Talk:DMC DeLorean/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The DMC was based on Skoda Ferat

The prototype of DMC DeLorean first appeared in 1976, which is five years after Skoda Ferat appeared in Czechoslovakia and in a Czech movie. It is impossible to deny the similarity in design. Topjur01 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The angular design of the Ferat was based on other concept cars of the 60s. None of these cars has a monopoly on it. Here and here are several examples for you. So make an edit suggestion with a reliable source or stop using the talk age as a forum. MartinezMD (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I took a quick look around the internet and found nothing in English-language reliable published sources talking about the connection. Do you have a published source we can use? Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point of this discussion. Angular designs were quite common during this era. Are you implying the DeLorean was a copy of the Ferat? There are significant similarities between the Lotus Esprit and the DeLorean and there is data publsihed on this topic but I'm not sure if it's terribly relevant. Expandinglight5 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

3rd Golden Car -- contradictory information???

Did American Express or Consolidated International acquire the parts for the last golden car? If Amex got the parts from Delorean, how did Consolidated end up with them? The paragraph seems to contradict itself on this.

This has been clarified in the article. Expandinglight5 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

In case anyone was worried about the apparent loss of data evident in the article history (a loss of around around 8,000 bytes), I've it down just by formatting the references to harvard style... there has been no change in content. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume you've seen WP:CITEVAR which says "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style..." Let's see what the established editors have to say about the matter. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you Binksternet. Yes, I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do know WP:CITEVAR and fully support it. I also know about WP:CITESTYLE which defines WP:CITEVAR and I know that it doesn't clash at all with WP:IBID and WP:DUPREF.

What we have here is a really interesting article in terms of its content that would probably fail a GAR based purely on its size. And that's entirely down to the repeated use of full citations, to the point where the same ISBN number is quoted 31 times in the references.

I'm not overly fussed over which citation style is used but some form of short citation is appropriate here. I pulled Harvard out of thin air, but APA or Chicago are just as valid. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note that size restriction is supposed to be only based on the readable prose per WP:Article size. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No, there's three measures: readable prose; wiki markup size (which is the full character count in the edit page); and browser page size. The wiki markup size here is bloated, which can be problematic for people on dialup (yep, it still exists) and on data metered connections. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• OK, but the size rule section only lists limits on prose. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, and the Wikipedia:Summary style guideline says 40k of readable prose is a very large size where you should start rethinking the topic. Back in September when this article attained GA status, the readable prose was 27k. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one who approved this article for GA status last September. I knew at the time that the citations were repetitious and clunky, but that fact did not hamper GA status as it certainly would with FA. I'm all for cleaning up citations, but I thought it might be nice to hear from established article editors, to see if they can work with your suggested style. Pinging Expandinglight5, Mark Gasoline, Jontel and MartinezMD. The question is whether the new reference style is something you are comfortable working with. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a personal preference of the usual WP format and use of "refname" with page annotations when referring to different sections of the same source. I think it makes it easier on the reader to just click once for a link. However, I haven't read up on what to do when editors have different preferences on permitted annotation styles. Was there something wrong with how it was originally? MartinezMD (talk)

MartinezMD, if we take the repeated Espey citation as an example, are you saying the first instance would be the full citation, and the subsequent instances would refer to new page names? And identical refs would be repeated with ref name? Example below. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• <ref name="Espey 2014 115–117">{{Cite book |title= The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to DeLorean Automobiles |first= James |last= Espey |publisher= DeLorean Garage |date= 2014 |isbn=978-0-9856578-1-9| pages= 115–117}}</ref>
• <ref name="Espey 2014 115–117"/>
• <ref>Espey 2014, p. 40</ref>
• <ref name="Espey 2014 15">Espey 2014, p. 15</ref>
• <ref name="Espey 2014 15"/>

I looked again and didn't see the original source was still linked. I'm okay with the way it shows in the article at this time. Your version above may do similar. I've seen other formatting where the author's name plus a page is used but not a link to the original full citation. The version as changed retains the source information, so I'm good with it. MartinezMD (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The full reference is in the bibliography. The harvard referencing format links the short inline references to the full bibliographic reference, which is one reason I'm keen on it for WP, but I'm pretty much a bystander here. If my lottery numbers come in on Wednesday, I may get more involved!

The major advantage of using ibidem references, where a repeatedly used source is only referenced fully once but by page number in the in line references, is that it saves space. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (WP:PAPER) so we're not constrained by numbers of trees felled etc, but we are supposed to shorten articles (where pragmatic) to reduce bandwidth issues. That is what was "wrong" with the original style in the strictest Wikipedia sense. However, while I'm quoting WP policies, WP:IAR. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. If there is a Delorean community that got the article to this point and they have a preferred citation style, revert all my edits! Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a preference of one style vs. another. Quite frankly, this is not an area I'm terribly familiar with. I would agree that a shorter citation is appropriate and reducing the page size that is driven by repetitive references makes sense. I would defer to those with more experience in this area to determine which style is most appropriate for this article. Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)