Talk:Standard Ten

Separate chassis during the 1950s?
Does anyone know if the Standard 8/10 produced during the 1950s had a separate chassis? If it did, it might be something worth highlighting in the wiki-entry. A separate chassis was definitely a much trumpeted feature of the Triumph Herald which was in effect the successor model. Competitor models launched during the 1950s increasingly came with "monocoque" bodies - everything welded together and no separate chassis, with a lot of the rigidity of the overall structure coming from the roof and other body panels. If the little Standard did have a separate chassis that might explain why the estate version - the Standard Companion - came with separate doors for the people sitting on the back seats, while competitor estate cars in or near the same size - Ford Squire, Hillman Husky, Morris Minor Traveller - required people sitting in the back to clamber over the front seats (backrests suitably tilted). Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Vauxford
Our friend Vauxford has replaced one of these pictures with the other of them with the narrative "Same angle and less rusty". Since one of the pictures is by me and the other appears to be by him I would normally hesitate to launch a discussion on his action. But in this case we are dealing with Vauxford whose mission in life involves attaching large numbers of his own pictures to wikipedia entries even where they are not spectacularly better than the picture he is replacing (and sometimes when they appear to be significantly worse). So for Vauxford, it appears, different rules apply. And he denies treating wikipedia as a personal vanity project. Where this has happened before I have invited him to start a discussion on the talk page of the entry in question, but for reasons that I do not understand, he does not like to do this. So ... this is me.

(The bizarre reference to a "Same angle and less rusty" picture refers, I think, to a comment made about third picture that was removed some time ago, but he appears to be unfamiliar with that.)

Neither of the pictures here is brilliant. In my opinion. Neither is dreadful. In some ways they're both quite similar. In my opinion. However, with one of them the sun is more or less in the right place and in the other it isn't.  I would nevertheless be interested to know if any one else has an opinion on whether one is usefully better than the other. Or am I merely becoming paranoid?

Thank you. Charles01 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Being condescending and brash as usual, I do have a mission by providing "decent" images on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons and I have made some misjudgement in the past. It appears I misunderstood what the comment said by the picture. Obviously you didn't have the time to remove it after replacing it with the other photo. The bonnet on yours has some reflection problems which is one of the reason why I replaced it.


 * It seem each interaction you have with me is getting more and more personal and how you wrote your sentence make it sound like you are expecting your vulture friends to swoop down, scold and subtlety mock my editing and photographing. It brings me down a little but not surprised to get these critique on a semi-daily basis on this site. But then to me your words are beginning to become mildly intimidating rather then constructive. I kindly ask you as a fellow editor in the same field to cut this attitude on other users, it just going to bring discord then benefits to this project. --Vauxford (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)