Talk:Volkswagen Type 4

Untitled
I wasn't sure I wanted to get into editing this page, but I believe there may be an inaccuracy as to the German nickname of the Type IV Volkswagen.

When I Google 'VW Langnase' I find German Language references to the VW Super Beetle - this is logical as that vehicle is a longer-nosed version of the standard VW Beetle. On the other hand, a common German language nickname for the Type IV is "Nasenbär" (in English, 'Nose Bear') referring to the South American mammal known as the Coati in English. The only references connecting the term 'Langnase' to the Type IV are the Wikipedia ones or others that appear to have derived their information from Wikipedia.

A look at the German language Wikipedia page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/VW_Typ_4 (...Die dadurch entstandene große „Schnauze“ des Wagens inspirierte die Bevölkerung, dem VW Typ 4 den Spitznamen „Nasenbär“ zu geben...(at 10 nov 2007)) seems to confirm the Nasenbär nickname.

Blbachman 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * - though I see that five months later none of us has yet had the courage of our linguistic convictions sufficiently to enter the correction... Maybe it's one for the article's 'Trivia section' in any case:  depends how it's incorporated, I guess   It certainly did have a long overhang at the front.   Charles01 14:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Being in an adventurous mood right now, I did it. Mostly because I distinctly remember the Nasenbär name, as opposed to Langnase. BUT I wonder why on earth this sentence was tagged as lacking citations, when it explicitly refers to the vernacular, i.e. the spoken everyday language. To me, this is moronic. --328cia (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Extra infoboxes
I've removed these infoboxes and added the photos and descriptions to the article. I can't really see why the infoboxes were used. Your thoughts? --Martinship (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me.  I think all those info boxes were inserted before there was so much consensus on how wiki car articles should look.   Maybe they followed the layout in German wiki which is the source of a lot of this article.   (I think I translated a couple of lines from there myself, though the entry was well advanced long before I came to Wikipedia.)
 * That still leaves open the question whether the page looks better with all the images down one side - probably the right side - or whether it looks better with some pictures down the left side and some down the right side.  Looking at the various entries, I don't think there's any overall consensus there.   I guess it just depends on the layout of your favorite books when you were a kid and your views - probably unconciously - were being formed on such matters. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When I aligned some of the images to the left, I was trying to get them to appear above or next to the infobox. If there is a way to "stack" right-aligned elements, so the images can appear to the right of the text but to the left of the infobox, that would be great. From an aesthetic point of view, having the cars "face" the text would be preferable to me.--Martinship (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

411/411L/411LE
What's the difference between the 411, 411L and 411LE?  Stepho  talk 10:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "L" meant a slightly fuller specification in terms of things like seat adjustment options (adjustable lumbar support on the front seats is one I remember) and maybe seat patterns/a strip of "trim" on the dash board looking like rather unconvincing strip of wood veneer.  "E" simply meant it had fuel injection ("Einspritzung"), which back then was a bit of a novelty, though Mercedes Benz had been pioneering it higher up the food chain (eg Mercedes-Benz 220SE) for several years already.   Neither "L" nor "E" meant it had neither.   I don't have the brochure, but someone might have put one on-line if you google-dig hard enough, which would presumably spell out the differences at great length.   But I hope you get the general idea from this.   Regards  Charles01 (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that makes sense. Could you add it to the article?  Stepho  talk 03:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes.  The "E" bit has survived from way back when:


 * *"....European 411 nomenclature highlighted the fuel injection with the suffix 'E' (for Einspritzung)...."


 * ... but I'll see if I can sneak in a bit on the "L" ... somewhere.  I did add quite a lot to this entry from German wiki several years ago, but quite a lot of that got edited out.  Some deservedly, but there was a also bit of slinging out baby with the bathwater going on there.  Anyhow, with wikipedia there's always an impossibly long "to do list":  I think that at the time I just wandered off and photographed a Toyota (might have been a Nissan...), but what we're left with here is an overall article structure that to my thinking still doesn't really cohere terribly convincingly.   Needs further thought. I guess.  Regards Charles01 (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Photos
Davey2010@undefined are starting an edit-war about the photos. As per WP:BRD, how about we have a chat before the next round of reverts? BilCat@undefined added a tag saying that he thinks there are too many photos. Davey then stripped out some photos. 6 photos aren't exactly flooding the article and certainly aren't overwhelming the reader. Reducing it down to 4 photos by removing the notch back prototype and convertible concept car didn't make the page better and removed what I think are the 2 most interesting photos on the page.  Stepho  talk 03:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've reinserted the prototype back as that is indeed mentioned in the lede, Articles as a whole shouldn't really be flooded with images especially when those images aren't mentioned in the article, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 04:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The main issue was that the photos were squeezing text between photos per WP:SANDWICHING, in addition to a photo in the left lead position, which is also not good. I don't care what images are in the article, but we need to follow the layout guidelines as close as possible. - BilCat (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that Davey has made an attempt to keep some of the photos in by rearranging. I'm hoping to get the convertible photo back in too.
 * BilCat, it is not appropriate to make changes like you did when it is still under discussion - that way simply leads to edit wars. If I understand you correctly, you aren't objecting to the photos but only to how they were arranged. In that case, it is smarter to rearrange rather than delete. It's simple enough to arrange multiple images as a horizontal row via the template that avoids sandwiching.  Stepho  talk  08:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Someone else got in first while I was drafting this, but I don't think it's been entirely superseded by your (collective) further thoughts:
 * Davey's midnight (he's in England, I think) edit-warring has left us without a picture of a four door 411 or 412.  Back in the day the 411 was the first Volkswagen with four doors.   Back at the time that was a big deal.   I respectfully submit that if the car is important and / or interesting (and it is) then we need a picture of the four door version.  Trouble is, most of the pictures in commons are still of two-door cars or for other reasons unsuitable.   Still, picture quality and suitability is to some extent a matter of opinion.   The 411 picture that Davey removed was one "of mine" so I hesitate to offer an opinion on its quality or suitability.   It's certainly far from perfect, but then in my opinion the pictures Davey likes are often far from perfect.  Many of us believe that there's space for opinions to vary.   So  ....  leaving aside the picture I took, I suggest that this (on the right) is the least challenged of the other pictures of the 4-door version currently available in commons.   What do people think?   Charles01 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If Bilcat thinks there are too many pictures for the quantity of the text, then the alternative solution is to add to the text.  There's more in German wikipedia (though on first blush none of it looks overwhelmingly compelling.)   And there are ... sources.   Charles01 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, that 4-door Type 4 is completely new to me. I'd love to see that image on the page too (it's also a pretty good image). Making people hunt around in commons for what should be obvious in the article page sounds like a strange way to present information.  Stepho  talk 09:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Yeah my sleeping pattern is rather messed up (bed at 4am - up at 10:30am!), Anyway I've reverted the article back to the tag-adding edit seeing as even my edit was disputed,
 * Personally I'm not bothered about sandwiching but maybe that's because I've never been reverted on it - The problem for me is the layout/images - The prototype and Volvo should stay in the article but I don't really see why the convertible needs to stay? - The more text there is the more images you can add in,
 * Also I'm on a 1280 x 800 laptop so what may look fine(ish) to me may well look completely odd to someone else but as I said I don't generally care about sandwiching. Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 10:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a great believer in showing images of each major variation and also a lover of concept cars and prototypes (see Toyota concept vehicles (2000–2009)). I could add a paragraph on the convertible prototype based on infomation from https://www.automuseum-volkswagen.de/en/the-cars/the-great-air-cooled-models.html, https://carsthatnevermadeitetc.tumblr.com/post/181205123457/volkswagen-411-cabriolet-1968-by-karmann-a and https://www.type4.org/pictures/1966/index.html . As I mentioned above, I can fix the sandwiching problem.  Stepho  talk 22:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Unfortunately I'm hopeless when it comes to writing any article so this isn't me just passing the buck but if you wanted too then that would be greatly appreciated - If there's a paragraph or 2 on the convertible then in my eyes there's justification for the image :), Many thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've made a stab at both the cabriolet info and avoiding sandwiching.  Stepho  talk 12:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Was the 914 a type 4?
Given the VW 914 had the type 4 engine, should it get a mention on this page? 81.141.108.45 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add a line to the effect that between 1969 and 1972 (Oswald's dates) the 411 shared a flat-4 Einspritzer (80 PS / 59 kW) engine with the 4-cylinder version of the 914.  It does count as a little known interesting fact about two little remembered (by most folks) but interesting cars.   Your addition will be particularly welcome if you can be bothered to include an online source note.   Be well.  Charles01 (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)