User talk:OSX/Archive 6

Talk:Write-off
It looks like realistically we could merge 4 articles after some snooping: Most have little references and include similar information, but i'm not sure whether to include them in the merge discussion. Your opinion? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Accelerated depreciation (automotive)
 * Diminished value
 * Write-off
 * Total loss


 * Hi, I'm not sure what to do with the others as I'm not quite sure if they are the same thing or not... OSX (talk • contributions) 07:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Talbot Tagora
I added a digest of a review of the Talbot Tagora which OSX removed. The criticism related to the comparisons with competitor cars and the references not being good enough. I´d like to say that first, given the lack of detail about the car, the information I posted was, I think, a useful bit of knowledge. And the references cited the magazine, date, and page et cetera. I have obtained some more period reviews which I will add so the work is in progress. Perhaps the entry could be better but was it so bad as to require removal? I´m not trying to be difficult here, just genuinely curious to know if the ten lines I added were so poor as to necessitate deletion. We´re dealing with an obscure car here, not a contested biography of a contentious political figure. (I hope this is the correct way to communicate this question). casalinguaCasalingua (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * The appraisal section cited one source which is not very diversified.
 * Wikipedia is not a comparison guide — WP:NOT


 * The content is not bad, just not suited to an encyclopedia, which aims to present neutral facts, not opinions of journalists.


 * Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Holden "21h.p." engine
The engine used in the FJ/FE/FC Holdens seems to be the subject of some confusion. In the articles here in WP it is variously quoted as having 2160, 2170, 2171, or 2262 cc. 132.5 cuin is also mentioned. Here (period brochure), it is stated to have a 3 inch bore and a 3.125 inch stroke, which according to my calculations comes out to 132.5359 cuin or 2171.8749 cc. I believe that simple mathematical calculations aren't original research - should all of these various articles be changed to read 132.5cuin/2172cc? "2171" is just a result of converting a rounded number (132.5) rather than the actual displacement.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * According to a Holden history magazine I had handly, the grey motor started out as 2.15 L, 21.6 hp / 45 kW in the Holden 48/215 but grew a few times to max out at 2.26 L, 56 kW in the FB to EJ. My magazine is a bit short on details but I'm sure a decent Holden history book will spell it out.  Stepho  talk 23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC) (signing now because I forgot on 15 April)


 * Hey. Sorry for the late reply—I haven't been editing much of late. This area really goes beyond my expertise, and I suggest maybe speaking to GTHO as much of his editing history focuses on the earlier models of Holden that I have minimal knowledge of. I don't have too many Holden books covering the early models either, except a couple of "History of Holden" type books. I have checked the books I have and they all seem to honour the original imperial measurements as these were the standard at the time—that is, 132 or 132.5 cu in.


 * Google does not bring up anything of value when searching for "Holden 2172 cu in" or similar, but changing the number to 2,171 does. I agree that conversions are not original research, but I also don't want to give you a recommendation where I feel I don't have enough knowledge on the issue to validly comment. Sorry that I cannot be of much help. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was simply wondering why so many numbers were being bandied about and figured I'd check what the actual displacement (3 x 3 1/8) came to be - which is 2172cc. I guess the question then becomes whether simple math trumps actual sources? In any case, I think that all the articles should use the same metric displacement.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The GMH's Holden 48/215 brochure number 1876 quotes the displacement as 132.5 cu. in.
 * The Motor Year Book 1951, page 68 quotes the Cubic capacity of the Holden as 2,170
 * The Australian Motor Manual 1953 Annual page 74 quotes the Capacity of the Holden as 2,170cc
 * "Comparing the Cars" (ie the new car price list) in Australian Motor Manual, January 1st 1957 page 65 quotes the capacity of the Holden models as 2170
 * "Comparing the Cars" (ie the new car price list) in Australian Motor Manual, January 1st 1960 page 64 quotes the capacity of the Holden models as 2170
 * GTHO (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Great work. Thanks GTHO! OSX (talk • contributions) 14:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Bah! They're all wrong, I guess since they're from pre-calculator days. Nonetheless, these are nice sources and I don't know that I would even like to trump them - the main thing is that we may now use one single value across all of the early Holden articles, which will make these pages seem more professional. Btw, did Australia go metric in September 1974 as implied by this link?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I could have just gone here instead, my bad!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I just read this after making the below entry . First the reason for the difference 2172 / 2170 is rounding for publication in the actual measurements of the bore and stroke and second Holden will have been no, was very anxious to, maintain the US connection for marketing which is why it used cubic inches (with I suppose Chrysler and Ford) but not the rest so it is quite funny to read it being described as Imperial measurements when it is in fact a pure USA carryover. Eddaido (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Archiving web pages
Hi OSX, would you remember volunteering to archive an old Daimler brochure in an Ebay listing? I want to get this one archived very soon, please would you tell me how to do it. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes, I recall. I use WebCite. Hopefully it sticks around, and does not get discontinued at the end of the year. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Thank you very much. . . . it works but only brings up a tiny box where the image should be, will wait a few days.Thanks Eddaido (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Try: . OSX (talk • contributions) 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I waited a few days and came back just now and look what I found! Thanks very much, any idea what I did wrong? Eddaido (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You just need to archive the URL of the actual image for it to work, not the website that contains the image. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never been keen on shortened URL's - they give no clues to whether your going to a copy of a good website or a copy of a virus laden porn site. Instead, I like the long form which gives readers a clue about where they are going: eg for your brochure the archived web page told me the original web URL and the archive date, so I can turn it into a form similar to what archive.org uses: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/stumpyj/150305929.jpg&date=2013-05-17  Stepho  talk 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi OSX, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Automobiles talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Burden
In accord with wp:v, and specifically wp:burden, the burden is on you -- if you wish to re-add material that has been deleted -- to supply an inline ref. WP does not work by one editor adding wholly unreferenced material, or more specifically re-adding wholly unreferenced material, and foisting upon others the burden of doing the work to source it. If you would like to re-add such material, you are of course welcome to do so, but the burden is on you to provide an inline ref that properly supports the material. Not on others. As made clear in wp:burden.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well go and delete 95 percent of all content here—because most is not cited. It is just silly to delete items without attempting to look yourself. I call that disruptive, despite whatever "official line" is. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Holden Revert
Dear Mr. OSX,

I made a minor edit to the Holden article. It was under the subsection of "Exports". Here is the section in question;

As you can see, the same information is provided twice in this small section. Therefore, I removed one of the references to take away the repetitiveness. take away the repetitiveness. I didn't notice a reason for your revert in the summary. I can only assume you did not realize that this error existed. I will correct it again. If for some reason you feel this redundancy is necessary, please feel free to revert it to whichever way you think is appropriate, only this time could you please provide some reasoning in the edit summary. Thanks. Have a great day! -  thewolfchild  05:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, did not realise it was repeated. Fixed now. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No Problem. Cheers. -  thewolfchild   07:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lexus IS
Thanks for the kind words at Talk:Lexus IS. I'm still not sure if he just didn't get what I was trying to say or if I was feeding a troll. Oh well.  Stepho  talk 15:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. I really begrudge arguing with thick individuals like Basuraeuropea. I see you have a lot more patience for them than I do. I've seen this type around before, very polite on the surface—but super frustrating to deal with so they make you look like a bully when you vent any hint of frustration. You weren't in the wrong so don't worry. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mazda Capella
Oh boy. What is going on with these at the moment? I would bet good money on this being exactly the same user who tried to claim God told him that the Porsche Panamera replaced the Ford Crown Victoria... Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol. I don't know what its problem is but next time I might just join in and think of a crazier tale to tell when I revert. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Colin Chapman appeared to me in a dream and told me that Lotus' first F1 car was the Toyota Prius" perhaps? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Lancer
Hi. I understand that you have a particular care for the Mitsubishi Lancer article and I definitely appreciate it, but I feel that you have been too fierce in defending your work while reverting my edits. I am explaining to you the reason for each of my recent edits in the Mitsubishi Lancer article.

The anchor templates have to be positioned in the section headings, as the Anchor template documentation explains. This is for getting the best results from using it, otherwise positioning it above or below the section titles does not bring the screen to the position intended which is exactly how the table of contents does.

The generation numbers do provide a better understating of the subject, as they use words which are more intelligible than numbers. Also, the most of the automobile articles on Wikipedia are structured this way. I noticed you have a preference for sections headers using only years, when things are somehow more complex because of a particular reason, such as here, but even so it's not necessary to use only numbers. As you have seen I have provided references for these edits, from the manufacturer's website. Also, the Mirage generations are also counted which makes generation numbers in the Lancer article even more relevant and less contestable.

The horizontal are placed at the bottom of articles, as stated in the WP:NAVBOX policy. I do not agree with positioning it in the upper section, near the beginning of the article, because the navbox it looks awkward comparing it to most of the other articles on Wikipedia. It is probably particularly because of the set of colors of the navbox class.

The gallery descriptions using the the generation numbers provide a better understanding of the subject also. As long as there are a first, a second, a seventh and an eighth generation (referenced), the links to the other Mirage-based should also be described this way. Particularly as I provided a reference for that.

"Marketing" instead of "Market", because "Market" defines something which may refer to something else as well and is not adequate as a section title, while "Marketing" defines more clearly that the section is about the marketing of the car on different markets eventually.

I assure you that have all the consideration for your dedication and interest for the subject and that I want to keep the articles neat as well. I hope that we will settle this issue in a fair way. Best regards, BaboneCar (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, why accuse me of being fierce when you changed it all first? But anyway, I will respond to each point:


 * Anchor templates: I now understand that your way is the proper way. It looks like hell, but if that's the usage, then that's the way it is.


 * I don't have a preference for sections headers using only years at all, quite the opposite. My preference is for generations, except in circumstances where they do more harm than good, i.e. Lancer, Toyota Camry. How can we have generations when we have issues like Lancer Fiore paralleling production with the Lancer EX in the early 1980s? What is a "second generation" in one market is different to others. Therefore, one should only use generations when they help rather than impede understanding for the majority of users.


 * The navbox was created by me to go in the Mirage-based Lancer section to give editors a visual on how the cars fitted together in the major scheme of things. I have done the same at Toyota Camry. It's intended to be a timeline for one article, not a multi-article navbox. I'm just using the navbox template. I strongly disagree that it should go down the bottom of the page in a collapsed form. I'd rather see it deleted than go at the bottom as it's purpose is wasted down there. Let's change the master template from Navbox to something else if we have to as the spirit of its creation was to go where with the Mirage-based models.


 * The gallery descriptions: see above—generations.


 * "Marketing" to me is synonymous with advertising and promotion of the vehicle. "Market" refers to the various countries that the car is sold, e.g. UK market, Japanese market. I have yet to come across other articles using "marketing" in that context.


 * I also hope we can reach an agreement. Enjoy your weekend!
 * Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 13:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I said it because you reverted some other minor edits as well from my revision which did not require to be reverted. Regarding the timeline, I do consider it relevant in the Mirage-based section, but within its own subsection, with a section header above, and below the text. Otherwise, it would look like an awkwardly positioned navbox in the upper half of the article, when everyone would expect it at the bottom. Anyway, I do appreciate the fact that you created it and I believe it does provide a better understanding of the subject.


 * The "Marketing" term does also refer to how the vehicle was commercialized in a specific market and not only to advertising or promoting. I do not see any problem with using it instead of "Market", which is rather a noun than a verb in this context. It is also used in other articles as well and it seems that it is accepted.


 * Regarding the generation numbers, I remain to my opinion that they should be used along with years, but, at least for the moment, I will stop doing edits related to this aspect. I consider them totally acceptable as long as they can be referenced. I have found this Lancer brochure, which mentions on the last page that there have been nine generations of development up to the current model. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sylphy
Hi OSX, I saw your work folding duplicate Pulsar content into the Bluebird Sylphy page, nice work. I have a question regarding the renaming, however, as I thought that the policy was to name the article after the original name of the car, unless obviously trumped by later use - hence, not Isuzu Florian Aska but definitely "Nissan Bluebird Sylphy". Not a strong opinion of mine, but I thought I should nudge you on the matter. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey. I thought the new name "Nissan Sylphy" was a better fit as the new name no longer contains "Bluebird". It still works for the original cars as well as all thee generations include the "Sylphy" suffix. I also note that the latest Sylphy is a more international model than in the past—Sylphy was previously for Japan only, now China and Thailand use the name (and maybe others). Volkswagen CC has been adopted as the title of that page despite it originally being "Volkswagen Passat CC". On the subject of Nissans, any article on a legacy Datsun model that became a Nissan seems to universally use the newer Nissan title (e.g. Datsun Bluebird, Datsun Sunny).


 * For these reasons I'm not sure if I support a blanket one-size fits all policy to name the article after the original name of the car. It has certainly not been documented at WP:CARS/Conventions, although that does not make it irrelevant if it is based on a previous talk page consensus. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is good enough for me, especially the fact that the third generation is sold in many more markets. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 00:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Latham
Per WP:BRD, if new information is added, and other editors object for sound, policy based reasons, you need to then go to the article's talk page and get consensus to add it. I've already started a discussion there. Continuing to attempt to force information into an article is edit warring. I'm especially concerned since this is negative BLP info, which is held to our absolutely highest standard. Please do not re-add that until you establish consensus. If we cannot agree amongst ourselves, you can pursue dispute resolution. But the WP:BURDEN is on you to overcome WP:UNDUE and the WP:BLP concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox automobile
Your recently proposed edits on Template:Infobox automobile are unacceptable: the title style outside the infobox has been in place for at least five years and the template is used in hundreds or thousands of articles. There is absolutely no reason to change it now, once everyone has got used to it. The grey color you proposed for the background color of the headings is too dark and does not match with the bold formatting. I have implemented a lighter version, which the initial editor agreed with. We should not edit war over background colors. The line breaks within a template are not necessary, because it is meant to be as small in size as possible. BaboneCar (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously, what are you on about? We have every other editor supporting the changes so stop spinning it as otherwise. I don't care about it being a certain way for five years, the rest of the editors said they were much happier with the new design. So as you said, there is absolutely no reason to change it now. You want to change it back, discuss it first. I will keep reverting your disruptive changes as many times as I have to until you discuss it first.


 * I prefer your light colour grey (which you would know if you bothered to read the discussion that you seem allergic to engaging in). However, you have not participated in the discussion, so your proposal has no weighting until its been discussed first. If you continue to go about things in this manner don't expect to hold any respect from other editors.


 * SUMMARY: discuss it first! OSX (talk • contributions) 08:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not the one who wants to modify the template. I reverted the title style to the original state, after a modification was done per the bold policy. There is no discussion on the talk page of the template, yet you re-installed the edits several times. You are the one who should discuss it (see WP:BRD). The fact that this modification is supported is based on vague discussions, where it is unclear whether who supports what. That is not how you do edit a template that is present on thousands of articles. It should be changed only if there is a good reason for it, regardless of the number of editors that support the edit (see WP:DEMOCRACY). Also, you discuss it on the talk page of the template, so that everyone who follows the page can be notified and express his opinion, and with each proposed modification discussed separately, so that a clear conclusion can be drawn on each topic. BaboneCar (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Image changes by 219.116.115.176
I compared the changes he did. Most of the images he changed were badly done derivatives, ie he removed the derivatives and replaced them with the originals. One of those derivatives was to remove sign writing on the side of the car but most of his changes were for the better.  Stepho  talk 21:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that some of the images were better and left those alone. But he seemed to be specifically targeting Altair78's edited images, replacing all of them indiscriminately. Some changes like this and this were definite improvements. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 219.116.115.176 is disruptive.  Thank you.
 * I finally got tired of him wasting my time, so I've reported him.  Stepho  talk 22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Amazing! - he deleted the notification on his talk page 3 minutes after I added it.  Stepho  talk 22:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hopefully he doesn't come back after the block! In fact getting him blocked was a quick process, I was trying to work out what rule he had actually broken recently that I could use as justification. The Chinese Lexus link was left alone for a few weeks until today. I guess being "annoying" is good enough as requirement. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if he comes back - as long as he communicates with us. Then we have a chance to turn a disruptive editor into a constructive editor.  Stepho  talk 04:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair point. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You guys are too damned nice.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes it easier to hide our truly evil work - done when no one is watching :)  Stepho  talk 06:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Mazda B-series
Yes, Mazda's choices of bodystyles were pretty wacky, and only seem to have lasted for a year tops. There's a brochure picture of the entire BUA lineup which I shall scan and mail to you for your edutainment. I also decided to make a simple line drawing of the B1500, a shrunken interim version can be seen here. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed this one! You are a very good drawer—I'm quite impressed. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

XC Fairmont GXL
Hi OSX,

I have some concerns with the article “XC Fairmont GXL” and would be interested in your views:
 * It purports to be about the (Ford) XC Fairmont GXL but in fact covers the whole Ford XC Falcon range
 * The article has been create with no regard to the existing series of Australian Ford Falcon articles, including “Ford XC Falcon”
 * It is written in a somewhat biased tone
 * The bulk of the article is a statistical summary of the XC Falcon, seemingly lifted straight from http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/falcon_XC_technical_specifications.htm
 * Most of its references are quite vague (e.g. “Ford Motor Corporation of Australia”)
 * One of the references is “Peter. J. Balikoff (1968- ), 1970s Ford historian” – and the creator of the article is “Balikoff”

Your thoughts? GTHO (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. These pre-XD series Fords are not my specialty, but I agree with what you have to say:
 * The article ought to be renamed merged with Ford XC Falcon — I would prefer the title "Ford Falcon (XC)" but that would out of line with the rest of Falcon pages.
 * I can live with the bias as it is better to have a slightly biased page than no info. Plus, these offences can be fixed if deemed necessary.
 * Anything with a bullet point in front of it should be deleted as it is basically just fancruft. I note a couple of points are of note and should be retained/integrated elsewhere (i.e. production figures).
 * I would delete the dodgy references "Ford Motor Corporation of Australia”,“Balikoff”. Anything contentious associated with these references should be deleted (i.e. "...HX Kingswood, which lacked power, style and handling when compared to the new — of course Ford would say that, even though I agree).


 * Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gak - that article has more problems than I've had hot dinners!
 * Should have 'Ford' at the start of the article name.
 * Massive plagiarisation from Unique Cars.
 * Syntax errors (eg look for )
 * Covers entire XC range instead of just the Fairmont GXL.
 * Biased (especially against Holden).
 * Poor grammar.
 * Poor documented references (how do you verify something as 'Ford Owners Club of Australia')
 * One of my early cars was an XB Fairmont coupe with 302 V8 and 4-speed manual. It was a rust bucket but I loved it. The Fairmont used the short wheelbase body of the Falcon combined with the interior of the long wheelbase, upmarket Fairlane. In other words, just a trim level on the Falcon range - albeit a very nice trim level. I don't believe it needs an article separate from the main XC article. I concur with OSX that we salvage what we can from it (NPOV info that can be referenced properly without plagarism) and merge it back into the XC article.  Stepho  talk 13:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have added my thought to the relevant Talk page. GTHO (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Triton/L200
I think it might be time to revisit the naming of this article. Since we usually give more weight to the original name of a car, calling this page "Triton" (a name only introduced in 2006, I believe, and only in some markets) is misleading. It should really be either Forte or L200, Forte since it is the original home market name or L200 since it was used in many export markets and truly has seen the most use in the biggest number of markets globally. Maybe we should make a chart or something. You raised a point of L300 being called Delica, but then again the Delica name was never dropped in Japan where the Forte name only had a brief run. Tell me what you think.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I find either of these names difficult to support to be honest. L200 is a good choice if we want to keep the current article as a single entry as it was used for all generations (AFAIK, "L200" is the only name that applies to all generations). Triton has been used since the second generation in some export markets. I support the separation of the article into Forte, Strada, and Triton as per JDM terminology. I too would prefer to keep the page together ideally, but I can't find a workaround that is permissible to me. The Delica/L300 also bothers me from a page title consistency perspective. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I could see a separation, but I still think that keeping them on one page as it is clearly a single line of trucks that just so happened to have been sold under a myriad of names. Another good reason for L200 (besides consistency and multiplicity of usage and "first name" status in many markets) is that it is titled thusly in most other language projects. What's the issue with consistency regarding the L300/Delica? Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Because the page is relatively short, splitting is going to give us three stub articles. However, bunching these models together based on their continuity as a pickup truck line of vehicles goes against project norms (e.g. Mitsubishi Grandis replaced the Chariot and both are separate pages). You argue that we could use the name "Forte" as it was the original name. I'd go the other way and argue that "Triton" is more relevant and far less obscure (and in some markets covers three of four generations, not just one). With regards to the Delica, having an L200 article and not an L300 page is not really very consistent. To properly adhere to the convention for page titles I feel a split is the only way to achieve this without resorting to ignoring the policy (which I conveniently do for Opel articles that should possibly be renamed Vauxhall in accordance with the convention). OSX (talk • contributions) 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to make clear that I do not think calling it "Mitsubishi Forte" is a good idea. "Delica" trumps L300 because it has been consistently used in Japan and the Delica series has always been available there. Since the Forte etcetera has only ever been sold intermittently in Japan, it is hard to say what the car's "home market" is. L200 Express was also the original name used in Oz. Where was Triton used for the 2nd gen? I don't see it mentioned in the article. The L200 range was offered in Japan 1978-86, 91-99, 2006-11, so I don't reckon the JDM naming is really of much relevance here. Lastly, L200 has been used on some version of any and all generations of this series somewhere in the world.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll let's do L200. I still have my reservations, but because it has been sold on and off in Japan our naming convention won't neatly apply so can be trumped by WP:Common name. It's been Triton in Australia since the second generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll put it up on the talkpage - I just wanted to feel you out before I brought it up there again.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Avalon vs Lexus


Stepho-wrs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Time to sit back and have a cookie (or beer).  Stepho  talk 03:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. Sorry about that. It is clearly a troll. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How does the famous quote go - "never attribute to malice what could be attributed to stupidity". I prefer to think of him as a drongo rather than a bastard. :)  Stepho  talk 06:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But I may be wrong in this case  Stepho  talk  06:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to do as he keeps changing his IP address (which is quite an unusual style that I have not seen before with letters and numbers). Blocks would be futile as he seems to just go IP hopping. There are signs that give away the misinformed genuine cases from the trolls straight away. When I get the inkling, I do not respond favourably as has been shown. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The funny letters and numbers are because his computer is using an IPv6 address instead of a more common IPv4 address.  Stepho  talk 10:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Holdenpaedia
What do you think the copyright rules for photos such as might be? I think at least some of them are original work.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  09:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry for the late reply, seems alright to me. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cruze
Hi. I do not agree with the arguments you issued for reverting the layout of the Chevrolet Cruze article. I explained in my edit summaries the clear reasons why the infobox should be placed in the "2008–present (J300)" section. It describes the sedan car therefore that is the right place where it should be placed. In fact it does look better as it is equally a set index article as you prefer to maintain it (and I agree with that) and regarding the fact whether it is conventional or not, all or the most majority of the articles have the infobox that is describing one particular generation of the car in that particular section. Also the most of them have a main infobox at the beginning of the article that contains fewer, essential information about that car, as an overview (but not when there are two or more different generations or versions of that car). I will re-install the infobox into the sedan car's section and add a main infobox, as well as information about the upcoming second generation. If you want to further clarify other details you may do it here or on the talk page of the article. Please leave the article layout as it is now and if you have further opinions about it discuss them, but let's not engage into an edit war again. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Car articles typically have a lede infobox and left-aligned TOC—not a right-aligned TOC and no infobox until later on. However, I am satisfied with your recent revisions to the page that seem to alleviate both our concerns. Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Toyota LiteAce
Hello! Your submission of Toyota LiteAce at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ke4roh (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Mirage article
Hello. You, without discussion, removed a caption I put in for the infobox image in the Mitsubishi Mirage article. I thought it would be relevant where the car was shown, and the year. Your comments say it's irrelevant. I'm not so sure it is indeed irrelevant. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. There is no need to discuss every little change—not much would get done if we were that bureaucratic. You have taken issue to my edit and expressed this to me—that is fine. In relation to your caption, the date and motor show location of where the Mirage was photographed is not important. The picture having been taken at the Paris Motor Show in October 2012 is of no more relevance than if it were taken parked on the Champs-Élysées last week. Neither of these attributes (date and motor show location) add information that serves to contextualise the car itself. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Right. Thanks. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

SIAs
Thanks for your help in finishing this half-hearted effort of mine! Somewhat related question: was the Alto-based SS40 "Hatch" only sold with the 543cc engine in Oz, or did it later get the 800cc engine? Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. But to answer your question I have no idea but will investigate later tonight for you. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oz market SS40's SS80's hatchbacks were known as the Suzuki 800 and had the 796 cc engine (which my brother-in-law calls "the big block"). The SS40T Mighty Boy was stuck with the 543 cc engine. I'm not sure if we got the 543 cc engine in the hatch but I think we didn't. All mechanical parts are interchangeable.  Stepho  talk 05:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Huh - that sounds as if there never was a "Suzuki Hatch", if its official name was "Suzuki 800"? I feel as if I've seen some stuff to the contrary. "Big Block" is pretty funny...   Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It had "800" badges, so we always called it the 800. But I won't swear to its official name. Used to see them around in the late 1980s but they're getting rarer. Saw one circa 1988 that had exhaust stacks just behind the doors (like a full size truck).  Stepho  talk 07:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Unique Cars and Parts the Suzuki Hatch had the 543 cc engine, but in 1981 the "800 pack" became an option with the 796 cc motor. RedBook claims the 796 cc engine came in 1980 (staying until 1984) but also mentions 1985 models (543 cc only). As per ja.wiki the SS40 ended production in September 1984, so our cars may have been built in 1984 but complied upon entry to Australian ports in 1985. But who knows. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle Size Classification
OSX, What's the final word on vehicle sizes? Should we classify cars by their EPA classification or their marketed classification. Such as the Dodge Dart (PF) which is marketed as a compact car, but it is classified as mid-size on the EPA's website. Thanks! VX1NG (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Since 'marketing' is often synonymous with 'lies' (or at least, 'exaggeration'), I'd go with the EPA classification. We did the same thing with engine sizes (eg Ford mustang 5.0 L engine is actually 4.9 L - in spite of marketing's claim).  Stepho  talk 23:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The official method is clearly flawed as both the Dodge Dart and Chevy Cruze fall into the mid-size class according to the EPA where they compete "head-on" with the Toyota Avalon, Bentley Mulsanne and Audi A8 (these are really full-size). We all know that the Dart is of similar size to the Corolla, Civic, Mazda 3, VW Golf, etc—all compacts. Mid-size cars are the larger Camry, Accord, and Mazda 6. The full-size category contains the Chevy Impala, Toyota Avalon and Audi A8, S-Class, etc. This is more of a case where the marketing departments are correcting a technicality issue that the EPA ought to fix up, and until such time be ignored. P.S. I agree with you on the 4.9- versus 5.0-liter part. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, OSX. So, how do we address the issue that older cars marketed as compacts (or any size classification) are significantly different in size than the compact cars sold today? VX1NG (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's all relative to the time/context I guess, but do you have any examples? The mid-size Camry used to be smaller and was considered compact. The compact Corolla used to be sub-compact. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These classifications are by necessity vague and confusing - and whenever someone decides to clarify matters, things only become worse (viz EPA classifications). If all WP editors were sentient beings, then this would never be a problem (current Dart would compete with Jetta, Mulsanne would be elsewhere) but WP's apparent need for spelled-out policies makes this issue impossible to answer. If we were allowed to be less legalistic and to follow our mass gut feelings, then these concerns could all be resolved with less trouble.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * All, I apologize in advance, it is not my intention to cause trouble. I am just trying to find out how we address the differences between older models and newer models, that use the same classification. Such as the Dodge Shadow and the Dodge Dart, while both are marketed as compact cars, they differ significantly in size. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=3346&id=34559 13:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kia Pride
In all honesty, I don't know about this model code for sure - an editor (Chu, an unpleasant character) changed it in the Commons and then I saw that it was changed at the Korean Kia Pride entry, so I assumed it correct. I don't exactly know how to find out for sure, though...  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  23:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. The reason why I reverted your edit was because I mistook it for vandalism (I was not paying enough attention I guess). When I realised you made the change I reverted back. I'm happy to leave the model code as "Y". Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 09:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Re: This this edit, see Sockpuppet investigations/Altimgamr. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and refusing to enter into debate, as you did at Mitsubishi Magna. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I think you are right about the content issue, but you should know much, much better than this. If anything like this happens again, please make proper use of the noticeboards and RfC procedures. We all get heated about things, we all get fixated on things we know are right, but your history is long and good and there's no way you should have gone to such lengths over something essentially trivial. If you're going to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, at least do it defending a BLP against some POV-pushing clown, not about a picture of a car! Guy (Help!) 21:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. Those Magna dudes sure do like to change things without a single word on the talk page.  Stepho  talk 23:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate. That went down, um... well nasty! Originally I though could keep the various sock puppets at bay by reverting a few times, but after five or so goes, I realised I had no recourse except to keep reverting as I had violated 3RR so I kept at it. No point going to an administrator at that point as I knew I would be blocked. Not the best idea to re-employ that strategy going forward. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I sounded like a real gas-bag talking to myself on the talk page but at least it keeps the administrators happy. :)  Stepho  talk 05:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cheers! Still a lot more work to do with that one... way too many section headings in the table of contents for my liking. OSX (talk • contributions) 19:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Too many being the understatement lol, How anyone can have the patience to merge and tidy something so big is beyond me :), But yeah You've done a great job :). →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hey there, credit where credit is due but no prizes for guessing who this is (lol). Apologies if the Magna situation got a bit out of hand a few weeks ago but I think it has at least lead to more enhanced content... the reason for your undo of Dennis Brown is a classic! Still being a newbie, the whole thing has made me discover new things I didn't know about Wiki, starting from Talk pages and 3RR (true story). Anyway, all that happened was in humour from my end. I also discovered some very fine photography and editing about Aussie cars on your part, so keep up the good work. Editoriummm (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes I did work out you were the same person this morning when I noticed your edits. But I was hanging out for edits to the Magna article to really prove it just in case! Anyway, I am not going to "dob" you in, etc (I'm not pissed off don't worry). But please, I ask that you keep Editoriummm as your one and only account from now on. I look forward to working with you cooperatively in the future (happy to help you if you have any editing questions, would like me to review articles, whatever you need help with). Cheers and enjoy your long weekend! OSX (talk • contributions) 11:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice to see the Territory article in better shape. Question - are those awards previously listed frowned upon? I was otherwise going to do the same for Commodore and Falcon but only COTY, Australia's Best Cars and Wheels Gold Star awards. Waste of time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editoriummm (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Awards sections don't fit in well with a neutral point of view (unless you have a criticisms section as well). IMO, It is okay to included them in the model section that the correspond to, but I'd keep it to the notable awards like Wheels COTY and Australia's Best Cars. Gold Star awards seem to be scraping the bottom a bit. There is no need to document every variety. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nissan Sunny disambiguation
Hi,

I notice you made an edit removing the disambiguation line for the Nissan Sunny article. I've commented on that line (or, rather rewriting it) and thought you might like to contribute to a discussion I started on it. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Mazda Tribute Merger Thoughts
OSX,what are your thoughts on a Mazda Tribute-Ford Escape merger? Regards, VX1NG (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would support it. BUT... which title would be primary? Did Mazda design the car as it did with all the other Ford-Mazda vehicles? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not know which should be primary but I always assumed it went by production numbers. I.E. Dodge Omni, Plymouth Reliant, etc... Regards, VX1NG (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have merged the Mazda Tribute page in with Ford Escape. The Mazda page did not have a great deal of content. Also, based on my research the development was a joint effort between Ford and Mazda (for the first generation), even though Mazda took a lead role. However, the Ford version certainly appears to be the more popular variant and was developed a lot further (e.g. the hybrid and the Mercury Mariner rebadge). Also, Ford did all the design work for the second generation North America-only Escape/Tribute, so I think it is best to have the Escape and primary title. The Escape also remained in production for longer (2 years longer for the first series, 6 months longer with the second series). Lastly, I pushed the third generation information over to Ford Kuga as the latest Escape is simply the US name for the Kuga.


 * Anyway, thanks for the merger suggestion, this one had been at the back of my mind for a while now. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I had been wanting to move the third generation to the Ford Kuga since it got started! Excellent job on this!! Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Camry Talk Response
Thank you! I am unfortunately not always so reserved about my frustrations towards some of corrections I have to make, but hope to improve the timelines and correct my prior mistakes. I thank you for your earlier Camry contributions, as I wasn't able to put two and two together before. Yes, this might be a tricky matter, so I will try I clearly explain everything soundly.

I've discovered that not all local production covers a specific market for Toyota vehicles. Japanese production would sometimes supplement U.S. production. This has been true for the Toyota pickup, as well as the first generation Tacoma. I learned this earlier with the Nissan Quest entering production in April 1992 with Japanese part sourcing w/assembly at Avon Lake, Ohio, until full U.S. production began in Tennessee during the second half of 1992. It seems that some of the 1992 model year Camry was split between Kentucky production and Japanese production.

Apparently a number of websites for Toyota Camry that list the start and end dates of production model years, always correlate and match up the company's established timelines regarding production dates. There is overlap, where some new models will be produced alongside the predecessor. For the XV30 (U.S. start of production: Monday, July 23, 2001 and Japanese: June 2001), here is where I have been basing much of my research. Please bear with some of these links:

www.forums.edmunds.com/discussion/1266/toyota/camry/toyota-camry-2006-and-earlier/p53 (See post by Mackabee, that refers to Monday, July 23rd as start of Camry production)





Production part sourcing that matches up with launch dates. I usually enter the model year and then production range in quotes like this and I use the closest viable dates, based on when the model is launched: 2002 Camry "production range" July 2001 (or instead August 2001). I usually came up with in my search results (plus many more):



(Japanese production ended in December 2005)



These type of sources regarding production dates of parts per model year, always give the earliest and latest productions dates of model years. I tested them for a number of months last year, before coming to the conclusion that they are legit. Very helpful, since Google Archives became useless. I usually will go with that and I'll try to further research any verifiable sources, that confirm these dates. At times I do come across some these verifiable sources, but other times I rely on the parts sites. As you can see though, the actual dates are not 100% exactly correct. The months are, but the days are not. They're rather generalized to reflect the beginning and end of the month (06-30-1996, 08-00-1999, 07-01-2001, or 07-31-2011), as the part supplier goes by what one would see on a door sticker (i.e. MANUFACTURED 06-2011 or June 2011).

I have now verified the January 2006 date with the Tsutsumi source actually. I hope this is somewhat clear and isn't too muddled. Thank you---Carmaker1 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have relied on parts catalogues in the past as well. I thought you may have had a nice book or something with the dates in it. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Production dates
From Template:Infobox_automobile: "Dates should be expressed in years (for example, 2001–2006) or in months and years (for example, April 2001 – November 2006). Full dates should not be used in the production field of the infobox (for example, 7 April 2001 – 16 November 2006); full dates can be stated in the body of the article." (my underlining)  Stepho  talk 21:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries, but I'd certainly advise that you don't remove the the exact dates unless you move them to the prose first. That way there is no loss of information. Non-compliant date formatting is preferable (to me) over no information at all. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, full date in the prose is best. I thought I'd left the day in the prose but I might have missed some.  Stepho  talk 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ford Performance Vehicles re-write.
Hi

I invite you to express your opinion on my intended re-working of the Ford Performance Vehicles page, following the standard set by the Holden Special Vehicles, you can view it at my sand box

Space alligator (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think your changes are excellent, thanks. I'd also look at merging FPV F6 and FPV GT R-spec into the FPV page and also into the main Falcon model pages like BF, FG, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ford Cougar / Mercury Cougar (8th gen) Merger Thoughts
OSX, What are your thoughts on a merger of the Mercury Cougar (8th gen) and the Ford Cougar. Note: these articles apparently have been merged previously. VX1NG (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for it (with Mercury as the primary title). I would also merge Ford Contour with Ford Mondeo. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is the section for this but as this is the only section in your talk that mentions the Mondeo...


 * I reverted your changes to the Main Ford Mondeo page models as they are plain wrong for all except the Mk1. Everyone refers to the 1996-2000 car as a Mk2.


 * I know that the Mk2 is "just" a facelift and yes the '96 on Mk2 Mondeo was not a totally new model and was a facelift of the '93 Mk1 it was a major redesign with significant panel, gear change, suspension, interior, safety system changes as well as new engines and trim levels that warranted being called Mk2.


 * In the end Ford knows best, the Ford TIS and parts software systems show the Mondeo as:


 * MK1 1993-96
 * MK2 1996-00


 * Have a news paper source as well: http://www.expressandstar.com/drivetime/2010/09/10/ford-mondeo-history-in-pictures/


 * What I haven't done though is fixed the sub pages as I can't revert the deletions and name changes.


 * I understand what you are saying, and I am not disputing that the facelift of 1996 was called "Mk II". However, they are still of the same generation (hence why there is only a 3 year gap between the two models, not 7 years as has been the case for subsequent generations; Mk I and Mk II were 7 years when counted as one). I have made some adjustments that I hope are enough to satisfy your objections: . Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Long-term abuse from Santiago, Chile
Thanks :) I won't allow this guy to win, no matter how long he does this for. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I like your attitude! Please take a look at the new LTA case I created about this irritating guy: Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Santiago. If you want to change or add anything in that case, feel free. You can link to that page when you are reverting the guy, or if you want to tag the IP talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, great work with the case against this guy! I will add IPs when I see them! Cheers. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Holden Commodore's Opel origins
Hello Sir, long time no see! Just noticed your edits on the Opel Senator article and related justification. Does it mean that the "hybrid" line requires similar edits in the Opel Omega article? If so, over to you! (I did find the Commodore integration in the Omega article convoluted, especially from the VT-series on, since it is a vehicle of its own by that stage). 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CtrlXctrlV (talk • contribs)


 * The Opel models are a mess to be fair. Holden Commodore explains how the first generation was developed correctly as far as I know (VB Commodore is based "loosely on the four-cylinder Rekord E bodyshell with the front grafted on from the Opel Senator A"). I'm not quite sure how the VN was done, it mixes the Omega A and Senator B in what appears to be a very odd and incoherent manner (taking most of its styling from the Senator B). OSX (talk • contributions) 14:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the VN was the Opel Senator B body (which is clear when looking at the pictures) with squared off rear wheel arches. But underneath, the VN took the cheaper non-IRS suspension and other mechanicals from the Omega A and powertrain from GM in the USA. Again, this is my speculation only. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Holden 48-215
Hi OSX,

I thank you for you contribution, however I have reverted your change back to the way it was as I had it due to a Quote from the Reference Book that I have shown and your change would have totally been out of context.

I trust that you can understand the reason for doing so. (Amen423 (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC))


 * I have adjusted the quote accordingly as there is no reason to quote this over using your own words. I feel that it is ambiguous to begin the article with: "The first Official Holden was the Holden 48-215", as this is ambiguous to those unfamiliar with the Australian car market. We need to first establish what the article is representing (a car) and the context of the subject (i.e. it's age, manufacturer/origin, etc). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Family II engine contributions
OSX, I noticed you added the Z20LET, Z20LEL, Z20LER, Z20LEH to the section about the LK9. To my knowledge those engines are based on the cast iron block Family II engine not the all-aluminum Ecotec engine. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops, my bad. I didn't see them at Family II engine and assumed they were unaccounted for and found a reference (albeit a forum) that linked the Z20LET and Z20NET so deduced that I should account for them with the LK9. All fixed now, including the redirects. I was having issue working out where the C18SEL is meant to go as fitted to the Holden Astra (TR), any ideas? The redirect suggests it is related to the X18XEV. Also, as for the article's name, I think having "Opel Family II engine" was less confusing than "Family II engine" as we also have "GM Family II engine" as well. Just a thought. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 13:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No Worries!
 * To my knowledge the C18SEL is a DOHC Lotus-head cast iron block Family II engine.
 * On the articles' names, I ran into an issue with moving the info at "GM Family II engine" to a more appropriate title, my suggestion to move it to Ecotec engine and insert a tophat comment linking to a disambiguation list for Ecotec was rejected. And the reason for not retaining "Opel Family II engine" was to prevent separate "(Insert marque) Family II engine" articles from becoming created. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I don't think there will be an issue with people creating "Holden Family II engine" and the like. After all, it is an Opel engine design. The convention is to have the engine's manufacturer in the title. Lexus vehicles link to the Toyota engine articles, Acura cars to Honda engines, etc. If anyone does create new pages for other brands, then we can just merge them back over if it ever happens. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The other reason I moved it was to prevent future WP:Commonname issues. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OSX, would you mind closing the move article discussion for GM Family II engine, I don't quite feel right doing it since I am the one who started the last two move discussions. Thanks! VX1NG (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, no worries. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OSX, I fixed most of the links to GM Family II engine, but if you get the chance could you take a look at the remaining links, thanks! VX1NG (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Lexus IS Production Dates and Lexus Development Theories
I noticed you cleaned up that section recently, but also replaced some of the non-cited dates by me. I cannot recall, but I remember reading a PDF source that gave an initial date of production for Altezza parts in June 1998. For the Lexus IS GXE10 (auto) and SXE10 (manual), an initial production date of December 1998 was given somewhere. I can only wonder if these are now lost, due to the decimation of Google News Archive and me lazily not keeping track (old, lost bookmarks).

For the XE20, the first month for part production is August 2005, so maybe your Toyota source is strictly referring to XE20 start of assembly? That's what I've learned recently in now working for JLR, that there is a delay between part production and actual assembly. The few sources we can use, hardly distinguish between them, with the part supplier sources directly referencing the former (part prod.). Sometimes these Toyota sources do refer to start of part production (ex. ES250 -June 1989 vs August 1989 assembly) and start of assembly in other cases. Not sure what to think here.

I don't see how production of parts for the 2IS can start in September 2005, as well as assembly and customer delivery. That rarely happens, due to various stages done between start of part production and actual dealer delivery (testing, freight, sufficient supply). One car had a part stamped 12/2006 and the car itself was assembled on January 2, 2007. It was sold to me on January 20, 2007.

On another note, considering higher development lead times back then, the June 1998 date made me even question if Kanto's concept XE10 body design was first reached as early as late 1995 (think about XV20 Camry taking 36 months). It was definitely confirmed to be finalised in 1996 though, but whether it was early, mid, or late 1996 is a mystery to me. That could mean the difference between 22-33 months (IS200 trademarks were filed in Nov. 1997).

This makes me think carefully. Concerning the LS Wiki article, while the 1995 LS400 was definitely frozen in 1992, is it possible my wording was wrong and the overall design was chosen by 1991 (before XF10 facelift was out in 1992)? I now find it odd that it would take less time than the much cheaper 1997 Camry to develop post-design selection, that was 36 months from 1993 to 1996 (April 1994 freeze). 1995 LS400 production "began" in October 1994, so no later than March/April 1992 should the have been frozen. However, before that you need an existing styling model by 6-12 months. Sometime in 1991 that would've occurred, not 1992.

It was December 1997 for the newer XF30 LS430 and its final/engineered production-spec design representation was approved as Mark Levinson's Lexus partnership formed in 1998. The earliest production date for parts on the LS430 is August 2000, nearly 3 years. So why not 1991 for the '95 model?

I've already noticed a lot of Japanese quotes regarding "development", are based on when a final design is approved and not the whole program. Not the stage before being frozen for production specification (safety, aerodynamics, packaging), but when the model reaches a definitive styling appearance in 1:1 scale. The 1990 LS400 body design was defined in 1986, then finalised in early May 1987. Production began in May 1989 (part or assembly?), 24 months after that. Most Japanese automakers used to have a new model design identical to production, by 30ish months early. This changed with new offerings from the turn of millennium (1999-2001) to early 2000s, as seen with the 2002 Camry vs 1997. Since 2007-08 they're taking longer again, as seen with the L10 and XE30 (the 3IS design was chosen in 2010).

I recall BMW in the '90s, commenting that they spent 2 years on design work before selecting a design proposal, and then further refining it for production. They claimed that the Japanese took a mere 6 months on design, thus to allow themselves more time for production preparation over a 3-5 year development process versus the 6-7 year development program at BMW. Basically saying the Japanese come up with a styling model too early (thus being "less attractive", yet quicker at development), then approved the final product further down the line. I'd accuse BMW of this somewhat as well, until they trimmed lead times on post-E38 models.

This BMW accusation was proven true in how the 1994 Honda Accord team began design work in mid-1990 and had a final design proposal chosen just 6 months later on December 18, 1990. Production of that began in mid-1993. Could this have happened with the 1995 LS400 in 1990-91? Possibly, but not if one looks at the S160 GS and XU20 RX300 by comparison during 1994-95. Those were later developments, so maybe they don't count?

Unfortunately some of my own sources on various cars' development WP: PAYWALL and private interviews in my free time via social media, face-to-face (rare), or mailed letters with former designers/development team members or company insiders are "original research".

I cannot easily source these, thus stooping to at times providing "iffy" sources or merely explanations in the edit commentary section.--Carmaker1 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * HI, I don't feel that I am qualified to debate this. Unlike yourself, who works in the industry, I don't. Also, I am not the expert in product development cycles that you are. However, I do maintain that the Toyota sources I used are highly likely to be reliable. This information was complied by Toyota's own historians.


 * As for production of parts, I have always thought that this aspect was different to "start of production" (aka assembly of the vehicle). OSX (talk • contributions) 12:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Please use edit summaries, especially when you make edits like this, this and this. Explanatory edit summaries saves work for others, since unexplained deletions are checked. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 14:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you self revert
Given that you are involved, you should never have been the one who made the decision to close a discussion that you participated in, in your favor. I suspect you are already aware of Wikipedia's processes. An involved admin wouldn't and shouldn't have made this call, and an involved non admin should not be closing discussions either. My next stop will be to ANI, so I hope you consider this to be a friendly notice, and self revert. If the discussion is as one sided as you say, (Consensus isn't a vote), then why make such a hasty and possibly blockable, (for you), decision. Let an uninvolved admin make the decision. JOJ Hutton  21:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not reverting a fairly clear-cut consensus of 19 v. 5. Other than WP:I don't like it and WP:Gaming the system what are you trying to achieve? There is nothing controversial here, any other party would have closed the discussion in the same manner. Why are you wasting time by abusing process that is only going to result in someone else making the same decision? Are there not more productive tasks to be done? Take it to ANI if you like, I'm not fussed. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What you see by your "involved" point of view were "votes". But when I saw that the article had ultimately been redirected, I was going to look up to see who the admin was who had redirected the article. I was going to inform that admin that for the entire first day and the next morning, there was no template at the top of the iPhone 6 Plus article, informing readers and any potential "votes" that a merge discussion was even happening. All the while there was a "merge template" at the iPhone 6 article. In my opinion this ultimately skewed the results of the discussion by what turned out to be a large near 4 to 1 margin. I was going to explain this to the closing admin to take into consideration, but I can't because the person who closed the discussion and made the decision to merge the articles was not an uninvolved admin, but an involved editor. So as you can see, your close of the article was very much inappropriate and should have been self reverted the first time that I asked. But now, because you appear to refuse to self revert, I am forced to take further action. Not only to discuss my original concern of the missing template, but to also discuss your inappropriate behavior in this manner. So again, you see things one way, but there is far more happening here than meets the eye. A more experienced uninvolved admin would have been a more appropriate person to make this close. Thats why involved non-admins shouldn't close discussions, because they do not have experience at looking at all the facts before pushing their POV.-- JOJ Hutton  01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ford Mondeo V6 engine
OSX, what do you think about renaming the Ford Mondeo V6 engine article to Ford Duratec V6 engine or just Ford Duratec engine? Regards VX1NG (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Makes sense for it to be Ford Duratec V6 engine. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Done! I think I might (keyword might) start working on cleaning up the Duratec article it seems to have the same issue that the Vortec article did. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Done!! While there are many pages that still link to Ford Duratec engine, I was able to move the info to the appropriate articles. Also, do you think it would be more appropriate to move the Ford Duratec engine article to just Duratec since it is now a disambiguation page, and move Ford Duratec V6 engine to Ford Duratec engine? Regards, VX1NG (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have strategies on taking the best car snapshots like yours
Hey Mate,

I use a Nikon L25 Coolpix given by my 77 year old Grandfather for my birthday and I use the device a lot. However you were mainly concerned on the quality of my car photos so I requested them deleted. Do you have strategies on taking the best car snapshot because all the car snapshots. I am actually concerned because a number of the cars have their plate numbers displayed and it is likely they could get stolen, not being rude or anything.

Anyway do you have strategies and I will send a photo of a car, if you are satisifed put it in the correct category otherwise just delete it.

Regards Nim Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:CARPIX outlines image quality standards and gives advise on taking good photos. It is completely legal to show pictures of cars with license plates in Australia, at least if the image was taken from a public place . If one is in search for a compendium of cars with license plates, carsales.com.au is a far better choice than Wikipedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey my good man,

When you want to remove the pics that you do not want displayed could you please replace it with a better one. I do not want any pics of mine removed unless you can replace it with a better picture. Can we set the deal between the two of us and other users that they cannot remove pics unless it can be replaced.

If we can set a deal I will post a certain amount of pics on your talk page and have a look at it and compare it with other pictures from other users. I am very satisfied if you can accept this deal mate.

Thanks buddy,

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, no worries. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

undoing edits
Hello,

I would like to know why have you undid two of my recent edits? There doesn't seem to be a reason to do that. Seqqis (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said in the edit summary, there needs to be a sufficient nexus between the timeline and the article to warrant inclusion. The addition, for example of the Holden timeline to Toyota Camry means readers of this article get to see a timeline of Holden's complete history when only two Toyota models were actually sold as Holdens. As badge engineering has been prolific among the major brands in the past 30 years, it is opening quite a potential for articles being clogged up with clunky timelines. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Revertion of Mercedes B class
Hey mate,

This photo is not mine. I only inserted it because I was thinking it would be alright. I did not take that photo so you should not be emailing me if the photo I have inserted has not been done by me

Ok, Well done mate you are doing a good job and I am sorry if I have ever been vandalising or disrupting wikipedia.

Kind Regards Nim

P.S: Please send an email rather than using my talk page on nimalan.bhharathhan@student.scotch.wa.edu.au. Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I not sure why our dialogue needs to be transferred to email when it pertains to edits made here at Wikipedia. However, the long-standing image File:Mercedes Benz B 170 silver vl.jpg shows the B-Class in reasonable form (good angle, non-distracting background, no major shadows or refections, etc). File:Mercedes B-class front 20070522.jpg is an inferior image as it is too dark, has bad shadows, and does not show the side of the B-Class very well. Maybe you could focus your attention in other areas of automobile articles for the interim, and try to gain an understanding of how image standards guidelines (WP:CARPIX) are implemented. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: File:Mercedes Benz ML300 CDI (2011).JPG Hey buddy,

I have actually enhanced the photo of the earlier one you have deleted. Please have a look and see if you are happy. Otherwise I will remove it off Mercedes M Class.

Kind Regards Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The crop improves the image. However, just because the image is not better than existing images does not mean you need to get the image deleted. It simply remains at the Wikimedia Commons for viewing. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * OSX,


 * I am actually from WA not NSW. {Please Do Not Reply} Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey my good man,

I need to ask you a favour. Which image is better quality. *File:IMG 0606 副本.jpg or *File:2013 Mercedes ML350.JPG because with this image *File:IMG 0606 副本.jpg I actually replaced it thinking that my image is better quality but I want you to be the judge. Please reply as soon as you can as then I can revert my edit off. Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, your image is the better one. However, you should stand back a little further from the car as you get a slight distortion when standing as close as you have in this case. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On the article Mercedes-Benz M Class I noticed that an image of mine was missing. Is it ok if you can undo the edit because I seem I cannot undo the edit. Apparently i have a new user under the name of Mr.choppers who seems to revert the image because I was thinking that was a good image and I did follow the WP:CarPix.


 * You do not have to but I would kindly ask if you can do it.


 * Cheers Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree with Mr.choppers in that we do not need to two almost identical images of rear-end views of the same car and of the same vintage (i.e. both are pre-facelift models). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the identical image. Please give me the file name. Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OSX, have a look at this File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg. I took this photo on the first of August and got mates to crop and straighten it out. Please see if you like it and reply on my talkpage or I will look at yours.

Well Done,

Nim

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied at: Wikimedia Commons. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey,

When I inserted the image File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg onto wikipedia article Mercedes Benz CLK-Class somehow you reverted the image and I did not get why you needed to revert the image. It was not listed. I wanted it to stay. I am ok but why did you need to revert it.

Please reply. Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't touch it, . OSX (talk • contributions) 06:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * OSX you are my wikifriend. Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)