Jump to content

Talk:Alfa Romeo GT

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Next-gen

[edit]

When the next-generation GT is expected? Are there any chances for it to be coupe cabrio? Netrat_msk (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rear suspension

[edit]

Same thing as with the Alfa 156, rear suspension is McPherson, no difference how many lower control arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybsone (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not a grand tourer but a sports car

[edit]

Please bear in mind that the only grand tourer made recently by Alfa Romeo was 8C. GTV, Brera, GT are NOT grand tourers. Cars like Maserati Coupe, Jaguar XK8 ARE grand tourers.YBSOne (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2-door coupé?

[edit]

That's a hatchback to me! So why not 3-door coupé? Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because despite wht You think, and many others, Alfa Romeo states that this car is a 2-door coupe, see their sales brochures. And i agree as the rear is a half-box and therefore should not be seen as a hatchback, Brera on the other hand is a 3-door coupe and is so stated in sales brochures. Hope this helps, keep up the good work. YBSOne (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alfa Romeo GT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alfa Romeo GT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

FF9600@ has asked me to comment on why Typ932@ has been reverting his edits. As always, I ask both parties to read WP:BRD, which suggests that discussing their differences is more likely to produce a good result than continuously reverting each other. FF9600's changes seem to be:

  1. converting <br> to {{ubl}} spread over multiple lines. I find these much easier for editors because each entry is clearly separated from the other entries instead of being all tangled together, although I personally prefer the equivalent but less cryptic template {{unbulleted list}}.
  2. Converting '–' to – . I have a slight preference for the Unicode character (easy to see but not always obvious how to type it) but others avoid non-ASCII characters like the plague.
  3. Changing {{convert|...|abbr=on|...}} to {{cvt|...}} . Both are fine and both are processed by the underlying template code.
  4. Addition of more conversions. Always good until the Americans finally go metric.
  5. Addition of more nbsp . Makes the wiki code less tidy but does keep the numbers and units together on the final page where the read sees them.
  6. Removal of table colouring. Without a really good reason, I prefer to not override a template's formatting. I can't see any really good reason here.

Comments?  Stepho  talk  23:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Stepho-wrs for your assistance in this situation. Let me elaborate on what they have stated.
  1. This is my point with infoboxes and situations where a parameter has multiple items "listed" out. {{ubl}} allows the list to be more easily defined and cleaner in the code. {{ubl}} also uses less vertical space than <br /> does. In addition, I tend use {{ubl}} over {{unbulleted list}} due to shorthand and less code usage.
  2. The usage of &ndash; over "–" deals with it being Unicode (more accessibility) and also &ndash; being a lot easier to code out then searching thru the special characters for the "–".
  3. I tend to only convert {{convert|...|abbr=on|...}} to {{cvt|...}} in situations where I'm already editing the code. This again goes back to less code usage.
  4. Agreed with Stepho-wrs.
  5. Keeps the value & the defined measurement together. This also aligns to SAE International's recommend standard of values & their defined measurement staying together with a non-breaking space.
  6. Wikipedia has class="wikitable" & Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Color for a reason, and going against them creates issues of consistency within the Wikipedia project as a whole & more importantly, accessibility.
  #FF9600  talk 02:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my point 2 should have been converting '–' to the fully spelt-out & ndash ;  Stepho  talk  04:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cvt and ubl etc dont bother me, but its hard to revert only table for that mess , for tables I have already explained the situtation for FF9600s talk page, so there is no need for second discussion here. So if you want to change other stuff dont change those tables at same time, because its very hard to edit. -->Typ932 T·C 08:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could explain things here so that other editors can see the entire thread instead of just bits or having to go on a scavenger hunt. Hopefully a few other editors can then chime in.  Stepho  talk  08:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Typ932@: Your "explanation" for the tables is basically summed up to you don't care about the established class="wikitable", MOS:COLOR, & MOS:FONTSIZE standards (which are there to encourage accessibility & standardization across the Wikipedia project) & you think you know better, at least that's how it comes across. You also say that other Alfa Romeo articles all use the same table styling, but when I've done some spot checking, the tables vary by a fair amount from one article to another.  #FF9600  talk 14:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No they dont, because I have made most of them, most of them have same layout, I dont explain nothing more here, because I have said all things already to FF9600, and this thing isnt only for this article it concerns hundereds of articles, so the right place is not here for discussin it -->Typ932 T·C 14:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932@, FF9600@, how is your edit war going? Is it producing the result you desire?  Stepho  talk  22:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfa_Romeo_GT&oldid=1198388926"