User talk:OSX/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:OSX. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Toyota FJ Cruiser facelift

I was clicking back and forth between two FJ photos looking for a difference, and all I saw was a different alloy wheel design on the photo you added. The article text doesn't mention a design change. What exactly is the photo supposed to be illustrating? IFCAR (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

According to GoAuto:

Until now, the FJ Cruiser has been a US-only vehicle since its launch there in 2006 and the popular model has recently undergone a mild facelift there.

Toyota Australia was waiting for this update before bringing the FJ to our shores. The update brings new 17-inch wheels, new bumpers and some interior trim and spec upgrades.

The Australian vehicles have different rear bumper to US models with the licence plate in the centre rather than under the tailgate door-handle.

It's probably taking it a little far to call it a facelift though, so I've changed the article to reflect that. Here's a comparison of the bumpers for American and Japanese produced models. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Vitara

Found some pictures on Picasaweb, is this one worth adding to the Suzuki Escudo article? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, as it's too low in resolution to be of any value. To me, these internal images are not very useful unless they demonstrate something outstanding such as a new safety system or something similarly innovative. Either way, I won't be bothered if you add it anyway. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nyäh, I think you're probably correct. That's why I thought to ask before just throwing it in there. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Automobiles in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Automobiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Autos

Hi, there is a discussion going on at the Auto Project discussion page about updating the safety sections in the auto articles. Please give your opinion and don't worry, i'm not trying to rename something. Thanks Jenova20 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Liberty Outback

I added that to the caption based on the article text -- the first sentence of the first generation section. If you're sure that's not correct, you'll probably want to fix that, too. IFCAR (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A4 speculation

Nice work reverting on A4. FYI I'm pretty certain that new editor is simply a new account for the problematic COI spammer User:Autoindustrie. Worth keeping an eye on his contributions. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I am right. Autoindustrie submitted a name change request to "Motormy", but in the meantime has been editing as "Pistonmy". Under the latter he has already spammed WIkipedia with his own blog. I'm starting to smell a duck.... --Biker Biker (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

RB20 engined VL Commodore

I find this NZ special very interesting. In an old notebook of mine I came across a mention of it, stating 129hp as the output. Also, was it only available with the 4-speed Jatco automatic? This seems unlikely but it is how the article is currently worded. Perhaps you can shed some light on this? And thanks for including the XT6 photo, btw. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Also just happened to encounter the Vectra engined VN Commodore, also highly interesting. In the European market Vectra, such a non-catalyzed engine produced 95 kW (129 PS; 127 bhp), while in the Omega it produced 90 kW (122 PS; 121 bhp). Any clue as to what the output may have been for NZ and Singapore? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied to at: Talk:Holden Commodore#RB20 engined VL Commodore and Opel Calais. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Audi A6

Thanks for correcting my mistake! Jenova20 10:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

BMW 1 Series

The 5-door hatchback was facelifted on 2007 and more models were added so there are 3. Do you want to discuss this rather than reverting each other? Jenova20 12:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A facelift is not a new generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It only becomes a new generation when the platform and code number (E81/82 etc) changes?

Jenova20 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The different codes refer to the different body styles. The short- and long-wheelbase 7 Series models do the same thing, yet they are still the same generation. Likewise, the circa 2005 model 3 Series models are split into sedan (E90), wagon (E91), coupe (E92), and convertible (E93)—they are still the same generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, i think i've confused a facelift and generation there then.

Thanks for noticing i suppose, better you than someone who doesn't Act in good faith Jenova20 13:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Mazda Premacy

Hi O, are you still in favour of removing the Mazda5 information to give it a separate article? I feel it would benefit the article since the Premacy information is keeping the current article down and a car that is still in production with it's own article is easier to keep clean and work on. Thanks Jenova20

I like the idea in theory, but I probably would not support this due to Japan still using the Premacy name. I'm not totally against it, but moving the second and third generations to their own page is going to cause duplication as there is still a Premacy version of these models. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well to put it bluntly, it will never be a featured article because it's a jumbled mess and there's not much interest from contributors.

Split off mazda 5 though and that has a chance, otherwise the very look of it will keep it a junk article and deter people. I'm willing to bet most English speaking people don't even know the connection between the Mazda 5 and Premacy anyway.

If the mazda premacy name is still used in Japan then that can be added to the appropriate article.

It shouldn't really be a big barrier to improving both articles by splitting them.

I'll take this to the talk page.

Thanks Jenova20 09:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that making an extra article will be better. Premacy refers to all three generations; Mazda5 only two—therefore we will have two articles on the same car. Content duplication will become a problem and separating the two articles will do nothing to make either more worthy as featured articles.

I'm also willing to bet that most English-speaking people have no idea what a Mazda5 is either. The "Mazda" part of either name would tell all but the most brain-dead people that it is a car of some sort.

Stop worrying about article names—they're not that important. It's like fighting over the choice of typeface and running out of time to do that actual writing. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It bugs me when i type in a car name and see a terribly written jumble because someone has lumped the names of 2 or 3 cars together and then still only wrote about one of them.

There is a lot more information out there about the Mazda5 than the Premacy and so i don't think it would be difficult at all.

Thanks Jenova20 10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It bugs you because article titles do not reflect the name used in the United Kingdom. It would be lovely if we could all have Wikipedia tailored to our own location, preferences and point of view. Unfortunately, this is not workable within a global project and it is not feasible to have articles named to suit one perspective. Global news channels like CNN International often have news readers with hybridised British-American accents for this very reason—it's a compromise.

You don't like Kia Carnival being named as such because it is foreign to you. I don't like many current names for articles because they simply sound stupid: Mitsubishi Delica, Daewoo Winstorm (now moved), Toyota Platz, et cetera. The point is to remove oneself from such bias and take a global perspective. Is there a common global name? Does this global name conflict with another vehicle? If not, then give the article the global name: à la Mazda3 as opposed to Mazda Axela. Does the name sound crap? Too bad if it does. Toyota Yaris meets the global name rule, but fails the conflict benchmark (it clashes with the Belta sedan). Mazda5 doesn't really fail this test as such, but it is silly to have a Mazda Premacy article plus a "Mazda5" article that effectively duplicates two-thirds of the former for no other reason than "it's not called that in my country, therefore I don't like it."

I often consult Wikipedia for topics that I don't know a real lot about. As it stands the article titled "mobile phone" reflects the non-American term. I wouldn't expect an American to search for "cell phone" and start sweating profusely from the unease of having a different title. Likewise, I wouldn't quite resort to calling in the violins after searching for a car boot and being directed to the American term "trunk". What I am most interested in is this: does the article explain the topic to me in an easily understood manner? And did that article clearly explain to me that a "mobile phone" can also be called a "cell phone"? If yes, then I am satisfied and I've even expanded my vocabulary by learning the alternative name used elsewhere.

Many articles, Mazda Premacy included, could be better structured to make it clearer that alternative names exist. And since redirects work very well, I am sure that readers will easily work out that they are redirected for a reason—something that should be explained in the first or second sentence of article in most cases. I know when I am redirected after searching topics that I am not knowledgeable on, I don't get confused by the redirect taking me to an alternatively-named page. Any developed article should and can make it clear that multiple names exist.

It is a genuine concern to take issue with having several almost identical cars combined into a single page which only explains one of them. One solution would be as you say to delete any references to these "invisible" models to right the wrong. While this is one way, we would then need to create a second article for the version sold in Spain under a different name. Consequently, the development history, powertrain details and safety scores will be duplicated among two articles and need to be updated twice if a new engine is released next year. Rather than deleting all references to any "invisible" badge engineered counterparts, we could quickly write a couple of sentences about these other versions and keep the combined layout in tact. Just remember no article is perfect and no article will ever be so. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, although i try not to be biased pro UK at all and would argue against that.

The Yaris is by far more the more popular name, i can't remember all the details of the Kia Carnival, and the Mazda Premacy seemed like a good chance to imrpove the article by splitting the mazda 5 and mentioning that it's called a premacy somewhere else (while leaving the main premacy article as the predecessor).

Your point is made though and i don't think my editing skills are good enough to bring any one of those articles to a featured article status currently.

As you can see though, we're both knowledgable about aspects the automocar industry and will most likely be working together more in future, so have a good evening and weekend.

Thanks Jenova20 15:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am still not understanding why separating the two pages would improve them. No new content is added, all that is done for the Mazda5 is the erasure of the original 1999 model information and a new name.

Less is more in terms of articles. Take a look at Ford Festiva. Australia and Europe received this model under the name "Mazda 121". It was known in Japan, North America, and later in Australia as "Ford Festiva" (replacing the identical 121 in Australia). In South Korea, where (I think) all left-hand drive models were produced, it was sold as the "Kia Pride". This car is now produced and sold in Iran under several nameplates by "SAIPA". We used to have a separate article for the Festiva, Kia Pride, and the Iranian versions, plus barely a mention anywhere of the Mazda 121—we now have a single, neat, concise page outlining all four models. For the second generation of Ford Festiva, we previously had the information at "Ford Festiva", plus North American information at "Ford Aspire" and South Korean information at "Kia Avela".

Surely "Ford Festiva" is better than this, this, this, and this. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Vauxhall Astra

Can i ask if you know why there's an article for the Vauxhall Astra and the Opel Astra? Thanks Jenova20 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Um... because there is? Yes, please feel free to merge the Vauxhall contents to the Opel page. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no... i never agreed to do the merge.

I was just bringing it up since you all but accused me of a pro-UK bias a couple days back.

Someone pointed out the Vauxhall Astra existed before the Opel Astra so i'm stumped as to what the rules say to do.

Thanks Jenova20 09:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for interrupting... The rules say use the name that it is known in every market with English as the first language. If that fails (typically because it has multiple English names) then use the name used in the vehicle's home country). Stepho talk 09:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So if correct that it originated in the UK as a "Vauxhall Astra" then later throughout all Europe as an "Opel Astra" what do the rules state?

Do we rename to Opel, Vauxhall, or leave both names in existence Stepho?

Thanks Jenova20 09:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We should use the Opel name because the Holden Astra and Saturn Astra make the Vauxhall name only one of the English-market names. Germany is the home market, see WP:WPAC#Titles. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, trickier than I thought. After skimming the articles, the Astra name seems to have been used by Vauxhall first in 1980 but the third generation onwards (ie 1991, when it went outside of the UK) was designed by Opel. I'm split either way :( The Holden Astra starting as a rebadged Pulsar and then becoming a rebadged Opel/Vauxhall doesn;' help things either - especially since it got its own range of engines. In any case, the alternative name should link to the final name. Stepho talk 10:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what Warren said on the Vauxhall Astra talk page and it's stumped me a bit as there doesn't appear to be a clear policy on this spiderweb of names, countries of origin etc.

Thanks Jenova20 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, another tangled web of badge engineering :( I will read through the various Astra articles, derive a timeline of events showing the various histories and where they merge/cross/diverge, and then present it at Talk:Vauxhall_Astra#Merge. I suspect there will be no clear answer but I'll at least dig out the facts so that we're all on the same page (pun not intended). Stepho talk 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Astra was never more than simply a badge-engineered Opel Kadett (later Astra). Since the only market where the Vauxhall Astra has been regularly offered, I can't see how Opel Kadett/Astra would be merged into it. I also don't see a very pressing need to do the opposite - any merger will cause a lot of anger, so I think it's allright to let things remain the way they are. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put the timeline of major events/brands/names at Talk:Vauxhall_Astra#Merge, so it can be hashed out over there. Stepho talk 06:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Honda Vigor, Quint and Ballade image request

Hello OSX. From the Australian photos you've submitted, could you keep an eye out for the Honda Verno twins of the second generation Accord and Civic sedan cousins, called the Vigor, the Ballade and the Quint? The only images we have of the Quint are the Rover variation, and we have no first generation Vigors and one Ballade. I'm going to guess there must be a few left running around in Australia exported from Japan. In particular, rear photos showing the trim piece across the trunk would be nice to see. Thanks (Regushee (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Hi, I don't think I have seen any of these models here. The used Japanese models imported here tend to be high-performance, coupe, and minivan-type vehicles, especially variants sold in limited numbers or not at all when new in Australia. Common models include the Toyota Estima, Mitsubishi Delica, Nissan Elgrand, Nissan Skyline, Toyota Chaser, Toyota Soarer, Toyota Supra, Nissan Silvia, and any other turbocharged or similarly high-performance model. There also seem to be a few Toyota Celsior and Toyota Cressida models despite these selling well when new (I guess they became more in demand later on as prices came down). Some people have even imported T150, T160, and T170 series Toyota Corona models, which seems strange as these have nothing going for them and appear little more than a slightly smaller equivalent to the ubiquitous Camry. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Bots botz botz

All of the bots edits to the Volvo 700 and Volvo 900 series pages are becoming rather annoying. Should we do something in particular beyond just undoing and repairing the edits in question? Also, do you know WTH this thing could be? It's not a Kijang (unless heavily and very well modified), but what is it? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Toyota Kijang? Picture doesn't match up with Google but that's my best guess. I think the bot owner should place those Volvo pages on an exempt list. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For protecting wikipedia from FFGR79. I also think that this user could end up being useful (handy with a camera, tenacious) and would welcome their efforts after a renunciation of their current methods. I am kind of glad I took a few days off; seeing a number of other (mostly unrelated) editors all doing the right thing made me regain some of my faith in WP, which had been rubbing off a bit recently. Cheers. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I hope your judgement is correct because the editor seems to be here just to annoy others—out to see how far they can push it. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, happy Saint Lucia's day. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Chilean photos

While I love Qwerty242 for uploading all these photos of sometimes rare cars, I just want to announce that I stand behind your pruning of his often excessive additions. Although, I do like pictures. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverse of Subaru Forester revision

Hello. I was wondering why you reverted my edits to the Subaru Forester. Bookster451 (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Compact SUV" was changed to "Compact Crossover SUV", a dead link. "Compact SUV" is an EPA term.
You removed reference to AWD and the wagon body style in the first sentence.
The article originally said, "the Forester shares its platform with the Impreza", which is explanatory enough. A platform is merely the underpinnings of a car. It is unnecessary to say that these are different cars because this is a) obvious and b) implied by the use of the word "platform". OSX (talk • contributions) 04:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually didn't mean to delete the reference to all-wheel drive, must have been an accident. But as for the compact crossover SUV thing, I've seen this in other articles. Are these articles incorrect as well? I just didn't feel the term "SUV" fit the glove since it shares more commonality with a station wagon than an SUV. Bookster451 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally think we need to stop using the term "SUV", which I too am guilty of using far too often. According to our own definition, "a sport utility vehicle (SUV) is a generic marketing term for a vehicle similar to a station wagon, but built on a light-truck chassis." It seems we (me included) have a double standard in the sense that people rarely refer to the BMW X5 as a "Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)" or the BMW X6 as a "Sports Activity Coupe (SAC)", but commonly use the similar term "SUV".

"Crossover wagon" seems more fitting to me for car-based "SUVs" so to speak, but I am not sure how to best describe ladder-frame "SUVs". Any suggestions? "Four-wheel drive" on its own is too ambiguous and can refer to any vehicle sending power to all four wheel regardless of off-road ability. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A trrue SUV doesn't need to have four wheel drive, I believe. It just needs to have a truck-based body-on-frame design, whereas a crossover is built more like a car. I am still a little confoused, I think I may do some research and work on the Crossover and SUV articles. For now I'll list the subaru forester as a crossover suv. Bookster451 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I saw you reversed the Forester again. I would like to see a sourcethat the EPA classifies it as a compact SUV. Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude. I just think that the current article doesn't suit the car very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookster451 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Opel Antara

The Opel Antara is offered as a product of the german car manufacturer Adam Opel AG . The vehicle is manufactured by other GM subsidiaries outside of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniotx (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed within reason. However, while Opel designed the Antara, it does not actually produce the car. "General Motors" (GM), while more ambiguous is more fitting as it includes all three GM entities that produce the model. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Captions

I've noticed in a number of your edits, most recently to Toyota Vitz, that you've been removing the years or model years of cars from photo captions. That seems to be in conflict with WP:CARPIX: "The caption must clearly identify the vehicle. The year or model year and trim level should be included in the image caption if the information is available."

Why have you been removing this information? IFCAR (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to disambiguate when disambiguation is not required. It would be like including "sedan" next to all images in the Toyota Camry (XV50) article—totally unnecessary as it is only available as a sedan.

Also, I feel "facelift" and "pre-facelift" terms are better for some articles as release dates vary between markets, and North American variants use model years, et cetera. Some articles contain images with such a jumbled bunch of years they become useless from a global perspective. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked every case in question, but agree in general. No need for looking for a hard and fast rule for captions though, I think. It might be a good habit to incorporate this sort of info in an image's Commons file if it isn't already there. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the policy, just ignoring it isn't the way to do it. Particularly when the specific year of a vehicle is known, rather than just a range, I see no reason not to include that in its caption.

For year ranges, the issue that some articles have had with "facelift" vs. "pre-facelift" is that some cars have multiple design changes. Captions saying things like "with second facelift" got very clunky. IFCAR (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise the WP:CARS page said that, so I apoligise if it came across that I was ignoring that clause. Every article needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Where it is beneficial to use years, then use years; where "facelift" and "pre-facelift" is preferable, then use that format. It simply depends on the situation.

I am still not seeing the benefit of including the year in an article like Hyundai Veloster. There have been no updates, so why would we need to state the year in the caption? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OSX isn't ignoring the policy, WP:CARSPIX isn't a policy or guideline. Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the benefit to NOT including the year. Why wait until there's an update, at which point the year will be needed as a descriptor? You need a better reason to ignore the stated, written policy/guideline/whatever you want to call it than you personally don't think it matters. IFCAR (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What about if Toyota releases a new Camry wagon? Should we add "sedan" to all images in the existing article in anticipation? When Hyundai facelifts the Hyundai Veloster, then the page can easily be updated to reflect this. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Daihatsu Charade

Hello OSX - apparently the fourth generation Charade was available with the 1-liter engine in Australia, but nowhere else that I can find out about. Google tries to outsmart me (it knows where I am and won't let me forget it) but maybe you could find a reasonable Aussie source for the 1-litre G202? Thanks, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct as per Red Book. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (belatedly) ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, try Google Australia in future, and specify "pages from Australia". I do the same when I need information for the UK or NZ by going to those countries' respective Google subsidiaries. I still haven't worked out how to search only US pages though (which can be a hassle at times). OSX (talk • contributions) 08:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

FJ Cruiser

Hey OSX I really appreciate the changes you've made to the FJ article I've been working on. Sometimes it's tough to display the information in a straight forward manner. There really isn't a good style guide in wikiproject automobiles so I was looking at some of your FA articles for guidance. I do think a small two paragraph section is warranted for information describing common modifications as so many owners modify their FJs. Though its tough to stay neutral when mods involve products, I tried to keep it as general as possible, your thoughts on the aftermarket section? Garrett^TALK 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! Look, I can see why people would want the aftermarket section, but the article is about the Toyota product, not third party modifications. Also, there are infinite combinations of modifications available, so how does one work out what to include and exclude? WP:CARS has decided somewhere in the talk page archive that such information should not be included. Simply, if the FJ Cruiser can be modified in a certain way, so too would many of similar vehicles. Therefore, this sort of information would be best covered in a general "vehicle modifications" article. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 12:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Automobiles

Cool, I see you have an interest in automobiles too. A random question: doesn't it get kinda tiring always editing automotive articles and not editing other stuff. I'm not saying it's bad, but I'm just wondering. You're like an Australian IFCAR! :) Quiet Andrew! The McCarvers are coming! (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough comment, but when you're as fanatical as I am with cars, the interest never wanes! And yes that includes photos as well. Thanks for the message. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Audi models

Hi,. what was wrong with those related fields, I made undo to those. -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay I fixed them.. :) -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the related field requires a greater nexus than merely platform. The VW Group are probably the "worst offenders" in this regard (despite the terminology, this is not a bad thing). The 1999 and 2005 VW Jettas are heavily based on the corresponding VW Golf model (doors, interiors, width, etc). Likewise, the original B5 series Skoda Superb is little more than an upgraded VW Passat (B5). Conversely, while the B6 Superb and Passat share some components, none of the visible components are shared and as such this relationship is all under the skin. Therefore, linking to the platform page (Volkswagen Group A platform#PQ35) makes more sense. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The platform is the main factor in related field, it consists usually chassis, powertrains etc. there is no better reason to use related than this, although its kinda duplication if platform field is used. If you disagree I think we need to take this under discussion on WP:CARS discussion. This style has been used in most car articles. Body or external visible parts doesn't mean cars are related, its the mechanics/technical parts which determines this IMO. And the VW Group is kinda most famous company using this parts sharing among its brands VW,Audi,Seat,Skoda trying to make different cars and using same parts. -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It already has been brought up (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Related field in infobox), and the consensus is to not clog up infoboxes with every model that shares a front suspension subframe with another (immaterial). What's the point of having a platform article if we are going to repeat this information in every infobox—having that platform article allows this information to be condensed? Also now I'm confused because some related cars are okay based on platform, but others are not. The PQ35 platform lists 22 entries, do we want 21 related cars in every infobox? I hope not. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no point to add evey car to the field, but its intresting to know if some Audi and Skoda shares same platform, its not our job to avoid hiding these part sharings...and the platform article should be used to tell something about the platform itself not just list cars using it. -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And how do you intend on choosing which related models to include and exclude? We can't just pick our favourites, or the more attractive cars. We need a measure that at least shows a passing resemblance to objectivity. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Saab 9000

I just saw that you made some useful edits to Saab 9000, I have some issues with the current organization of the page and would like to run them by you before I do anything. Dividing the 9000 into "first" and "second" generations is not a really productive way to view the steady stream of changes which the 9000 underwent. To recap, the 9000 began with the original hatchback version (later called the 9000 CC, for "Combi Coupé") and was later complemented by the 9000 CD (sedan). The CD received a more sloped nose, which was later fitted to the CC as well. Leter yet, the redesigned 9000 CS hatchback appeared, with new rear and front designs. The CS front end was eventually fitted to the CD as well. Meanwhile, the 9000 CC remained available in some markets as a cheaper version.

The engines also kept changing, starting with the 2-litre Turbo and eventually including a 2.3-litre version and then the V6. The main issue I take is that these gradual changes have to undergo some severe contortions before they can be fitted into a basic "MkI" and "MkII" article structure, leading to some awkward compromises and half-truths. I welcome your inputs in advance of making some changes; I propose simply dividing the article into a 9000 CC, 9000 CD, and 9000 CS section - perhaps with a separate section on engine developments. Best, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied to here. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you feel about downplaying the pictures of the 9000 Cabrio prototype? Maybe we could just use one of them, or they could fit into another section? Right now I feel that they are receiving undue importance within the article. Cheers and goodnight (here, it seems to be 17:30 in Oz right now). ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it's now less prominent. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Volvo 700 Series

The changes made to Volvo 700 Series by my bot arn't vanalism, this was an interwiki conflict I spent a lot of time on to correct it. Please stop reverting that edit. - Warddr (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the 740 and 700 are the same car. We don't have separate 740 and 760 articles, just a single one. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not because you don't have a separate page on wikipedia-en that no other wiki does. Interwiki links an meant to link to the SAME page on every wiki. There are wikis where there is an article for both, and you'll break the interwikis for them. And for example why would you link to fr:Volvo 740 and not to fr:Volvo 760? And why do you keep on reverting my correct link to nl:Volvo 700-serie as well? - Warddr (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Chile mystery Telstar

Hello OSX, found this interesting car when I was flickr mining today. It's an LHD Telstar AR (1984), fitted with a 1.8 engine. I would guess that the LHD is a simple conversion with Mazda parts, but I never saw the 1.8 listed as available in the AR Telstar before. What do you think? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's not many of these ugly Mazda 626 clones left. I'm not aware of the 1.8-litre model, but I don't know much about the Telstars here either. What I could find, is probably the exact same car for sale (atleast the aftermarket hubcaps are the same), see [1]. Note the Ford logo on the build plate, which states the model code as "GD", which is the same as the equivalent Mazda 626; also the ID No. SHVMBT-00236 (if this is of any use), and it was "Made in Japan" by Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd (Mazda). OSX (talk • contributions) 11:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it might indeed help - I found out that the Laser was also sold as a Ford in Chile, so this is probably a genuine original Telstar for Chile. Cool, because I had only ever thought these Ford-badged Mazdas were sold in Oceania and SE Asia. The chassis code is highly confusing, as the JDM 1.8 Telstar was GD8PF. Mysterious. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Agh!!! It just dawned on me that this is not a GD, it's a GC! Now I am totally confused. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Roseville

I deleted a lot of your pix because 16 pix of federation cottages was far too many, especially when none of them is heritage-listed etc. I had the same problems in my early days, when I got rapped over the knuckles for putting too many pix in some articles. The general guideline is that pix should be suported by the text and they should not turn the article into a photo gallery, which articles are not meant to be. I was not just trying to replace your shots with mine; mine are of different subjects, whereas yours are just too many shots of the same type of subject. You should think about this now, because if you keep doing this sort of thing, you will just have to learn the hard way. Anyway, I'll be back soon and we can discuss it further, but you will definitely have to change your attitudes and practices. Yours in good faith, Sardaka (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sardaka. The topic of the artice is "Roseville, New South Wales", not "Homes of Roseville, New South Wales." The gallery has ten images of homes in it,[2] which still is (8?) too many photos of homes given the "Roseville, New South Wales" topic. See {{too many photos}}. They are beautiful homes, so I'm guessing there likely is reliable source material to support a spinout article on Architecture of Roseville, New South Wales, where a photo gallery of homes may be more appropriate. To see how such "Architecture of" articles are written, see this or this. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

An article cannot be adequately illustrated with two images unless all the houses look the same. Let's not aim for another Churchville article, where it would seem that suburb is merely a place of worship due to only images of churches and anything resembling a church being included. Suburbs primarily contain houses, and the articles should reflect this. Photos illustrating the area do a far better job than text. I think 10 images is very reasonable. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you responded, but there are still too many pix. It's not necessary to have 10 pix to show what a Federation home looks like, especially if they are not especially notable, heritage-listed, etc. I will still be working on this article. Two pix of churches are not excessive, but 10 pix of cottages are. The last two are especially unnecessary. I suggest you read WP:IG.

As I said, I had the same problem in my early days, and soon learned that photo galleries belong at Wikimedia Commons if a gallery is really what I want to do. So now I put my pix in galleries or categories at Commons, and link them to the relevant article. In this case, you can easily create a Commons category on Federation homes, Roseville homes or whatever you like, and link it to the articles. I normally stop at 8 images in an article. If I want to use more than that, I put them in a relevant Category at Commons and link to it. Eg, Albion Street, Surry Hills, where you can see the link to the category at the bottom of the article. I created that Category especially for that purpose, which is what I always do if I have a special interest in a particular subject. You will probably find that there are already Categories at Commons which you can put your pix in, then link to the article.

Sardaka (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

PS You deleted the pic of Harold Cazneaux's home, Ambleside, which is backed up by the text and is of more note than a few Fed. cottages.

Not that I intend to have a war about it, but the "rundown stairs" are actually a cottage that is relevant to the text, but not to worry... Sardaka (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mazda Titan

Seriously? Vandalism? Reverts like that are a good way to lose access to tools you know. My edit was clearly not vandalism, I have explained to you before what the problem with the article is, and it is still in the same terrible state it was over a year and a half ago, with no attempts made at cleanup by you or anyone--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw the deletion, and while I was disheartened I also understand it. I will give it a go, once I have the energy. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback

Why do you keep reverting the Subaru Outback article to a previous, less informative, article. The version that I posted and keeps getting reverted back after you edit it is a much better written article. I fixed the issues about it not being its own model. Please stop reverting this back to the less informative version, or please explain why you are reverting the article back to your version every time it is changed. MarcusHookPa (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)MarcusHookPa

Nothing has been lost, the information has simply been moved to: Subaru Legacy (second generation), Subaru Legacy (third generation),Subaru Legacy (fourth generation), and Subaru Legacy (fifth generation). The decision to do this was made here and here.

Subaru marketing the Outback as a different model does not change the almost 100 percent parts interchangeability with the Legacy. What are the differences? Different bumpers, wheels, badging, increase ground clearance, and that's about it. So why have two articles stating the same thing twice just because of what Subaru's marketing department does? The concept is no different to the Audi A6 Allroad, the VW Passat All-Trac, and the Skoda Octavia Scout (none of these pages are separated either). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem is though, the version that I have posted clearly separates the Outback into the Legacy Outback and the Impreza Outback. Also, I own an Outback, and I can say from first hand experience that not all of the parts are interchangeable.

MarcusHookPa (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ownership of the said vehicle does not make you an expert. Please detail the components that your rigorous analysis determined do not fit on the Legacy. I doubt there would be many.

Plus, ~~car companies~~ marketing departments release subtle variations of other vehicles all the time. If we made a separate page for each version for every country that offers wonderful packages with glued on cladding and tough "off-road"-looking wheels then we would have about four times as many car articles that we have presently. The editors here have come to a decision to combine the pages. This decision is not set in stone. If you provide a convincing case, then other editors will vote to have the merger overturned. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, those who own the cars are often forced to study their cars, and thus do tend to learn more about them than the causal observer. Some key points after looking at a couple of recent edits and comments in this contentious exchange of edits:

The fact there is a sedan version of the Subaru Outback sold (in he US at very least) was left out. This has since been corrected, but was omitted via one of your edits.

The hood, grille, and bumper of the Japanese built examples are NOT per piece interchangeable with US models for proper fitment. When a body panel as large and expansive as a hood is not directly interchangeable, how 'purely cosmetic' can you really call that?

In one edit comment, 'this is a Japanese car' - the US government would disagree, because the US market models are made in the US, in Indiana. The design of the core vehicle may have been done in Japan (and of this I'm not so sure), the actual vehicle with significant variation is not made there. Toyota has design studios in the US - does that mean a car designed in the US but produced in Japan is a US vehicle?

There seems to be a trend in many of the Wikipedia automotive articles to imply that a model name in the US market isn't the cars 'real' model name. This is again why more emphasis should be put on platform designations as the global convergence of information, and that the significant variants be considered for their own articles. 76.14.240.12 (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

US vs Japan parts interchangeability has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether the Outback should have its own article. Or are you suggesting separate articles for Legacys depending on where they are assembled? Personal study of a car does not mean anything (WP:OR): what cited sources say counts. Subaru's own manual (p. 3) mentions four types of Legacy; namely the Legacy Sedan, Outback Sedan, Legacy Station Wagon, and Outback Station Wagon. Legacy v Outback is ranked of equal consequence as is "Sedan" vs "SW" - and not even Marcus would argue that we need separate articles for the wagon versions. Or so I hope.

The fact that there was an Outback Sedan was absolutely not left out - it is mentioned in the relevant generational articles since a dab page is by definition meant to be kept short. It is never explicitly referred to as uniquely a station wagon either, although I agree that at least one of the images should be of a sedan to minimize misconceptions. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for omitting the Outback sedan variant from the summary page and therefore implying that the Outback has only ever been available as a wagon. I have now corrected this.

It is true that the North American Outback (and Legacy) models are quite different to those sold in other markets. But separating the Outback from the Legacy because of this makes no sense because the Legacy/Outback twins produced in Indiana differ in the same way as the Legacy/Outback manufactured in native Japan. For me, making the division based on country of origin makes more sense as this is the level at which the changes occur, not the trim level (but I am not advocating a separate page, one is enough). What would really benefit the articles is to detail why the North American cars differ and reconcile these differences back to the consumer preferences and legislative requirements in the United States that necessitated them.

When I say it's a Japanese car, I am referring to the design. I don't care if Subaru produces their cars in Japan, Bangladesh or on the moon—they will still be Japanese in design. The nationality of the assembly line workers is of no consequence to the car (the effect on local economy is a separate concern). For this same reason, Austrian-assembled Chrysler Voyagers are still American cars.

The lines become a little more blurred when foreign outposts of Japanese firms heavily contribute to the design of a vehicle development from the very beginning. Examples of this would be the Toyota Tundra (hardly an appropriate vehicle for Japan) and the Australian-development Toyota Aurion (XV40). OSX (talk • contributions) 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New table

I just wanted to show you the nifty way I just thought of to illustrate production periods, see the table at Nissan Leopard#F31. Or is it too busy? I should maybe use a lighter color? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it took me a minute to actually see what was happening but I got there in the end. In the second and third rows you skip highlighting for the "2" and the "0", respectively (sorry this is hard to describe in words). This is what threw me out.

What I really like is how it illustrates which engines replaced what; it just wasn't immediately obvious that's all. I see if I can think of a clearer way of showing this because the engine succession timeline is a great idea. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I also like that one can divide the breaks somewhat proportionally, allowing someone to casually glance at it and get an idea of which engines were available at any given time. And, that it doesn't take up any more space than the table would otherwise. As for Marcus in PA, I have reported him for 3RR because I don't see reasoning with him doing much of anything. He's a seasoned edit warrior. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, this is certainly becoming a very time consuming process. I never knew contrasting body cladding could be so special. I learned that an electric motor is the hard way (Camry Hybrid), but a badge and body cladding? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello OSX. A dispute about the Subaru Outback has now been listed for admin attention at WP:AN3#User:MarcusHookPa reported by User:Mr.choppers (Result: ). If you know something about this issue you are invited to add your own comment at the noticeboard. To me it looks like a messy dispute that has wandered across a number of article talk pages. A lot of people seem to be doing reverts. Admins will be grateful for any reasonable suggestion of how to sort this out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Broad warning concerning you and other editors

I strongly suggest that all editors involved in this edit war view and take heed of the warning I've given here. --slakr^\ talk / 07:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback and friends

I just wanted to invite you to a second discussion regarding whether the Subaru Outback deserves a standalone article or if it ought to be merged into the relevant generational articles of Subaru Legacy (and Impreza). Thank you, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru merger mania

I just added a merge suggestion tag to the Impreza, the WRX and the STi, since the Impreza articles are in so much more disarray than the Legacy, the Outback and the Baja.(Regushee (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

I agree, Impreza and friends have been on my radar for a long time, but I have really been leaving these into the "too-hard basket" as the WRX and STi will be a tough one to push through due to the halo status of these cars with so many enthusiasts. I will be right behind you in support for a full overhaul of these pages. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

While a merge would be possible, please remember, in most markets except the USA (and possibly a few others), this model is sold as the Subaru WRX and Subaru WRX STi. The only reason that I do not fully oppose this merger is because WRX and WRX STi models have been made for other vehicles than the Impreza (Legacy WRX STi, 2010 and 2001 I believe, I also believe there was a WRX and STi version of the Forrester released somewhere between 2000 and 2010). MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A name difference is trivial and is not a good reason on its own to merge articles on two heavily related cars. It doesn't take up much space to state this difference in name. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well I wish you good luck, this should be very interesting if this does not turn out like the Outback articles (although it should work the same way). I feel that this merge should take place after the WRX and STi articles are merged into separate generations. Please also merge the Saab 9-2x Aero if you do successfully go through with this. MarcusHookPa (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback

Please provide me with a link to this policy that you are referring to. Thank you, MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

P.S. I hope you know that I do not have any sock puppet accounts set up. I only made one edit with a different account (ip address) and that was because I forgot to log back on after I updated my browser. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with you accidentally using your IP (I've done that before). I am just not 100 percent convinced that you are not the same person as MonkeyKingBar. The new Loopy Linda account today was the final straw where I was confident that there was at least some sock puppetry going on. The investigation will sort this out. I apologise if you are innocent, but sock puppetry can;t go on. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the need to do this, but I feel that Loopy Linda was another Outback enthusiast who noticed that the Outback article was changed and did not realize that there was a debate going on about this. Did you try to contact her via her talk page? I agree, sock puppetry is unacceptable and has no place on Wikipedia. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am satisifed that you are not the same editor as MonkeyKingBar and have removed your from the investigation. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of British car terms (saloon vs. sedan, bonnet vs. hood, etc)

I wanted to ask if it's possible to convert the American car terms on car model pages to British car terms. I saw that the Wikipedia pages on Rolls-Royce cars used the British term "saloon" rather than the American term "sedan". This made me wonder whether it's possible to try this out on the page on a well-known car such as the the Mercedes W126 S-Class. I can see you weren't happy at this and undid my edits. I know that Wikipeda may be American at heart, but I've asked myself if it could rely on British terms more often, even if British English vocabulary is hard to understand. Yip1982 (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

British terminology is fine on articles for British cars, but it is my understanding that the term "sedan" is used is most places around the world whereas "saloon" is mainly restricted to the UK are Ireland. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, UK car-related terms including but not limited to saloon, boot, bonnet, kerb, nearside, offside, wing (i.e., fender), indicator, tyre, gudgeon pin, big end, and kerb are used, to exclusion of the US terms, in the UK, Australia, South Africa and other Commonwealth countries (with the notable exception of Canada). The UK terms are also used interchangeably with the US terms in many other places of the world where "international English", as opposed to "U.S. English", is the idiom. It would not be appropriate to constrain the use of the UK terms to British cars. It would be more appropriate to apply a common-sense guideline of the vehicle market being discussed, though this leaves no hard-and-fast rule with regard to cars originating outside the English-speaking world and sold throughout the world such as the Mercedes models presently in question. We could parenthesise, e.g. the Mercedes E420 sedan (saloon) or we could devise another solution by consensus, but insisting on US usage except in the case of British cars is not that solution. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd dispute that. Here in Australia we "pick and choose" between UK and US terms (but always use UK spelling). That is, we use boot, bonnet, tyre, but then fender, sedan and station wagon. In some cases both terms are used: blinker and indicator, et cetera. My issue is not with British terms per se, just "saloon" and "estate".

For cars originating from non-English speaking countries, I have been using UK spelling and terminology for European cars and US spelling and terminology for Asian cars. This is based on my observation that European manufactures often use UK spelling as England is such an important part of the European region. On the other hand, Japanese and South Korean manufacturers tend to use US spelling so I have followed this concept.

Sedan vs Saloon at Google.co.nz (NZ only search)

"BMW AND sedan" (1,910,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (190,000 results)
"Jaguar AND sedan" (2,720,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (143,000 results)
"Rover AND sedan" (1,670,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (116,000 results)
"Toyota AND sedan" (1,910,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (211,000 results)

Sedan vs Saloon at Google.co.za (ZA only search)

"BMW AND sedan" (983,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (112,000 results)
"Jaguar AND sedan" (507,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (65,200 results)
"Rover AND sedan" (761,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (77,000 results)
"Toyota AND sedan" (1,050,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (92,100 results)

As "sedan" is usually used in place of "saloon" outside of the UK, I think the more common terms "sedan" and "station wagon" are better for all non-English cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that the term saloon used to be used in Australia up until about 1990-1991. It was mainly used to refer to high-end or luxury sedans. You see it used in many old car brochures - for example, an old Honda Legend brochure from 1989 refers to the car as a "saloon". It is completely obsolete now, however. Davez621 (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS#National varieties of English covers this. Topics with strong national ties should use that country's terms. Otherwise we retain the existing variety of the previous editors. So, cars made in Britain should use British terms, cars made in the US should use US terms, cars made in Australia should use Australian terms. Whereas cars made in Japan, Germany, China, etc can use any of these terms but whichever terms the original editor used should be the terms that the article continues to use. Rolls-Royce is tied particularly strongly to Britain, so it should be using British terms. If you think that non-British readers might be confused then provide links to an explanatory article (eg saloon). Cheers. Stepho talk 07:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

North American Timeline

I though you would be interested in this template for the North American timeline. This way we can change the general template to reflect the Japanese model years. I notice that Volkswagen has a template for each market. I am not sure about any other companies, but If I am not mistaken, I believe that Toyota may also have one. Maybe a European of Australian one could follow this model. MarcusHookPa (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be great if we had just a single template with all Subaru models included. We have one for Toyota, see Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1985–date. And what would be really cool is a continuously scrolling timeline from Subaru's inception to date (see: Template:Holden timeline). OSX (talk • contributions) 11:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe we do have one, here is the link. I thought Toyota had one for each market and a general one, as Volkswagen does. MarcusHookPa (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, here is the link for the Toyota North American timeline. MarcusHookPa (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The N.American Toyota timeline was made very early on by some Yanks and then liberally applied to practically every Toyota article. I felt that this didn't reflect on the global nature of Toyota very well, so I copied the Japanese market Toyota timeline (Japan tends to have a wider range then other markets) and tweaked it to be more global. But I never quite got around to adding in the purely American Toyotas (eg Sienna) due to sheer laziness :( Anyway, my feeling is that if we start making local market timelines then the lower 300 lines of each article will be flooded with timelines for each and every country.

Actually, timelines added to every Toyota article has been driving me crazy. If I want to look for every article that links to the Corolla then I find that every single article with the timeline template counts as a link. So I have to look at each article listed as linking to the Corolla ('what links here') and see if it has a real link or just the template. I'd greatly prefer it if the timelines templates were used sparingly on top level articles and not on each production car. Stepho talk 03:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could only add the timelines to the articles where the vehicle is offered. This would be easy with the Toyota Sienna, which would be N. American only, but it would be (as it is now) a mess with a vehicle such as the Toyota Corolla. MarcusHookPa (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason that is easy with companies such as Holden or Vauxhall is because they are only available in several markets. Subaru, Toyota, and other international companies are available in many markets, because of this, the lineup may vary from market to market. MarcusHookPa (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia can be anoying when it comes to getting details specific to certain markets in "shared" articles. Its strenght is that you do (or at atleast should) get a worldwide view, but getting an in depth analysis of subject X in Canada only is less acheiveable when the US, Australia, and the UK also want the same treatment. A timetiline for each market sounds like a great idea in theory, but in application, it is almost impossible to make it work without having clunky, hard-to-navigate pages. I guess stricking that ideal balance is the hardest part. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Australian sales figures

Hi - great idea to separate the Falcon figures out into ute, van, etc. I added figures for ute/van from 1991-1994 to the article. Unfortunately, I don't have 1990 figures as vfacts did not exist then. I'm wondering if having only a sedan/wagon figure for 1990, but ute/van empty, will mislead someone into thinking that none were sold in that year? Not sure what to do. I also added sales figures to the following articles: Statesman/Caprice, Fairlane/LTD, and Ford Territory. I expanded the Magna sales figures by separating them into Magna 4/Magna 6/Verada for each year.Davez621 (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for intruding. I'd say that a blank spot would be interpreted by most people as 0. I suggest a single question mark as a place holder. Stepho talk 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. Would it be possible to source those figures to the VFACTS document you have? I have added question marks, but if that data doesn't exist it is not a very good long-term solution.

Can you clarify on sourcing the figures to the VFACTS documents? Another question - what about Toyota Lexcen sales figures (rebadged Commodore)? Do they have a place anywhere?Davez621 (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For example, the publication name, date published, publisher (whatever the government of the day decided to rename the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research to), the page number(s), plus any other relevant information.

Lexcen figures should go with the Commodore (and separated from them). OSX (talk • contributions) 01:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference style

I like the way you resolved the Long reference, very elegant. I used a version of your method at Peugeot 104, although I listed the original source within the references themselves rather than separately. I am happy to see that there are always more things for me to learn! Also I finished uploading my pictures from the 2012 Greenwich Concours d'Elegance if you're interested. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. For the Peugeot 104 page, I would separate the main reference into a "Bibliography" section like I did at Mitsubishi Mirage. This just tends to be the style that is used in scholarly works, as technically the "references" section is being used for what would otherwise be footnotes at the bottom of the page if Wikipedia were an academic journal.

Nice images from Greenwich! We had a Concours d’Elegance Australia back in 2010 at Manly, Sydney. However, I was unfortunately unable to attend as I did not find out about it until the day after it occurred! Hopefully they run this show again this year or next year as is being proposed. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Hi OSX. Could you please clarify which option (i.e. deletion or generalisation) you're supporting at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_8#Template:Toyota_vehicle? I'm pretty sure it's "delete", but it will make it easier for the closing admin if you could clarify it. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB

Have you ever used AWB? Maybe it would be usefull to download it and get approval to use it. I may need help with fixing the filenames in the infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have used it before when I had a PC as well, but I only use Mac these days. I can try and get a virtual machine and see how that goes.

For {{Infobox automobile}}, can you please implement the coding to make the image size 1.25 times greater than the users' default thumbnail size? Please see {{Infobox automobile test}} for an example. I have no idea how to implement this (and I broke things in the process of trying). Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For infobox's code changes please ask User:WOSlinker or User:Frietjes. Moreover, the line that makes the caption in italics should go. In all other infoboxes the caption is in normal text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The image size that you see is the default image size of {{Infobox}} and it is used in all infoboxes about persons. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In order not to disturb watchlists I can use my bot account to perform semimanual changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

History merge

Merging the history of your talk page and five archives? That's a big ask. :) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, all done. Archive 1 is a cut and paste archive from 2007 rather than a move so there's no history there to be merged; I've left that one. Check what I've done over and drop me a line if there are any problems. Kind regards, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm, thanks very much for your help with this. Much appreciated. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Automobile

Hi, the template previously allowed more than one image at the top. Now it doesn't. Was this deliberate and if not would it be easy to fix? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I also wrote to Stepho WRS and he has responded so please ignore the above. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Infobox automobile image param needs updating still has 146 items that need to be fixed manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox bus

I just closed this discussion. It would be great if you could work with others (e.g., Chris) to make sure no information is lost, and the merger goes smoothly. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I finished the proposed merge, but I've had an editor summarily revert it based on the change to the image sizing you carried out recently. I notice that this broke image_size, and furthermore that by default it upscales images beyond the user's thumbnail preferences. What led to that decision? Probably easy enough to support both, but I'd rather not do that until I know what actually happened. Looks like Plastikspork has already fixed this. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

27.106.67.148

Is a bit of a ding dong. I have reverted nearly all of their edits (reminiscent of multiply banned User:Kalaua), but I know that trying to block IPs is very time consuming. By the time the whole process is finished, they'll have moved on elsewhere. User is also suggesting the merger of Opel and HSV Senator... Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out Mr.choppers. The Opel Commodore and Holden Commodore merger has a basis though. However, I'm not sure if it would work out logically. I definitely would like to one day fix up the mess than is the the first three generations of Holden Commodore and the various Opel donor models (plus the Daewoo Royale relative). Have you got any European-perspective sources? Might help to clarify the situation Stepho brought up below. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Opel Commodore vs Holden Commodore

I notice that the Opel Commodore was introduced in 1977 and the Holden Commodore was introduced in 1978. Any idea of which was designed first? Was it a case of Opel liking Holden's mixture of 4 cyl Rekord and 6 cyl Senator bits (Holden released later because of the many changes required for our Aussie rough roads) or a case of Holden cribbing the Opel design? Stepho talk 04:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

According to my sources it was an Australian design. I don't have time to get scans right now, but I can in the next week or so if you would like them. The story goes, that Holden couldn't get the six- and eight-cylinder engines from the olds Kingswood-era models to fit in the Opel Rekord engine bay. The larger Opel Senator of the same width that also shared the front doors as well as many other components was too expensive with IRS, et cetera. Holden ended up moulding the Senator engine compartment and front end to the Rekord to get the desired outcome. At least one of the books says something along the lines of "Opel liked the proportions of the hybrid enough to integrate the same design into its own lineup as the Opel Commodore". While the Opel version looked the same as the Holden, much of the internals of the Holden were re-engineered for the outback (Rekords would snap in half at the firewall during outback testing and on the then ubiquitous unsealed rural roads outside the cities). Apparently only 35 percent of parts are interchangeable between the German and Australian Commodores. Opel originally had used the name "Commodore" for the previous generation extended-length Rekord. Whether Opel designated the Rekord-Senator hybrid first, or Holden scavenged the "Commodore" name from the GM naming catalogue and then Opel followed suit is unknown to me. But the Holden re-engineering programme certainly would explain why Opel Commodore came out a good 12 months before the Holden (late 1977 versus October 1978). Opel would have just "copied" the concept itself without taking up the Holden structural enhancements. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Most period European sources on the Opel Commodore don't mention the Holden at all. I don't know if this means that the Aussies simply modified an existing Opel idea or if it's simply an expression of Eurocentrism. Speaking against the Aussie origination idea is that the Rekord E, Commodore C, and Senator A were all first shown together at the IAA 1977, which would suggest that all three were developed in conjunction. One must also remember that the previous Opel Commodore B was equally a Rekord with a bigger engine bay, equivalent in concept to the Commodore C.

Nonetheless, I do not in any way suggest that this would support a merger of Opel and Holden Commodore. History, engines, nearly nothing at all overlaps. The European Commodore was a parenthesis at best, whereas it has in many ways defined the Australian market (and Holden). I also believe that while the article on the Korean iterations needs a lot of work (not much in sourcing available, however) their history is so entirely separate from the Opel Rekord and its derivatives that I couldn't possibly support a merger. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm not suggesting we merge them. The Opel and Holden cars shared many panels (at least from 1978 to the mid 1980s) but yeah, underneath they are quite different. OSX's answer is pretty much my understanding but still leaves the original question: did Holden come up with the idea/inspiration and Opel then copied it (faster due to less re-engineering required) or did Opel come up with the idea which Holden expanded on? Or perhaps both had the same idea at the same time and worked independently of each other. OSX: I'd love to see the scans but I'm in no hurry. Most of my own info came from a story in "Australian Muscle Car" about Brock's potential VH Monza http://www.musclecarmag.com.au/back-issues/australian-muscle-car-issue-40.php Stepho talk 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not supporting a merger either, I just mentioned that it does have a technical basis, although would not really work in practice due to the Holden Commodore having developed separately after the original VB. If was just the VB then yes I would say merge, but the Commodore is still built in fourth generation form today.

Tuckey, Bill (1999). Commodore Lion King: Celebrating 21 Years. Middle Park, Victoria: Quil Visual Communications. ISBN 0-646-38231-4. has a lot of good information which clears up most of the above. Here are some key quotes:

"it is know that in late 1974, the first drawings of the Rekord four-cylinder were at Fishermans Bend (the longer six-cylinder Senator version was a little further down the track)."

"The [Holden] engineers soon found that slotting the 3.3-litre six [Red motor] into the Rekord engine bay required more than a shoehorn. It needed a large bonnet bulge, and when that was added to the clay [model], everyone shook their heads. The board decided it had to send into Opel a study team strong on what the industry call 'packaging' – fitting all the bits into a tightly-drawn and styled space with simultaneous reference to making the whole thing simpler (and thus cheaper) to make and assemble (and these days to repair)."

"In early 1975 the first [Holden] design team headed for Germany. It included a young engineering draftsman called Ray Grigg – who would be named VB project manager but at that stage had responsibility for body packaging".

"Says Grigg: "We reviewed the package layouts of the all-new V-cars Opel were designing. My task was to see how the Holden L6 and V8 engines and transmissions could be installed into this initial (Rekord) package. After about three weeks and the study of different alternatives it became obvious that our L6 engine could not fit." That was when they discovered Opel were working on another V-car model, to be called Senator and to replace the existing Diplomat, with a much longer nose (and longer rear end) that offered the chance to slot in the local six and V8. Grigg arranged for Opel's fibreglass Rekord model to be shipped to Australia, and from that styling built up a clay model that was essentially the Rekord with the Senator nose job. It was so well proportioned that Opel later picked up the bastard child to fit between its Rekord and Senator on the European market and named it – guess what? – Commodore. When the rest of the team returned to Australia, Grigg [...] stayed on to finalise the engineering packaging. Grigg came back with the drawing in November [1975].

"[Grigg] now says there wasn't any real resistance within Opel to what Holden wanted to do with their design. "I think that initially they tried to insist we maintain the Opel two-model strategy, but we had completed sufficient package layouts within the first month of being on-site to indicate that this was not possible, and we had to look for alternatives."

"Gradually emerging was the fact that fitting the local drive train would incur a significant engineering cost. The Senator engine bay had been designed to take a six, but a V8 wouldn't fit, unless the recirculating-ball steering system was replaced by a rack-and-pinion (R&P) setup across the firewall to get it behind the V8."

"There was another [market research] clinic in March 1977 to test names. [...] They tried Kingswood II, Commodore, Torana, Cutlass, Senator, Delta and others, and while Commodore wasn't top of pile, it polled strongly – and anyway, that's what most Holden insiders were already calling it." — Reading between the lines, this suggests that Opel had called its Rekord-Senator hybrid "Commodore" first. As by March 1977, I'm sure Opel had determined that its car (to be released in late 1977) would be called "Commodore".

OSX (talk • contributions) 12:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly good source (better than no source, anyhow), but he does seem a bit Aussie-centric. Not mentioning that "Commodore" had been used by Opel since 1967 seems kinda silly, and for a car which sat in the exact same slot in their lineup. Nonetheless, Opel may have been intending to rationalize away the Commodore but the "well-proportioned bastard child" changed their minds. Anyhow, until anything else emerges I think it can be safe to say that the Commodore hybrid was brought about by Holden. As a sidenote, a Swedish car magazine made a Commodore/Rekord estate hybrid in 1979 (of the previous generation), but they turned it into a Van. Would have fit right in in Oz. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the same thing about the complete disregard for the Opel Commodore prior to 1977. However, I guess the book was written in 1999 before the internet became mainstream and there is the language barrier issue. Without internet sources, finding out this information in Australia back then wouldn't have been easy. This is why I love Wikipedia... it makes it easy as everyone contributes what they know!

And yes, had Holden adopted the Rekord-based models a generation earlier the Swedish van conversion would have made a great Sandman panel van. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Article assessment

Hello, I noticed that you have contributed to quite a few automotive articles and was wondering if you could assess Audi V8 (or redirect me to someone who can). I am not much of a car person but I have done my best to repair the article. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 03:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have the time to give a comprehensive review right now, but I can point out a few things for you:

"It was replaced by the Audi A8 in 1994 but was not sold until the model year 1998." — US bias, the A8 may not have arrived in the US until circa 1997, but it was certainly available in Europe in 1994.
Transmissions: section is too detailed with a focus on unencyclopedic details like prefix codes and gear ratios.
Brakes: as above, rotor sizes are beyond WP scope. As are codes like "8.0J". I think wheel diameter (inch) and tyre width (mm) is sufficient.
Features: would be better summarised and converted into text form.
Would love to hear more detail as to the Audi transition from "aspirational" mainstream to luxury , as largely kick-started by the V8.

Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Killara

Hi. I put a "too many pix" tag on Killara article. It could do with a bit of culling (I had the same problems in my early days). I don't think we really need the shot of Springdale Ave, or the shot where you can't see the house for the fence. I suggest replacing Springdale Ave with the pic of the Greendale Hotel, which I have just improved.

Sardaka (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC) PS Have noticed that your pix always have nice colours. How do you get that effect?

Hi, I have removed three photos. I like the Springdale Road image, as it shows the leafy streetscape characteristic of the suburb. I think we need a better photo of the hotel if we are to use that.

The colours in my photos as done by increasing the saturation. My camera tends to desaturate images quite a bit. When I correct this in Photoshop, I usually go overboard and overcorrect—thus the colours come out vibrantly. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)