User talk:Charles01/Archive 52

I reckon you are the first editor who has told me the he admires my urge to make Wikipedia perfect. Yes, I do have this urge. And yes, I have noticed, that, the more I get into detail, the more I discover that other editors have other definitions of perfect. What I have found to be the most frustrating difference in the definition of perfect is how editors deal with sources, and what kind of merit sources have in their definition of perfect. In my definition of a perfect article, all major points are well sourced, and the sources cited are reliable books, that describe the subject well, were published by a decent publisher, and were written by specialists. What I don't like is poor online links of underwhelming quality. And what I really hate is when editors cite sources without even realising that the source doesn't cover the article's subject at all. It makes my toenails furl.

On the other hand, I have found very entertaining contributions, too. You say that you have spent quite a lot of time in Germany, so I presume you know how hilarious Denglisch can be. Most Germans (and Austrians) believe that they speak English very well, but in reality, they do not. You can substract at least one point from every German's English babel in his or her userbox. I don't know English perfectly well, but I don't know Austrian German perfectly well either. You should check out the recent changes in the German de:Fireman Sam article. Someone who possibly doesn't know what a fire engine is translated the intro song's "his engine is bright and clean". The result is ridiculous (or was, I have corrected it). It made me look up the intro video on YouTube, and to my surprise, they have changed the "When he hears the firebell chime" to "when he hears the fire alarm". Apparently, children nowadays don't know the verb chime anymore?

Well, that is a very nice way of expressing that you cannot answer my – frankly speaking – weird and difficult question. Possibly, there is too much background behind it. I tried substracting that, but that doesn't work in this case, I suppose. Anyways, it was nice hearing (reading) from you Charles. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vauxford (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help
What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages
The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor
The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards



 * On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
 * There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
 * Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

Toolbar



 * In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
 * One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
 * New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
 * Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
 * Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania
The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

 * Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes.  The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
 * Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
 * Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November.  This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations.  The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages
Thank you for your recent articles, including Gustav von Schlabrendorf, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Noted.  That first pass at a translation / adaptation into English that you came across is far from completed.   There are plenty of juicy sources.   More than I had intially anticipated.   But when I get closer to completing it I will take a closer look at how those templates work.


 * I do have a bit of a blindspot with templates.  It's never quite clear, to me, what they will do!   But I am indeed beginning to understand some of the effect of the ones for Project Biography and Project Germany, Project Poland etc.!


 * Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Charles, I allow myself to thank you for your kindness which made me very happy. Thank you for your huge contributions on the subject of vehicles, I enjoy the pleasure of seeing all these known and unknown cars that encourage me to participate in their rankings to continue your work so that your contributions are highlighted and encourage you to offer others. To the great pleasure of crossing on the big planet of the contribution that is Wikipedia encyclopedia. Best regards, —— DePlusJean (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What a delightful message!  Thank you.   You make me happy, too.


 * I see that you live in Montpellier.  Between 1978 and 1985 I worked in the travel/holiday business, based in London.   They paid us very little, but there were compensations.  We got periodic "educationals".   Somewhere round 1983 my number came up and I was included on an "educational" orgaanised by the French National Tourist Office based at that time at 178(?) Piccadilly, London.  (They seem to have moved the shop since then.) It involved visiting holiday destinations in south / south west France: Cap d'Agde ... Toulouse ... Carcasonne ... TGV:   Orange à Paris.   They took us to Montpellier one evening and we had a wonderful restaurant meal which centred on oysters.   At least, my meal did.    I don't remember anything else about Montpellier:  maybe they drove us round the town for fifteen minutes and pointed out the best bits to visit if we ever came back (or sent paying visitors on package holidays), but all that I remember is that wonderful meal.   But it was enough.   (I'm quite greedy.)   I like Montpellier, even though Wikipedia says it has changed a lot since 1984.  Mes meilleures salutations.   Also to your fine city .... Charles01 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edith Barakovich, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Leica ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Edith_Barakovich check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Edith_Barakovich?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Writers from Nuremberg


A tag has been placed on Category:Writers from Nuremberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arsène Lambert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sedan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ars%C3%A8ne_Lambert check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ars%C3%A8ne_Lambert?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

RAC hp
Hi Charles, I was doing some research on thirties' Plymouths and realized that they made a rare small-bore tax special of their four-cylinder engine in 1931 and 1932. 1931 was also when they established a British assembly plant. The skinnier bore of 3+1/8 in brought the RAC rating down from 21 to 15.6 hp. For 1932 the bore was made a little slimmer yet, down to 3+7/64 in, bringing the tax horsepower rating to 15.47.

My question for you is: do you have any additional info on these engines, such as output?

Secondly, and of more general importance, how were the tax horsepower rounded? Does 15.47 equal 15hp for the taxman and 15.6 equals 16hp? This would explain the re-engineering, whereas if they taxed fractional hp it seems completely pointless. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the last time the Yanks and the Brits went protectionist.  Didn't end so well....   Interesting stuff, though, about Plymouth taking trouble to change the engine cylinder diameters in order to penetrate the British market.   I have spotted the occasional Plymouth / Chrylser in England from the 1930s at oldtimer fests, but very occasional.   I've a feeling they assembled them in Canada for the UK market at one stage, because Canada benefitted from "imperial preference" tarriff benefits.   Presumably that was one of the reasons the US automakers set up a sort of mini-Detroit across the bridge over the "Detroit River" at Windsor, Ontario
 * We do get LOTS of US old timers in England from the 1950s and 1960s, left behind by US squaddies stationed at the airbases where they'd moved in during the 1939-45 war, when they went back stateside.  But not too many from the 1930s.
 * I do not have additional information on these engines, no.  I will google it for my own curiosity and if I find anything I will share a link.   But I suspect you already tried Mr.Google.   Hang on .... here's G.N Georgano, the Complete Encyclopedia of Motor cars 1968 edition .... pages 452-453:
 * "Plymouth (US) 1928 to date ...
 * Plymouth adhered to four cylinders until 1933, when the PD-series 6-cylinder was listed at less than $600.  1934 de luxe models had independent front suspension, but this was dropped after a year and did not reappear for some time.   The standard engine in the later 1930s had a capacity of 3.3 litres, rather smaller than that used in comparable Chevrolets and Fords:  a small bore 2.8-lire vrsion was made for export up to 1939, but the name Plymouth was not usually found on cars sold in England, which were nominally [sic] Chrysler Kew and Wimbledon sixes..."   With apologies for the typoes which are (probably) all my own work.   There are lots of copies of Georgano around so probably second hand copies crop up on www.abe.com from time to time.   I particularly liked the phrase "... was dropped after a year and did not reappear for some time" because it touches on my answer to the next question.
 * I don't have a source for this, but I am as sure as I can be that British hp values are rounded - probably down - to the nearest whole number.  The Brits and the Germans have much in common, but when it comes to precision they are opposite.   I remember when we were students we rented a boat on the river.   One of us was a German girl, and when someone asked what time it was (the boat had to be back by six) she looked at her watch and solemnly told us it was twenty-one minutes to six (or whatever...).   The Brits all laughed at the level of precision.   The German could not understand why being accurate was funny.   Now that I have lived in both England and Germany I still have the idea that in general conversation a German will give you the most precise answer he easily can provide, whereas the Brit will say "it's about X" or "a little less than Y".   However ....  when it comes to tax horsepower, I've a feeling that even the Germans used to round it (up).   (Then again, I think in Germany they abolished car tax around 1934 in order to boost the auto industry:  without car tax, no one really cares too much about tax horsepower.)
 * I have come across English cars where they used an incorrect tax horsepower as the name of a car, so you get a model called 15 hp when for tax purposes it really was only a 14 hp.  One explanation is to define your competition.   If your new model is competing against the Standard 8 and the Morris 8 and the Ford 8 you will (would have in the 1930s) called your new model the Choppers 8 even if its cylinder bore meant it was taxed as a 7 or a 9.   I think, also, that sometimes a car simply got a name and the name stuck even after they change the engine size.   But off the top of my head I can't think of an example for that.
 * No further thoughts. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just the right length. The six seems to have been 2.6 liters in 1933, from 1934 until 1939 it was indeed a 2.8 liter thanks to a longer stroke. I'll see what else I can find.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure
Hello Charles01,

There has been an RfC here which needs close-by an uninvolved user. As you're uninvolved, I am requesting you for it's closure. Its non closure is resulting in an edit war at the BMW M3 page. U1 quattro  TALK  03:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered by your request and I will certainly take a closer look at it.  A lot of it harks back to discussions that have been rumbling on in the background for many years.   Feels like for ever.   If there were easy concusions accessible someone smarter and more patient than either of the two of us would probably have landed on them by now.   Some interesting points have been made this time round and some good argumments have been put (along with the others).   I find, at least at first blush, that I agree with a lot of them - including several that are mutually exclusive.


 * My own preference with wikipedia is to contribute content that (in my judgement) makes it better.  Where I see people repeatedly adding content that (in my judgment) makes wikipedia screamingly worse, I cannot (always) resist the urge to say so.   But I do not really enjoy the more political side of wikipedia.    I have never closed one of these discussions in my life, and I think if I wanted to make a start down that route (which on balance I really don't) I'd start with something on which my own opinions were less conflicted.   As in, something easier to judge.


 * Never exlude the possibility that I might change my mind, but on this one I think I am unlikely to.  I think the discussion you have drawn to my attention might very well be left to run into the sand in its own good time:  they often do.   But if you have a strong opinion that it urgently needs closure today or, failing that, tomorrow, I would recommend that you ask someone less encumbered by sef doubt than I am.   Success.   Charles01 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Léopold Maissin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/L%C3%A9opold_Maissin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/L%C3%A9opold_Maissin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mick Cash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brentwood ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mick_Cash check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mick_Cash?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eugen Wiedmaier


A tag has been placed on Eugen Wiedmaier requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Dr42 (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Eugen Wiedmaier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eugen Wiedmaier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eugen Wiedmaier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dr42 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this page obviously looks viable, but if you would please translate the rest of the article, the part that is commented out at the moment, it would look even more persuasive. Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Noted.  I have, in fact, expanded it significantly (and may yet do more of the same) since it was nominated for speedy deletion by Dr42 within two hours of my starting it.   But I am disinclined to take too much time with it while it is being actively trolled.   There is, indeed, much more to be done!   There is an argument for doing the whole thing in a sandbox, but that means no one else will have a chance to make improvements as one progresses the translation.   The overwhelming majority of contribtions from other people when one starts a new translation or other entry are, of course, constructive ones.   There is no obvious reason to want to discourage them.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Would it hurt to use the sandbox to draft the article prior to publication? If you're planning on expanding the article, the sandbox is the appropriate place. This is not an attempt at trolling at all, this was a bona fide attempt to make a good faith effort at judging what I thought was a final product. Regardless, I'll remove the tag since you are still working on the progress of the article. However, I think the sandbox is the more appropriate place for drafting articles. Dr42 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I guess that's what passes for an apology with you!  As good as it gets, even.   But you do not appear to have read what I just wrote.   Let me try and make it really simple.   Wikipedia is a collaborative project.   I am more than happy for you to make improvements before I've finished the translation, which can easily take a whole day.   Several days, even.   Most people don't have a problem with this.   I don't understand why you do.   You are not a fellow who likes to explain what's on his mind.   Your right.  Of course it's a free country.   On a good day.  (And it depends which country.)  Happy days  Charles01 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)the


 * Mate, I have no idea what you're on about. There's nothing to apologize for. I removed the nomination and indicated that the sandbox might be the more appropriate place for drafting articles that are unfinished or otherwise unprepared for publication. Have at it, but if I see a non-notable individual that doesn't meet GNG I am going to nominate him/her for deletion. End of. Have a good day. Dr42 (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Cack-handedness
In this edit you included a completely irrelevant db-person which, because it was not bracketed with, caused Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 14 and several other innocent pages to appear in CAT:CSD. Please be more careful. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa (as far as I can tell from what you write)!  Sorry you appear to have been inconvenienced and / or troubled.   Regards  Charles01 (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heinz Rauch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Party of Sweden ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Heinz_Rauch check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Heinz_Rauch?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Looks as if we have some work to do, replacing everything you referenced from the 1972 Daily Mail car show supplement.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  16:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought which thanks for sharing.  I certainly wouldn't trust them on international or domestic politics or politicians.   But I think you have to accept that some "facts" are more contentious than others.   And when improving sources, the place to start is with the contentious facts.  The type of automatic transmission available for a Morris Marina is unlikely to be too contentious (though it's also likely to be easy to source from multiple sources if it becomes contentious).   If you write that a particular car was a terrible car - even with a Morris Marina - I would contend that finding a halfway decent source for the opinion becomes more important than the simple assertion that it had four wheels or indeed a Borg Warner automatic transmission as an option extra.   Where cars are concerned, there are far more motor magazines accessible online than there used to be.   AutoExpress comes up with something usable for most cars as does Auto Motor und Sport.   But of course, the Morris Marina was rather a long time ago, from the perspective of now.   Still, no doubt judicious googling can take one quite a long way with some of this stuff.  Ho hum  Charles01 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)