 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we should continue with Take Me Higher's original RfC, and take into account TMH's new name and what's he done so far. I wouldn't exactly call Bull-Doser's/Take Me Higher's behavior vandalism, but it seems close at times.--ApolloBoy 00:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

BX non-hatchback model

Hiya, what I meant by "Europeanising" was British-centric, you're right, but that's because it's an English-language article, not any other European language. Somewhere deep in the Manual of Style, there's a suggestion that one use British English in contexts where the article talks about a thing from or in a place where British English is predominant, and one use American English where the thing is from or in a place where American English holds sway.

But anyway, I hope you like my compromise of using the term that Citroën themselves use, "Break". – Kieran T 01:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The English call theirs "estate cars" because if you have an estate, you're likely to make use of the large cargo area. The Americans call theirs "station wagons" because, erm, the cargo area is covered sort of like a conestoga wagon was, and you have to make frequent trips to petrol stations if you drive one. The Germans call theirs "kombi" because they're a sort of combination between a passenger car and a commercial vehicle. And the French call them "break" because France has particularly strong truth-in-advertising laws! ;-) Scheinwerfermann 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean "gas stations", not "petrol stations". ;) --ApolloBoy 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again :) There's something unresolved here because several times you have returned to European car articles and replacing "saloon" with "sedan" and "estate" with "station wagon". Here's the thing: Misplaced Pages doesn't come in British English and American English versions, and so both languages are in use. And of course there are no rules ;) BUT it's a convention that an article about a product from one country will use the language of that country. Easy with Britain and the United States. When it comes to a non English-speaking country like Italy, for example, I don't think one could prove which version of English is spoken more than the other (unless you have sales figures for all language courses and admissions figures for foreign students at universities!) but since Italy is in the political entity of Europe, and British English is one of the official languages in European government terms, and also since Italian cars in general are likely to sell better in Europe than in the United States (because of transportation costs), then I'd say it's pretty reasonable to go with the European spelling. So I'd ask you to please at least state your opinion on this here. Based on your edit summaries which tend to just say "fixing" I really can't see your point of view, and I'd genuinely like to. – Kieran T 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I took a while to reply, I was at my great-aunt's birthday party, so I wasn't around for about 6 hours. Anyway, I totally see your point now, and I'll go ahead and change things from AE to BE, if you insist. --ApolloBoy 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hope she had a great birthday ;-) – Kieran T 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What is "nonsense"?

Every time I clean up the matador page and set up the lineage of the AMC midsize to current Chrysler, sombody deletes it . I started the page, and I grew up observing the evolution of these cars, I thought the Matador was notable car when it was still a new car. Removing valid information is vandalism, so grow up.

I keep removing your information because most of it is false. I really do not see how the Matador can be traced back to the LH-cars or the LX-cars as you keep insisting, because the Matador never had a true replacement, and the LH-cars certainly cannot be considered successors, as you claim. The LH-cars were developed by Chrysler beginning in 1989, and Chrysler used components from the Eagle Premier because a new engineer came in to the LH project and decided to use the Premier's suspension design. Other than that and the basic layout, the LH really has nothing in common with the Premier. I am not committing vandalism, so please don't accuse me of something that I actually work hard to prevent. Also, it is considered polite to sign your posts using 4 tildes (like this: ~~~~) --ApolloBoy 06:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to respect the work of others. Nothing in the article is factually false. The Charger and 300 are actually more close related to the Matador than any chrysler car, just as the latest platform has more in common with the Mercedes E-series than the LH cars. It is annoying to have other people appoint themselves experts and remove the work of others, so just knock it off. This is an article about AMC intermediates, and following the line of descendants is perfectly valid, and it leads nowhere but the current large Chrysler cars. It is extremely significant that that AMC purchase led to the LH cars. --Wiarthurhu 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have told you before, I cannot see how the LX-cars and LH-cars can be traced back to the Matador. The Matador never had a true successor, and your observations about this whole issue sound like original research, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. And BTW, thanks for signing your posts.

Posting here as it is more or less relevant to the topic

ApolloBoy, don't let a minor issue like that affect your morale too much. There will always be stubborn people who believe Misplaced Pages is a soapbox for them to preach their views on the world. We are in fact all a bit like that, as we believe our views are right. No matter how stark contrast there can be between the initial positions of two Wikipedians, a lot of them can be convinced that what they perceive as universal truth might in fact be POV, provided that it is done by means of civil, toned-down (and time-consuming and sometimes even tedious) debate.
You are certainly right in your intentions, it's just that Wiarthuru perhaps needs more time to understand how and why WP works. Let us help him with that. In the meatime, keep the good work on the myriads of other great WP articles you created and helped develop! I am happy to see you back here, as it would be a great loss if you left WP!

Please don't encourage the boy. Calling logic "vandalism" and "nonsense" is less of what we need.--Wiarthurhu 23:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's quite enough. I think it would help all of us a great deal if you remember to be civil in your arguments... --ApolloBoy 23:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ford TH!NK

I see you tagged my newly created article on the Ford TH!NK. I created it becuase it was under Ford Vehicles and red. Almost no info on these since Ford stopped talking about them to start with fuel cells. We are not going to have some fancy article with pics and stats since this car was never produced and ford does not care about them any longer. What do you suggest?

I know you don't want a fancy article, but I tagged it because your article has poor formatting and the pictures need to be thumbnailed and sized to 250 pixels, which is the norm for most automobile articles here. --ApolloBoy 07:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Door consistency

If we're going to be consistent on Misplaced Pages when it comes to cars, we have to come up with some standard for doors. If we render 2-door coupe, but 3-door hatchback, then we have to say 3-door wagon and 5-door wagon and 5-door SUV. This is the approach Car & Driver and GlobalAutoIndex take. This is because the "extra" door is no less integral to the hatchback design than it is to the wagon or SUV, and in all cases that door accesses the rear of the cabin. The other option is to use 4-door sedan, 4-door hatchback, and 4-door wagon (Motor Trend, Automobile Magazine, Edmunds.com, ConsumerGuide, Consumer Reports, and Carsinamerica.net all use this format). This is preferable, since it distinguishes that doors are for people, liftgates and hatches are for luggage. Therefore, the only time "odd" numbers of doors would be used would be on old extended-cab pickup trucks and mini/maxivans. The second option is more concrete than the first, but either one is better than 5-door hatchback but 4-door wagon, which is both inconsistent and illogical. Sacxpert 22:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This should probably go on a project or article talk page, so I hope ApolloBoy doesn't mind me chipping in here. Just to say that I've always been bugged by this, but all the press I've seen (in Britain) have always gone with 2 & 4 doors for saloons/sedans and estates/wagons, and 3 & 5 doors for hatchbacks. It was a marketing ploy by the early hatchback makers, I seem to remember, to make us think we were getting something extra that "old-fashioned" bodystyles didn't have. – Kieran T 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kieran, thanks for the heads-up, I put this post up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles Sacxpert 09:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Matador Premier wars

The LH cars succeeded the K cars. They were completely different. The LX cars are completely different from the LH with name changes. The 2006 Charger is a succesor to the 1968 Charger. They are completely different. The 2006 Malibu has absolutely nothing in common with a 1964 Malibu other than a nameplate. The Freestar is almost identical to a Windstar, but is a nameplate change. AMC has had a large car nameplate ever since the Nash Ambassador. The Premier was the next large car nameplate. Regardless of what you think of the Matador, the LX cars have an AMC heritage, now you tell which car came before the premier? Now will you go and bother somebody else's page?

The AMC heritage goes from the Ambassador and Hudson hornet through the Matador to the Chrysler LX. The only link that is missing is the succesor box that you insist on erasing because you don't agree to definition of the term. You certainly don't have any problem with the Malibu undergoing an entire platform size from the 70s to 80s and keeping the same name, or the Rebel name changing and keeping the same car, or Valiant to Volare to Reliant. If the Premier wasn't the succesor, what was? If the Matador wasn't the previous model, what was? Where is the Misplaced Pages rule defining what is and is not a succesor? Whatever you define it to be? --Wiarthurhu 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems with that reasoning, especially considering the examples you used. First off, the K-cars were replaced by a combination of the Neon, Cloud Cars and the LH-cars, depending on which K-car derivatives you're talking about. Second, the current Charger replaced the Intrepid because the Charger is a full-sized sedan like the Intrepid, came shortly after the discontiuation of the Intrepid, and competes in the same market the Intrepid did. There is no way the Premier could have replaced the Matador (especially considering they were different classes) or the Ambassador, since the Ambassador and Premier are about 13-14 years apart. I don't know about you, but I think SteveBaker's argument on the Matador page summed up things nicely.

BTW, I'm not doing this just to bug you, I'm doing this because I think it's quite odd (and somewhat incorrect) to say that the mid-sized/full-sized AMCs are linked to the current Chrysler LX-cars, that's all. I'm trying to be as civil as I can with this, and I think it would help if you cooled down just a bit and refrained from harassing me or other users. --ApolloBoy 23:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Different classes? Your remark said that they're both large cars. I talked to an Eagle Vision owner who disputed they were related to the Premier, I had to explain the N/S engine layout and Chrysler deal to him, so it might be reworded, but it's certainly not common knowledge. If you were to figure out how to tape together the AMC line to the Dodge Line, you would certainly go from the Rebel to the Premier without too much problem, the Dodge box clearly shows the Monaco at the left, and an AMC box would have the Matador, a blank, and then would appear the Premier at the Matador/Ambassador slots, with the Ambassador line going all the way back to 1932, going by both the original 300 and Airflow (you _do_ know what an airflow is, right?) . People have mothers and fathers, and in this case the LH and LX cars have multiple heritages defined by engineering or marketing slots. Man you don't miss a trick do you? I can't write one word in any of these car pages before you cruise by. Visit the Pinto and Cortina pages. I still remember taking the Cortina brocure out of the Sound Ford dealer show room in Renton in 1968. A lot of really obscure info out there that has yet to hit the Misplaced Pages, you can help or you can bar the door like you're doing now. --Wiarthurhu 01:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The cloud cars were a direct replacement for the K's. The Premier was a Taurus fighter extended K replacement because the K's were just too small. The Neon replaced the Sundance. Simple, or do you want to rip that out because you don't agree?? I fixed the notion that the follow on to the Reliant was the Sundance, why didn't you catch that???--Wiarthurhu 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said the Matador was a large car. BTW, I know what an Airflow is, I even started the article for it. I'm not trying to "bar the door" like you say I am, I'm just trying to find anything that sounds dubious and see if I can do anything about it; that's one of the things about Misplaced Pages. As I said back before, your observations sound like original research. You still have yet to provide proper references to your claims, and yes, I do know about the references that you added to the Matador article, which one user checked, and he said he couldn't find anything that had to do with your claim.

The Premier was never intended to compete against the Taurus, as I said before, it was mainly developed to compete against European near-luxury sedans.

Also, I'd rather you stop antagonizing me. Me and several other users have told to you stop, and you aren't letting up. If you can remain civil, we can work through this faster. That's what I'm trying to aim for right now... --ApolloBoy 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Eureka! Go see the AMC Eagle page, har har.--131.107.0.81 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Bravada just reverted it. If you're doing this just to bother me (which I gather from your post above mine), it's not working. --ApolloBoy 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

==Accusing editors and reverting edits as "Vandalism"

Good Faith

On Apolloboy's claim of eliminating "vandalism": To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Misplaced Pages would be doomed from the beginning.

So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.

An edit made on good faith is NEVER considered vandalism.

"Nonsense" is a POV unless it can be proved by a verifible source --Wiarthurhu 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Endless bickering

Perhaps the both of you ought to recuse yourselves from this particular article and get on with life. Scheinwerfermann 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the debate has come to a close, so let's just end it. --ApolloBoy 04:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not good form to go around a forum with people building sandcastles and and have wiki bullies kick them down because they don't meet their self-appointed standards. We could get along if you follow the real guidelines that you don't simply tear down what somebody else built, you try to edit it to improve it. Is everybody like this? This world would be really gross if people went around following you and erased everything you did for the past year, and called it vandalism and nonsense.--Wiarthurhu 06:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This should end. It's clear what the answer is. I came at this as a complete outsider with no preconcieved notions as to who was right and who was wrong - and no knowledge of the vehicle or it's history. The evidence for ApolloBoy's position is totally overwhelming. The article needs a total rewrite anyway - it has very little useful information about the car and relies too much on fair use images - in the course of that rewrite (whenever it happens), the results of all this debate might well be swept away anyhow. SteveBaker 13:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with SteveBaker on this, but I would ask ApolloBoy to consider using more neutral edit summaries. Even when what one is saying is absolutely in the right, and the majority opinion, it will offend others to use words like "nonsense". – Kieran T 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

True, I may have been a bit out of hand as you stated. I'll try to keep my emotions from affecting my edit summaries in the future.--ApolloBoy 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

List of AMC legacy cars

I seem to have lost my article, have you seen it? It had Premier, Matador and 300 all on the same page, and you seem to be able to find these. --Wiarthurhu 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't even know you created such an article. It must've been deleted somehow, I suppose... --ApolloBoy 21:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a list of all those cars on the American Motors page. I doubt there is much to add to that. SteveBaker 23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW: Nice work on the Matador page ApolloBoy - there is actually some good content there now - many thanks!) SteveBaker 23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I know how much you were ranting about how bad the Matador article was, so I decided to be bold and added a ton of info. I agree, the page does look much better now. --ApolloBoy 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cubic Inches vs Liters

What's the general rule for using liters as opposed to cubic inches? Sable232 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For any American car made before 1980, use cubic inches. If it was made after 1980, use liters. --ApolloBoy 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of clarification: For American-made cars prior to 1980, use both, with cubic inches prioritised thus: 225 in³ (3.7 L). For cars made after that, either use only litres or, at your option, prioritise litres thus: 3.2 L (198 in³). Note the units for cubic inches, don't use "CID" or "Cu. In.". Scheinwerfermann 19:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And I also don't think it's a good idea to use cubic inches for modern engines, as they're built around the liter now, not cubic inches. --ApolloBoy 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not for current and recent ones, no, since everyone engineers in litres any more. My "at your option" comment was aimed primarily at overlap times and places where the Metric system was in general use but for various reasons some engines known by their cubic inch designations were still being built, advertised and sold. Examples would be Australia and Canada in the 1980s. Scheinwerfermann 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chevy Impala

I'm reverting the size-class of the Impala back to full-size/mid-size. If you will recall, back when the current (2006) generation Impala was introduced, GM was advertising it as a mid-size with better fuel economy numbers than the Toyota Camry, another mid-size. Also, the W-body is not a full-size platform. I'm not quite understanding why the EPA considers it a full-size, even though it is clearly mid-size. KansasCity 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the EPA classifies the Impala as a full-size either, but that's what I'm going with. --ApolloBoy 02:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The full-size car definition on WP states clearly that vehicles with wheelbase longer than 110 inches are fullsize. The 2000+ W-bodies have a wheelbase of 110.5 inches which places them in that category, even if barely meeting the criterion. Today's fullsize cars are indeed smaller than in the past, and Impala is certainly closer in dimensions to the likes of Ford 500 and Toyota Avalon than today's midsizers. Of course, GM's wondrous downpricing strategy pits it against V6 Camries and such, but that's another thing. Bravada, talk - 03:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's why I added the full-size category. Another standard you might want to review is the one used by rental car companies who classify the current Impala as full-size. So considering that all three, the WP article on full-size vehicles, the EPA and rental car companies call the Impala a full-size what other choices does one have, other than to classify it as a full-size. Regards, Signature 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Years and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William C. Rodgers

This is just to follow up on your nomination for deletion of the William C. Rodgers at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William C. Rodgers. As you may have guessed, the year 2006 should have been 2005. I have corrected my mistake. I guess this is evidence that one should not edit articles when tired. Would you care to withdraw your nomination for deletion, now that the year has been corrected? TruthbringerToronto 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you may remove it, I apologize for the confusion. --ApolloBoy 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can You help me?

Hello. I have a problem. Bull-Doser has added on my talk page, quote: "Where in the U.S. do you live, Bavaria? I know you live in the United States.". I am seriously concerned about this because I am under the age of 21 and that is private information. I was wondering if you could block Bull-Doser(formerly "Take Me Higher") or something else. Behavior like that should not be happening on Misplaced Pages. Users should feel safe. Bavaria 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing obligating you to respond to whatever comments someone might leave on your talk page. There is nothing "happening" to you; if you feel unsafe because someone asks a question you don't want to answer, you may want to rethink your participation in the Misplaced Pages project. For your peace of mind, I have removed the "offending" question from your talk page for you, but you could just as easily have done so yourself, the same way I did: Click the "Edit this page" button, find the text you don't want to appear, delete it, and then click "save". Scheinwerfermann 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore - if this person doesn't even know which state you are in, you're probably pretty safe! If they already know more about you than you'd prefer, banning them from Misplaced Pages isn't going to help any. Banning someone over what might be a perfectly innocent question just isn't gonna happen. Just don't reply if it bothers you. SteveBaker 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

removing redundant categories

Please do not remove content from Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --ApolloBoy 17:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you are refering to? 148.177.1.212 17:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You were removing categories from articles. But if they were redundant, then I'll take the notice back. --ApolloBoy 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"In general, an article should not be categorized to both a category and its subcategory." Those articles had both. Dddstone 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll remove the vandalism notice now... --ApolloBoy 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Matador was never offered as a hardtop coupe to my knowledge

Young man, that was the "flying brick" style raced by Mark Donahue. Now go back and fix it before I tell your mother. Next time ask me first before you break anything else. --matador300 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)