User talk:OSX/Archive 8

Magna
Hello again. Unfortunately the reason for reverting your TL->TW Solara caption was cut short in the history field. Basically, there has never been a limited edition in the TW series, and its model range consisted only of ES, LS, LS AWD, VR, VR-X and VR-X. On CarSales I have seen many a car claimed to be this limited edition and that limited edition (ironically, there's a blue VR-X Limited Edition, which has most of the right interior, but outside it's clearly a TJ Series 1 but CarSales has made no correction), when it's all false and misleading. The one you found is clearly an ES whose owner spent a few dollars to add SOLARA stickers on the side. To substantiate this, do a TW search on Red Book (the industry's bible) and you will see there are ZERO limited editions, unlike up to the TL: just refine this search my "badge" and "series" http://www.redbook.com.au/cars/research/used?q=%28%28Make%3D%5BMitsubishi%5D%29%26%28Model%3D%5BMagna%5D%29%29. Moreover, a while back I found this excellent Australian cars website, and if you look at each Magna series, you will again see there are no TW limited editions: http://australiancar.reviews/reviews.php#!content=review&make=Mitsubishi&model=Magna&gen=675. Another clue is that, in your pic, the car clearly does not have an ES badge as the bogus one on CarSales. Last but not least, when searching on Wiki Commons, I noticed that you (in good faith) wrongly uploaded a white Magna "Ralliart". I have since added notes and revised the descriptions because in that case too, it is a bogus car. Clues there are the wrong headlights, alloy wheels, badge and exhaust tips (compared with the real silver one on there). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I double checked with the NSW RMS and the result is "2005 BLACK MIT MAGNA SEDAN". This car also has the "Series II" badge that TWs have, so it is surely a TW. The TL Solara (2003–2004 only) has different wheels (the black car has LS wheels), see Redbook. I concede that my black car photo is probably not a Solara. Redbook does not list a TW Solara as you stated, but Redbook sometimes does not mention obscure models. The only other references to TW Solaras that I could find online were ES badged models with Solara badges added as well. For the black car in my photo, the ES badge has been removed. I suspect dealers added these the Solara decals and LS wheels to try and shift the slow-selling Magna model prior to the release of the 380 model. Do you think the filename should be updated to ES? OSX (talk • contributions) 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Diamante/Sigma insight (still seems odd to me, just because there's an earlier spin-off, but I'll let that be) and the bloating comment in the EA Falcon section... sorted, as I see you've noticed. On second hand car listings, I've seen many wonders over time! In the East coast a dealer even created his own sports badge to sell specific cars for a higher amount, after fitting a few extra bits (alloys etc). Neat online checking tool, I'll keep that in mind. The last Magna Solara did have different wheels, from the AWD. On file renaming, probably wise... as would be to remove the pic from the article? The biggest Magna correction though definitely belongs to that white Ralliart replica on Wiki Commons. Cheers. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have renamed the fake Solara file as an ES (and removed it from the Magna page). Regarding the fake Ralliart, I have nominated these for deletion as they are misleading and violate Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Images. Would you mind supporting the deletions at Commons? Here are the relation requests:
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitsubishi Magna Ralliart (3).jpg
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitsubishi Magna Ralliart (4).jpg
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitsubishi Magna Ralliart (5).jpg


 * OSX (talk • contributions) 04:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure thing and thanks :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice work to streamline the Magna article, dare to do the same with Falcon and Commodore? Just a quick question - I thought the naming convention was BRAND CAR (SERIES) VARIANT BODYTYPE. Why is it now BRAND CAR VARIANT (SERIES)? For what concerns the TJ, TJ2 and TJ Series 2, the Sports and VR-X featured are not TJ. MMAL in around 2001 was on a rolling upgrade program, with informal reference even to a TJ 1.5 (explaining no Series 2 badging). Either way, reference to just the original TJ is wrong. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message.


 * For images, there is no actual naming rule, but typically something along the lines of 1985 Mitsubishi Magna (TM) SE sedan is used. The reason why model codes are placed in parentheses is to differentiate these codes from trim levels. If an image is titled 1985 Mitsubishi Magna TM SE sedan, what does "TM SE" mean? Adding parentheses for "TM" suggests model code disambiguation for make and model, and SE becomes clearer as the trim level. In the article, I found it strange reading text that stated The Magna (TE) and Verada (KE) blah blah blah... The parentheses are unnecessary here as the model code names have already been established and there is no confusion with trim levels in this case.


 * When you truncated the image captions to Magna (TM) SE sedan, etc, I thought this looked odd, so rearranged it to Magna SE sedan (TM) for aesthetic reasons.


 * Regarding the TJ models, you were labelling these as "TJ Series 2" (2002) when they were what you call "TJ2" (2001) instead. If these cars were TJ Series 2, they would be badged accordingly, but they are not. It is my understanding that "TJ2" is the same as what Redbook calls the TJ MY02 update from August 2001. TJ2 is downright confusing when TJ Series 2 came just a year later. Where did you get this TJ2 term from?


 * As for the old trivia section (WP:Trivia), I removed items that were pushing the boundary of notability, e.g. the history of paint colours. Wikipedia is not the place for inclusion of endless details like this. I also doubt this information can be referenced. My other issue is with the cars at the Australian National Motor Museum, information that you keep reinstating. I fail to see how this is relevant. Lots of cars have examples as museums, but I cannot recall seeing museum mentions listed before except for one-off cars that only exist at museums. The place at Wikipedia where this belongs if it is to go anywhere would be the museum's article. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, we must have crossed paths during my latest edits and thanks for pointing here. I concede the museum point, the only exception here being that these are pre-production cars (rare outside of a manufacturer's own museum). Great pick-up on the MY02, which is the TJ2. It all started with the VRX-tra, which some call TJ1.5 or TJ2. On the Trivia front for the colour, fair enough except for adding back the XX paint code info - unbeknownst to me until recently, there's several cars out there like that (including the AWD that MMAL gifted to Steven Bradbury when he was on their campaign ad). Lastly, thanks for all the WP lessons! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Annoyingly (but for a good cause), this Magna TJ updates is never ending. Glad you referred to Redbook above :) Your "cn" made me look further and I believe this website is very accurate from all I have seen. So your "cn" can be answered by reference to the May 2001 update and then you can see there's a reference to the September 2001 update. Putting Redbook and this together, the latter is the MY02 (which Redbook dates August 2001), which adds substance to the informal existence of the TJ1.5 / TJ2 models on relevant forums. From memory, 2001 was a year of great turmoil for MMAL, when rumours of imminent closure heightened. How and why they decided to upgrade the Magna as they did, by stealth, is a secret held to those employed there. The VRX-tra was the most prominent initial update affecting the TJ, which carried on until the formal TJ Series II. Anyway, gonna revise the article some more based on this latest info. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this CtrlXctrlV :) It is very interesting info. I have renamed most of the TJ and KJ images to reflect this new information, as many of the year ranges were incorrect. I was unable to do the VR-X photos, as I was not able to properly work out what they are:

2001–2002 Mitsubishi Magna (TJ) VR-X sedan (not sure if this is TJ1.5 or TJ MY02 or if it is the VR-X Limited Edition)


 * Maybe you can help because you can identify certain attributes, such as paint colours, etc. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 03:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't think I can help, other than to say that these are neither TJ nor TJ Series 2 (which, as you correctly pointed out earlier, come with the respective badge at the back). They're either the May 2001 update or the September 2001 "MY02" update. If I were forced to choose, I'd say MY02... because the May 2001 is all about the VR-X Limited Edition. That car you can identify from either its blue or red leather seats. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The respective Aussie cars forums are really good places to fish for into, albeit, in some cases they are based on first-hand knowledge or from extracts of official info. Found these further items to address your questions - VR-X LE Leather Pack Ralliart codename in graph ; Ed's input. Compared to other articles, it's been a somewhat overzealous process to have to look for references to retain info higher standard than that left in other articles unreferenced. As I don't have spare time to fish for more on forums and individually upload (some stuff is not published in its entirety by users on purpose... I saw a post about others complaining but the original poster refusing to release the whole of the Ralliart press release!), I do not envisage more of this or further checks and changes needed for this article. Glad to have learnt from you that it's Sports wagon and not Sportwagon, though! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing these scans. I understand that adding sources is tedious, but information can be deleted at anytime if it is unsourced. In the long-term, if it is unsourced, it will not stay. Your effort has considerably improved the Magna page, so on that regard thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a joint effort, here and in the other articles where we crossed path :) And take credit for also "reforming" me... going back to the early days! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Script spacing
I like your new script that does a lot of clean up - especially since we all know I love consistency. However, you might want to chaage it to remove a lot of those spaces instead of putting them in. Consider these two fragments:

vs

The first one has 11 chunks of text for the eye to scan but the second one has 23. The human editor has to use twice the amount of brain power to find the bit he wants in the second case compared to the first case for no better outcome.  Stepho  talk 03:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, it is not my script, it is a just me using User:Meteor sandwich yum/Tidy citations. All the scripts I used are at User:OSX/common.js, you can copy this to User:Stepho-wrs/common.js. As for the spacing, is there a convention for this? I always thought the spaced out format was the easiest read, but your style has good points as well. There is an option to use the bunched format already. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no convention. Just lots of opinions. Mine comes from 35 years of formatting computer programs to be easier to understand by the next maintenance programmer - often me. Does the bunched style leave a single space before the vertical bar (single visual chunk per parameter)? I'll have to have a play with it myself. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 05:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I wish there was less leeway and more rigid rules to help ease such issues! There are options for fully spaced, partially spaced (i.e. your prefered style), and fully bunched. I hope this helps. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

About Holden Commodore (VZ) HSV Z Series Limited Editions.
Dear OSX,

Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated.

Kind regards, from Perth, Western Australia, FromAllAspects (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what went on here or what feedback was given, but the limited editions info is now all in Holden Special Vehicles. What was added in the VZ article even included Monaro-based Coupe GTO models, which was the wrong place. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Holden Commodore (VZ) article is the place for Z Series cars; Holden Special Vehicles is a summary page for the brand only. This is akin to how AMG models are dealt with at the regular Mercedes-Benz car model pages, not the AMG page. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, glad you removed the Monaro-based ones, but does it mean the other V#-series Commodore articles need to be amended the same now? The whole listing is in the HSV article and some of the VZ info is inconsistent with what's on the other article. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Eventually, it would be good to have an entire suite of perfect Commodore articles, but this is unlikely anytime soon! OSX (talk • contributions) 02:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And Falcon :) which is probably even worse! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

C-Class Naming
Hi OSX, I think you've made a mistake by adding spaces between C and the model number on the C-Class (W205) page. Official Mercedes website all acknowledges them without spaces. wins_lord (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi wins lord. The importers of Mercedes-Benz in the USA exclude the space, but the official Daimler AG (head office) documentation always includes this. See:
 * * Mercedes-Benz expands brand world and introduces new nomenclature: Mercedes-Maybach for the ultimate in exclusivity and individuality
 * * New nomenclature drive systems


 * Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 00:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Move Lada Riva
I am proposing that we reopen this old conversation, as I feel that it was closed in error. You're welcome to add your two cents. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have supported the proposal as it would be correct to do so when applying the WP:CARS convention for page names. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mazda 929
I was inches from reverting all of your recent edits, and then I realized that the 929 was, indeed, introduced later than the JDM counterparts. Doh! However, sales did continue later as well, should we adjust that? That is to say, the LA4 929 was sold far into 1982 in most markets. In Sweden, the HB 929 was called a "MY82.5", as it arrived there around April 1982.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  02:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is really hard to say. My guess is that production stopped in time for the factory to be re-tooled for the new model, with sufficient stockpiles maintained to keep the export markets covered until the new export specification cars were ready. I don't think the 929 ever sold in partially large numbers anywhere did it? OSX (talk • contributions) 03:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely possible. Although they also kept manufacturing the old "van" models later, alongside the new models. I always wondered whether this took place in the same plant? The HB Luce was kept alive for taxi/fleet usage until 1995 (which is kind of insane) so who knows if they didn't keep building export models too? See page 5 here. Anyhow, all speculation on my part. And yes, it never concerned huge numbers, although the 929L (LA4) did sell pretty well in Northern Europe and Benelux. Btw, is there a reference for using "LA5"? All of the period sources and the chassis numbers kept using LA4 even after the facelift.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I replied here. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Two FG X Falcons
Hi OSX,

Could you please help me from telling which of the Ford Falcon FG X images are better quality. This image shows the front view and not the side views adequately whilst this image shows the approximate 3/4 view of the vehicle. I find that my image is the suitable one because of the good side view and also the front showing as well.

I would like your opinion on this please mate, Kind regards, Nim -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither image is particularly good. What are you trying to achieve? If you want the best photo for Ford Falcon (FG X), I would be choosing File:2014 Ford Falcon (FG X) XR6 Turbo sedan (23382738252).jpg. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle Generation
Referring to Wheels Car of the Year article - this isn't the first time I've pulled you up on this, but that consensus referred ONLY to its usage for article titles as a form of consistency across wikipedia articles. The reason for this is because, while Holden VT Commodore and Holden Commodore VT have wide usage, the use of parenthesis is virtually unknown in its rarity. --Falcadore (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Falcadore, there is not exactly a consensus to use the ambiguous "Holden VT Commodore" style either. Surely the VF request move discussion has more weight that non-existent discussion on using "Holden VT Commodore" type names in any context? I understand that the parentheses are less often used outside of Wikipedia, but surely WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions is applicable to both page titles and uses in text? I also note that a Google result for "Holden VT Commodore" brings up 121,000 results, whereas "Holden Commodore VT" has 332,000. Similar ratios carry over when other cars like "Ford Falcon BA" and "Holden Commodore VE" are Googled in the same manner. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So? That wasn't the point. Holden Commodore (VF) isn't supposed to be used at all. --Falcadore (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well you aren't exactly justified in reverting the Wheels Car of the Year article given that general convention would support the use of parentheses for model codes. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course I was. Again, (VT) used only for article titles. --Falcadore (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you please point me to consensus that says we must use "Holden VT Commodore" for links? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed it so it did not read (VT). Anything else is a different subject. --Falcadore (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet investigation
I have a front row seat to the sockpuppet investigation regarding CtrlXCtrlV and that is starting to be come a mess. holy crap. Winterysteppe (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I really appreciate that :) OSX (talk • contributions) 13:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Renaming a page
Hi OSX,

I recently suggested that the Proton Arena page be renamed Proton Jumbuck. Please feel free to share your thoughts on the matter. Even a simple 'Support' or 'Oppose' would be much appreciated ! Many thanks, Aero777 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Outlander PHEV
Hi OSX, long time no see. In good faith, I would like your opinion about the Mitsubishi Outlander P-HEV section. I think that the plug-in variant has gain enough notability (top selling PEV in Europe and several countries, world's top selling PHEV in 2014 and 2015, ...) to deserve its own stand alone article. Also, today I finish expanding the car's specs and PHEV features, and by now, the section about the plug-in hybrid outweighs the third generation section, and indeed any of the sections of the main article. So I think there is merit for splitting the PHEV from the main article. What do you think? I am also consulting Stepho-wrs about this proposal. If you agree, should open a discussion or do a bold split. Thanks for your time. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can see your merits for doing so, but overall the page is not very long. I much prefer to see a single article where possible, rather than having to click away into various sub articles. At this point, the page is very manageable and creating a separate article for the PHEV or even the entire third generation would not be ideal. It is just another page that needs to be maintained and checked. Pages tend to be split when they 1) significantly diverge from the parent topic; or 2) when pages become too long/unmanageable. As far as I know, notability is not what is generally used to split up pages.


 * I do note that you have done a great job detailing information on the electric powertrain version, so I commend you for that! Thank you and see you around. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. Let's then keep the article as it is. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for considering my input :) OSX (talk • contributions) 13:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Script glitch
At Ford Focus (third generation), this edit changed the first of the following to the second: I have restored the convert, and am posting here to report that the script malfunctioned in case you want to look at fixing it for other edits. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * → 1270 - 1471 kg
 * → 1270 - 147ac1 kg


 * My apologies, thanks for letting me know. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Toyota Corolla E170
I saw your photo, its not any better, also its lower level, some Luna. Fog lights are missing, ALU rims also... we often put for that case. And in better position also. --PetarM (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Lack of honesty
I see a lack of honesty in your edit on the Hyundai Accent page, which was done without giving an explanation. I provided one for my edit, while you simply reverted it with no reason given. Where's the respect for the other editors? WP:FIES: "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors." BaboneCar (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I have been less active lately and I have a huge number of pages on my watchlist (over 500). I have not typically been reading the edit summaries, I just looked at the diff between the most recent edit and my own last edit. I felt the new image was of lower quality. I apologise if this came across as disrespectful. I really am just trying to maintain the articles on my watchlist as best I can within the time restraints I currently have. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand then. I think it's important to have a look at the history of edit summaries though. Thank you for accepting my edit. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

BaboneCar, regarding this and this edit, I disagree with the use of "Gallery" sections for articles. For multi generation cars, these add bloat to articles without adding any benefit IMO. The captions make it obvious what each image is representing. I'd ask that you please reconsider. In the case of the Lancer, the section "1988–2000: Mirage-based Lancer" only discusses these cars, so why do we need to separate the gallery? OSX (talk • contributions) 16:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with your disliking of the "Gallery" subsection titles. (I noticed it in many other articles.) In my opinion without them the article looks less tidy. Plus, it helps when you want to access that gallery directly from the table of contents, or link it externally. I'm not sure whether you disagree with using the gallery instead of thumbs in the Elantra article or just with the "Gallery" section title. I don't want to be disrespectful, but maybe it's time to agree with subsection titles. It seems there is a strong disagreement between you and me over this subject. BaboneCar (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is the unnecessary title (IMO) that I take issue with. If the section is about the "second generation" and the images in a gallery are within this second generation section, then it is very clear what the images relate to. Including a gallery heading is completely unnecessary and is basically stating the obvious. It would be like creating a section titled "Infobox". I don't think we need to point out such obvious things to readers. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A photo gallery is a section of its own. It should always be tagged with a section title. It is not like a random thumbnail on the page. I don't think that comparing it with the infobox makes sense, because the infobox, like the thumbnails, are floating elements, while a gallery is not. It is a standalone element that should have its own section. There are plenty of articles that have gallery sections defined already in their structure. (Although mostly at the first toc level.) They don't go without a section title. I consider that the same as you define a separate section for "Europe", "Japan", "Engines", "Marketing" etc, you should do it for the gallery and the timeline table too. I think it's better to go with it, than without it. BaboneCar (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If the section is "second generation", obviously the images will relate to this section just as the text does. We do not list articles as follows:
 * Second generation
 * Text
 * Gallery
 * Table (e.g. the specifications table)


 * Why do you want to treat galleries any differently? I think we will need to take this to WP:CARS if an agreement cannot be reached soon. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

BaboneCar, while this editing practise is still under dispute, can you please refrain from editing further articles to include "gallery" sections? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have partially done that already. I don't think that this is the way to settle this dispute though. BaboneCar (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop being disrespectful to the truth and other users
Toyota Corolla is not the first car in the C segment to obtain 5 Stars EuroNCAP safety rating! I have modified the article ,stated a clear reason and also posted EuroNCAP official links. You have reverted the article to the previous version without any explanations.Also one of your links is dead, link no 43 http://www.motor1.com/news/4829/new-toyota-corolla-euroncap-safety-rating/ .Renault Megane is also part of the C Segment and it has a 5 Star safety rating since 2002! Corolla Has 5 Stars since 2007. How can you say that "In Euro NCAP testing the Corolla became the first 5-star rated vehicle in the C-segment." ? Here are once again the links: Megane 2002: http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/renault/megane/15590, Corolla 2002 http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/toyota/corolla/15596 , Corolla 2007 http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/toyota/corolla/15742. And remember Encyclopedic content must be verifiable! Memphis007 (talk • contributions) 08:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The reference link has died but I found another copy at http://www.worldcarfans.com/print/10702284944/new-toyota-corolla-euroncap-safety-rating


 * As you said, WP has to be verified and the supplied reference does verify this. Unfortunately the reference made a mistake. Not everyone is perfect, so we make the appropriate adjustments (ie, delete the wrong claim) and move on with life. No need to assume foul play from your fellow editors.


 * Also, please remember to sign your comments with four ~ characters at the end. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 08:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Memphis007, but your edit confused me, removing text and leaving stray references by themselves. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ford Festiva
I'm not against the use of the common name for Ford (thank you for bothering to provide that link), but I made that change so that the lead section resulted in "a subcompact car that was marketed by the Ford Motor Company". Now that you've replaced Ford Motor Company with just Ford, it results in "a subcompact car that was marketed by the Ford".

About the "Manufacturer" field of the infobox, Template:Infobox automobile documentation cites that (I believe you already know this) "The manufacturer field states the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development, which is not necessarily the entity assembling or marketing the vehicle. Do not use this field to list assembly locations, assembly facility names or assembly company names; that data must be entered in the separate assembly field.". From what I can understand from the article, the first generation Ford Festiva was designed by Mazda. The other entities currently listed in the "Manufacturer" field have just license-produced the car. Therefore what is your explanation for reverting my edit and re-adding these entities to the "Manufacturer" field, when they should be only in the "Assembly" field in my opinion (and the years in the production field)? BaboneCar (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I fixed the lead sentence so it makes sense. Thanks for pointing this out.


 * Regarding production, I see you are correct when going by the usage documentation for the infobox. However, as this car's history is very convoluted, only having Mazda in there is going to cause edit wars down the track. In short, Ford USA requested Mazda to design the car and to have Kia manufacture it to save costs. AFAIK, Japanese production concerned RHD markets only.


 * Maybe it is best to remove the field all together and rely on "assembly" alone? How does this look to you ? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * From what you have said, and from what the article says, I would be bold and keep Mazda as the manufacturer of the first generation. There is the "Manufacturer" filed in the main infobox above too. In my opinion, you have to have that information provided in the article. I wouldn't worry about possible edit wars. I don't think they will happen, as long as the article makes it clear who developed that model. But that's just my opinion. BaboneCar (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * But it is just wrong to have only Mazda as the manufacturer (definition = the maker of something on a large scale using machinery). Most manufacturing was by Kia. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Judging from this point of view all Wikipedia is wrong regarding this aspect. While there has been a convention approved about this, I think we can go on and use that style. I don't think that I want to go deeper into this subject. BaboneCar (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

RE Talk:Suzuki Ignis/Comments
Deletion would be the cleanest, I agree, but the method for deprecating these pages has been carefully negotiated and agreed, both at WT:DCS and Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 4. Feel free to take it to WP:MFD but I don't see any reason to treat this page differently to the other thousands which have been redirected. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. No worries. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Reminder on reverting
Hi mate, How are you going, I have noticed you when you reverted [|this edit], you removed my good quality image and replaced it with the German image, which shows the M-Class without any badging and having cars surrounding the image. My new image has badging and absence of advertisement and writing. I just thought I let you know because my image was a good replacement :) Thanks and best wishes, -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ford Escape and Kuga
That article you posted actually says "The new Kuga is nothing more than a rebranded Ford Escape". The Escape adopted the Kuga's current styling a year before the Kuga. Therefore the information should remain on the Escape page.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/ford-kuga-vignale-is-the-tamest-concept-you-ll-see-in-geneva-105227.html#ixzz48PqKk9rK — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernResidentOrca (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest you work out what "The new Kuga is nothing more than a rebranded Ford Escape" actually means before reverting. I suggest you consult a dictionary. Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The page that you yourself posted says the KUGA is a rebranded ESCAPE, not the Escape is a rebranded Kuga. Are you slow or something. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * They are the same car. It just depends whether it is written from a European or US perspective (European sources state the opposite). The Kuga/Escape was designed by Ford of Europe. Take a look at the design patents as registered with the US patent office. Take a look at who is listed here:


 * Patrick Verhee (from Ford Europe )
 * Stefan Lamm (from Ford Europe )
 * Andrea Di Buduo (from Ford Europe )
 * Kemal Curic (from Ford Europe: Kemal Curić)


 * Now, can you please stop distorting facts to pander to the US viewpoint? Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of having a "US viewpoint". I have already told you that they are they same car, however the Escape was redesigned for 2012 and the Kuga followed in 2013, therefore it is the Kuga that was rebadged not the Escape. Just because it was styled in Europe doesn't mean that the Kuga takes precidence. In addition, the 2015 was in styled in North America.SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop reverting changes SouthernResidentOrca. You are wrong, stop trying to change history. I know it is hard for some Americans to accept they do not invent everything, but you need to broaden your horizons. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of Vandalism when it was you who deleted information inappropriately. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding this comment, it is not inappropriate to merge text that is duplicated between two pages. All you have done is deleted it from Kuga (the primary page as the car was designed by Ford Europe) and moved it to Ford Escape to pander to your ignorant US perspective. It is obvious that you cannot cope with having to make an extra click to get the information about the third generation Escape. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop accusing me of Vandalism when it was you who deleted information inappropriately. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have already demonstrated it was designed in Europe. All you have done is insisted this is not the case. Repeating lies ad infinitum does not make for truth. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have never lied at all. First of all it was only the 2012 version that was designed in Europe, the 2015 escape was designed fully in North America. Secondly the fact the 2012 Escape was designed in Europe doesn't in any way suggest that the Kuga should have rights to information on the Escape. Since the Escape was put to market first, the Escape page should retain information regarding the Escape and Kuga, except for the 2015 version. Please stop pretending like you have proved a point when you have done nothing of the sortSouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the policies/conventions WP:CARNAMES and WP:OTHERNAMES which elucidate that Wikipedia should only have ONE page for an identical topic! Your ignorance does not usurp community consensus on this issue. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am aware of these policies however the information is on the wrong page as I have clearly stated many times.SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There was never a consensus for you deleting important text, that you are resorting to insults and accusing me of having a US "agenda" just makes you're point even more moot. Please do not try and twist things to make it seem like everyone else is taking your side when you alone are the one that deleted the text inappropriately.SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:CARNAMES and WP:OTHERNAMES are policies based on community consensus. The idea behind them is for topics with multiple names to be covered ONCE at a single page with alternative names redirecting there. The way the title is chosen is based on the name with primacy. In this case, it is Kuga because the designers (Patrick Verhee, Stefan Lamm, Andrea Di Buduo, Kemal Curic) were all employed by Ford Europe. They were not employed by Ford US in Michigan. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The European designer designed both the Escape and the Kuga, not just the Kuga. There is not "primacy" granted to the Kuga simply because the Escape AND Kuga were designed in Europe. Since the Escape was release first, it has the right to be the base article for both vehicles. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Well WP:CARNAMES (based on community consensus) is pretty clear what to do in these circumstances.


 * Some automakers have substantial national operations remote from their corporate seat, for example, Ford Australia and Toyota North America. Use care to discern a vehicle's home market and its manufacturer headquarters from the location of the corporate seat. The Holden Commodore (VF), for example, is designed and built by Holden and its home market is Australia, despite Holden's corporate parent being the US-based General Motors and the car being sold there as the Chevrolet SS. Under this naming convention, the article shall be titled Holden Commodore (VF).


 * Thus, under WP:CARNAMES the name Kuga takes primacy given it is designed by Ford Europe. This is further demonstrated as it is stated that the "'Manufacturer headquarters refers to the entity chiefly responsible for designing and/or producing the subject vehicle, not necessarily the uppermost corporate parent." OSX (talk • contributions) 06:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And so you still continue to prove absolutely nothing. As if I haven't told you enough times, the European designers did not design the Kuga and then rebadge the Escape after it, they designers designed both the Escape and the Kuga and the Escape went on sale a year in advance. You're example with the Chevy SS is the exact opposite as the corresponding version of the Commodore went on sale before the SS did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernResidentOrca (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That is true, as the "One Ford" policy did endeavour to design a single model for worldwide use. However, the policy states that primary name is the market name for the country the vehicle is the one from the country "designing and/or producing the subject vehicle". Given this is Ford Europe, this name takes primacy. I hope you realise that pretty much the entire would switched to the Kuga name. North American retained the Escape name for marketing purposes only, as the Escape name has high recognition in the US. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well lets allow the 2012 Escape to remain in the Kuga page, and the 2017 Escape to remain on the Escape page since the 2017 Escape is North America only. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'd rather follow what the WP:CARNAMES and WP:OTHERNAMES policies outline—which is to include the information ONCE only. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I misread what you wrote. The 2017 Escape styling will come to the Kuga as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This article shows the 2017 model year styling updates also apply to the Kuga. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay I will let the Kuga page stay, I did make some small changes to the wording to make more appropriately follow the styling of the vehicles, but it has nothing to do with a US agenda.SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Your latest edit did improve things, as I had stated the Escape was rebadged, which could be misconstrued (as they were designed to be sold in both the US and Europe from the start). Often the naming choices are not made to the very end. It is likely that Ford considered adopting the Kuga name in the US and also looked at using the name Escape in Europe. In the end, the dual naming strategy would have been adopted for marketing reasons. I guess this sort of goes against the "One Ford" policy. Anyway, see your around. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 07:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I replaced your recent edit, for some reason my screen was showing old text. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. I realised it was an error. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Dodge Dakota
Hi, as you 'recently' edited Dodge Dakota and appear to have an interest in cars as a topic can you review the last 3 edits - A quick google made me think this is a wrong assertion, and the editors are probably the same person or linked. The only ref to a forth generation I could find was for a possible future version. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have reverted those edits. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nissan Pulsar IP edits
Recently, added a lot of info about Pulsar N14's  performance versions. I was inclined to revert him/her right away, as all of the large block of text he/she added has zero sources and a distinctly unencyclopedic tone. However, my knowledge on those high-performance and competition-oriented Pulsars is also nearly zero, so I was wondering if you can check the edits and see if there's something relevant in all that, as lately you edited various Nissan articles. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to have been copied from gtiroz.net so I junked it. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Kia Pride
Hello, OSX

Our policy for using hatnotes (like Main article is WP:HATNOTE). And what you did in Kia Pride article is the improper use #2, WP:LEGITHAT!

Also as for your reason: If all the other set index articles commit this policy violation, it is time to get cracking and fix them all! But not the other way around.

—Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Codename Lisa, I disagree that the use is improper. We are talking about set indices here, basically dismabig pages with a little extra information. I fail to see how using Main article is incorrect. The main articles are Ford Festiva and Kia Rio. The only reason Kia Pride exists is to point users to one of these two pages and to briefly explain that "Kia Pride" is a name applied to two different cars. Using "Main article" makes it very clear to readers this is where they are to find more information about these cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I understood as much when I saw your edit. But whether your disagreement counts is another matter: "This is a typical and highly improper misuse of disambiguating hatnotes. Instead, the information belongs in the body of the article [...] Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself." You should consider reading the rest and understanding the policy's purpose.
 * If there is any consolations, I myself have lots of disagreements with policies; e.g. I feel a minimum of 800×600 should be permitted for non-free screenshots, no questions asked. But I separate my preference from my Wiki-work. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:LEGITHAT has nothing to do with what was done at Kia Pride. WP:LEGITHAT states that "hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself". "Main articles: Ford Festiva and Kia Rio" provides no information, and does exactly what it is supposed to: direct readers to other articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said above, you should read the entire policy and understand its purpose. Hatnotes are disambiguation elements. But they are not even used in disambiguation pages. It doesn't matter what they do in Kia Pride as long as they don't do it the way the policy says. i.e., they don't appear at the top only and they don't intend to disambiguate anything (or assist in providing summary-style linking) and their material is best integrated into the prose. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Codename Lisa, I have read the entire policy and I disagree with your interpretation. Where does it state hatnotes cannot be used for disambiguation pages? Also, Kia Pride is not strictly a disambiguation page, but a WP:Set index article. You are going to have to explicitly demonstrate to me why the Kia Pride set index article violates WP:HATNOTE. I have read it and it does not appear to violate based on my reading. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 07:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "Where does it state hatnotes cannot be used for  disambiguation pages?" I said they are not used  in  disambiguation pages. (So says MOS:DAB.)
 * "I have read the entire policy". Then you should by now know that:
 * Hatnotes are placed at the top of sections or the lead of articles, not index pages
 * Hatnotes are meant help send the reader to a different article when he has arrived at a topic that might not be his intention
 * It is wrong to place hatnotes in image captions when better prose can be placed there


 * And let's forget about hatnotes for a minute: What I did was to implement WP:SUBMARINE and WP:REPEATLINK along with better prose. What's wrong with that?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Honda Accord
Hello, I was wondering about the removal of all the 'decade' categories (and possibly some others) from the above. I removed the 1970s cat previously as the vehicle goes into the sub-cat Category:Cars introduced in 1976. However there is no more specific cat for the (removed) decades as far as I can see and their removal was not explained by ES. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I removed them because these categories have been replaced by the year categories e.g. Cars introduced in 1980 and Cars discontinued in 1990, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a discussion somewhere about that? If a car was intro'd in 1973 (say) and discontinued in 1993 for example, then the sub-cats you describe would apply but the 1980s are overlooked altogether. The Accord itself spans several decades. Eagleash (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't recall actually as the Cars introduced in 1980 type categories were introduced some years ago. Categories like 2000s automobiles are fairly broad, and thus not very useful. Thousands of cars were produced during that decade. It is hardly a defining feature. This from memory is why WP:CARS moved to the more specific Cars introduced in 1980 and Cars discontinued in 1990 types. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I found an ancient discussion (2007) at WP:Automobiles (here) but it didn't seem to reach any real conclusion. If the cats are not being used anymore then maybe there should be some discussion at the project, to achieve a consensus and then they could be officially deprecated. Whilst they are still in existence, they are inevitably going to be added to articles. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've also been unable to find any categories beginning "Cars discontinued". Can you point one out to me? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems the "Cars discontinued" have now been deleted: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

NZ Fords
NZ received a few interesting Ford models. I remember all of the invaluable information you were able to provide regarding the four-banger and other special Holdens built and sold in NZ (and for certain ASEAN markets), and was wondering if you have any such info regarding Aussie Fords. I am aware, for instance, of the 1.1-litre Ford Laser, but I was wondering whether NZ received non-emission engines in the Falcon/Fairmont/Fairlanes? Also, I want to know about unknown unknowns if you have any of those. Also I have a very few Malaysian Ford pamphlets (Laser and Telstar) that I will put up on Flickr when I get around to scanning them. Oh, and ping Cheers,   Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know much about NZ Fords. The Laser was just a Mazda 323 with a mild facelift (different grill, tail lights, seat cloth, etc). So it stands to reason that any Mazda 323 engine could have been fitted for NZ.  Stepho  talk 10:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have never looked into NZ Fords in any detail. I am sorry I cannot help you. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Overwriting files on Commons
Hi OSX, I am now becoming very active on Commons and I have a problem with you overwriting certain files. Per this, you are actually overwriting these images. I am getting concerned with your behaviour on Commons, so I decided to chat with you about it. I would like you to know that this type of behaviour is disruptive and you can be blocked.

Files such as this, is not a minor change, so please upload this new Victorian image as a new file. Only overwrite files when you want to do minor changes, not substantial changes such as replacing it with a new file that has been cropped and edited. This behaviour needs to stop, and if you continue that type of behaviour on Commons, then you can be blocked. I normally use Commons to upload my files, so therefore since I know you well on Wikipedia, I am discussing this matter here :) -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Nim, I can live with a block... life will go on. But thanks for your concern anyway. I note your link is to a guideline not a policy. Secondly, the new RAV4 file I uploaded was identical in year range, model, trim level, angle, and colour to the old low-quality file before it. Thus the low quality file was redundant (COM:Redundant) and was not used (COM:NOTUSED). I think that as the uploader of the original and new file, I am entitled to upload new versions of low quality uploads that have become superfluous to the projects needs. I note that the RAV4 category contains numerous other higher quality files to satisfy the needs of this project and beyond. Wikimedia Commons is not a repository of junk files, but should be a compendium of quality files where possible. When we have multiple files of the same topic in a category, curating this down to only show images of better quality is appropriate and supported by both COM:NOTUSED and COM:Redundant.


 * Given how much emphasis you put on quality images, I'm sure you'll understand my reasoning. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * But you can nominate these files for deletion, instead of having to overwrite these files mate. I did that over 1 year ago and was blocked. I don't want you to make the same mistakes, as you are a very good friend of mine. I am just looking out and helping whenever I can see any problems :) -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Getting files deleted is sometimes harder than making pigs fly. I do nominate extremely low quality files for deletion, but overwriting is what I do sometimes when the rationale is harder to make. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually got blocked on Commons for overwriting files which you allowed me to do. This rules does not specify that cropping and uploading other users files. I have only done that in good faith because I am very adamant about the quality of images we have on Wikipedia. I did not do anything that was to vandalise other users files, because  I only wanted to crop the images so that they can be used in the articles. I have been forced to revert images back to their original versions because they were done in bad faith, but I only did it in good faith. Can you please help me solve the issue on Wikimedia Commons -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile engine
Hi OSX. I know you have an interest in these things. When I try to enter this following information the template does't like it. An engine over a brief production lifetime of ten years has its power output raised a couple of times. When I try to record that it gets ignored (with a comment in red "calling Template:Infobox automobile engine with more than one value for the "power" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help)").

Can I do anything about this other than using the infobox three times for no change other than the power output? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, please ignore all that. Went back to the page and saw how I'd gone wrong. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Image article
Hi OSX, Per this edit, you restored an image of the 2.2GL and the Camry Vienta images. The only reason I removed these images was because, for the Camry Vienta, we already had another image in the top infobox. So I removed it as it was unnecessary. Also for the European section, I removed the image of the front view image, because the only difference between the European and the international images is that the numberplate is situated between the two taillight assemblages in comparison to the bumper mounted cavity seen on the international models. However, there is no need to show the frontal styling considering it matches the same as the international models. Should I remove both these images, because I feel that we don't need the Pre-facelift Vienta again along with the frontal view of the European model. I would like to hear your thoughts :) -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Nim, if images fit in an article comfortably, I see no reason not to have them. The more illustrated the page is the better. When there is only limited space to include images, of course there will be prioritisation required. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Mate, I can actually make a compromise and use an interior shot of the Aussie version of the Camry. The European one is kind of clumped -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there an interior shot available? I could not find one at Wiki Commons. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nissan Bluebird replaced by Nissan Bluebird Sylphy
The Japanese article on the Sylphy mentioned that it is the new competitor to the Toyota Corona replacement called the Toyota Premio, which started out as the Toyota Corona Premio. The current Premio is within the Japanese Government dimension regulations for compact cars, and so is the Sylphy until the current generation, which the article mentioned the width dimensions were exceeded by 61MM. While I probably can't find a third party source, written in English, that market segment is very crucial in Japan because of the tax implications, while no one outside of Japan cares. The Teana is the Bluebird replacement in much of the world because the width dimension is irrelevant, but in Japan it isn't, for those who want the luxury of a Fuga (Crown), but don't want to pay the extra taxes. The Sylphy's engine sizes are also under 2.0 liters, also because of the road tax liability. Nissan isn't going to abandon this market segment to Toyota, a rivalry that has existed in this market segment since the 1960s. The current Nissan Latio is within the width dimensions, but the Japanese article says it is a Sunny replacement, not the more upscale Bluebird/Corona (Sylphy/Premio) traditional rivalry. The current Nissan Tiida also exceeds the width dimensions by 61MM. For what it's worth...(Regushee (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC))


 * The Nissan Sylphy page claims the name Bluebird Sylphy was chosen to keep the long-running Bluebird name alive. It is not questioned that Bluebird Sylphy replaced the similar-sized Pulsar. But it also replacing the regular Bluebird is more questionable. At ja.wiki, ja:Template:NISSAN Timeline only lists the Bluebird Sylphy as replacing the Pulsar and Presea. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My account blocked on Wikipedia
Hi OSX, My account on Commons was blocked for simply uploading original versions of the other users' files, (please see this). I tried to explain that I was only cropping the images for use in the articles. You allowed me to crop any images of yours and other Flickr uploads which I exactly did, in this case with, and , which you allowed me to crop. I was blocked by after  reported me. I need some help, because I am kind of confused as per these guidelines. Also I have noticed you have been blocked there for a month for similar offences to me. I would like you to help me appeal against this block as I have no chance of being unblocked if I appeal. Could you please help me since you are one of my very good friends on Wikipedia. Thanks so much -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * EurovisionNim, I noticed that you were blocked and I agree that is was unfair. Commons:Overwriting existing files disallows "radical crops" but I am of the opinion that few of your crops could be categorised as such. The ones that were radical were uploaded long ago and you seemed to have stopped doing so when asked not to.


 * I was blocked for nominating poor quality files for deletion. I believe this too is unwarranted. At some stage I will dispute my August 2016 block so I can re-engage in the deletion of poor quality files.


 * Please see Commons:User talk:Steinsplitter for my request to unblock you. Good luck. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. Could you please crop the images that are used on the English Wikipedia such as You allowed me to crop any images of yours and other Flickr uploads which I exactly did, in this case with this please. Much appreciated, check my uploads and figure out which ones you want to undo -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to risk a block myself by cropping them. If I can convince Steinsplitter and others that COM:OVERWRITE has not been violated, I will do so. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nesting
OSX, I thought the wil rule for nesting was tab over to indicate a reply. In the case you reversed I assumed the reply was directed at me, not Dennis. In that case shouldn't the spacing be the same for both replies? Springee (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Springee, each comment should be on a different level of indentation so they can be easily distinguished. This makes it clear when new comments start and end. If there is ambiguity as to whom a comment is directed to, simply include the recipient's name. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained anchor name change broke incoming Vauxhall Nova subsection link
Hi,

I noticed that the Vauxhall Nova link didn't redirect to the intended subsection of the Opel Corsa article. This appears to be because the name(s) of the anchor were changed in this edit.

I'm not sure why this was done- or at least why it wasn't fixed up- since it's clear in the removed comment that the anchor was intended to avoid precisely this sort of breakage due to name/section changes. Was there any particular reason?

I've corrected the redirect link at any rate. Ubcule (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox automobile listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Infobox automobile. Since you had some involvement with the Infobox automobile redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)