Talk:Chevrolet Camaro/Archive 3

Footnote References

Added footnote reference functionality into the article. We should definitely be using this a lot more in the future to keep things organized starting with all of the info in the article that needs sources. I've tagged some of it already with the {{citation needed}} tag. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes. Roguegeek 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Sections by Year

If you guys take a look at the Pontiac Firebird article, you'll see they do not make every year it's own section. It seems to keep the contents panel nice and clean as opposed to the long contents panel that the Camaro currently has. It also seems nicer for editing because changes tend to be made over several years at one time and now you wouldn't have to make several edits to several sections. I'm finding this very much a problem when trying to clean up references. I'd like to make the change as soon as possible if there is agreement on it. Thoughts? Roguegeek 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Perhaps a better example would be the Chevrolet Corvette article, where they list each generation, and each generation has its own main article...it makes sense since there's enough info on each generation alone to be a standalone article. Ayocee 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If we take the years out as sections, it will section then by generations already. I'm just saying it might be cleaner to not make years real sections and, instead, make them bold subtitles that wont count towards the Contents panel. Maybe we can start with this first and then see how we could start merging years together if you guys want. Seems like the Camaro article has enough info to keep things split by year, but we could talk about that after the first edit. Thoughts? Roguegeek 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going for it then. Let's soak it in and see what we think. Sections will be defined by Generation and not Year anymore. Roguegeek 07:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that it's been in there for three months, what do we think? I think I'm liking the original way it was, but it we were to move back, I'd want to throw the code in that keeps the table of contents closed by default due to the size of it. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Any feedback? Roguegeek (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have cleaned up the external links section and removed every link that did not categorizes as a reliable source WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia. Removed personal sites, personal blogs, any site with advertising on it (considered spam), and any other site that was just insignificant. This was very much long overdue. Official policies are currently being discussed about how an "External links" section should not be included in articles and that articles should only rely on references (either footnote like we have it set up already or any other the other ways to reference facts) as the only external links of an article. This will keep things like small forums, personal sites, and other insignificant links out of articles from now on. I'm proposing we move to this kind of system since we already have a fair share of references. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We should also discuss any external links that are added to this article to see if they conform to what Wikipedia considers a reliable source WP:RS. It's definitely an important policy all editors should read up on. Roguegeek (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done a major clean up (again) on the external links section. I removed everything with an ad, everything that was a community site, anything with off-topic info, and anything else that's defined in WP:EL that shouldn't be there. I did place a link to the Open Directory Project as recommended. This is where you'll be able to find a lot of those links that were deleted. The only links that remain are official GM links and the open directory link. We need to be very strict on this section. I mean if the editors over in the Ford Mustang section can do it, we should definitely be able to do it. Please help me in attempting to keep this section clean. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

camaros.org

http://www.camaros.org This link keeps getting thrown back into the external links. I'm removing it for now and submitting it to DMOZ to be linked here. That is unless there's some significance I can't see as to why this should be there directly? Roguegeek (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

5th gen images

Anetode has decided to replace the two 5th gen images with ones he shot on his own. It's never a bad thing to use fairuse images here on Wikipedia, but I think it's something to discuss right now considering the content. The following were the original images in the article.

File:Camaro-annoucement-01.jpg

File:Camaro-concept 01.jpg

And they were replaced by these images.

My argument for using the original images would be

1. There's more contrast between the two considering one is red and the other is silver as opposed to just two silver shots both shot in the very same environment. It simply looks more interesting and less redundant.
2. The rear image shows more vehicle detail since you can see the traditional rear "bulge" which is an extremely important characteristic of the Camaro compared to the other image with is almost a straight rear shot.

Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

These images were replaced because of Wikipedia policy. WP:FUC states that:

Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria:

1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken.
   • Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.

I am going to upload to commons several free-use alternatives to address Roguegeek's concerns. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are two more for your consideration:

ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The silver shots in the same environment still arean accurate representation of the concept. Lack of opposing colors does not hinder it. BabuBhatt 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Did not read that policy fully and I now stand corrected by Anetode. Just to be clear, though, I never said they weren't good representations, but I would prefer to see some contrast between the two. The two red examples were exactly what I was talking about and wouldn't mind seeing one of them replace one of the silver concepts. Roguegeek (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

need to know

? on front suspension 1995 Z28 and 2002 Z28 can I use pieces and parts from one to the other....Signed elbows almost in it...any help will due —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.90.109 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Recent RV of photo

I don't exactly see how a fuzzy, overexposed photo of a modified third-gen Camaro in poor condition adds to the article. Ayocee 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)