User talk:PrinceGloria

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Isis Gee
Please do not remove the comments made by the BBC during the telecast. I have tried the best I can to remove an obvious PR article and put in some relevant facts. Wogan and co are famous in eurovision circles and their comments are relevant. Please watch the clip yourself if you need to see how she was received. As a performer myself she wasn't very good ( and I have a common friend so this is not bias). Eurovisionman (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I again ask you to contribute to the discussion pages as per wiki rules. Critic responses is not POV. Further breaches of wiki rules may result in a complaint being made. Eurovisionman (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Suzuki MR Wagon, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

List of bestselling vehicle nameplates
I know you dislike a few things about this page, and now that an Austin Rover car nut has begun obsessively adding uncited figures for every mediocre seller the company's produced, I'm getting rather sick of it myself. I've half a mind to plunder the Volvo reference source and swamp the page, just to see how he likes it... Grrr.

Anyhoo, I had a quick look at Featured lists, since I'd rather set my standards high, and over the past couple of days I've been working on an improved version. It's still a work in progress with plenty to be done (layout, factchecking and referencing, section headings, prose text to introduce each table), but once finished can probably be created at the more accurate "List of bestselling automobiles". After that, I reckon the old page could be moved to List of automobiles by sales, with the vehicles arranged alphabetically. That'd have the side benefit of overcoming what I feel is original research: ranking the cars when it's not a definitive or comprehensive list. For example, although the article's been cited by the NZ Herald, which wrote a story on the Lada being one of the top 10 bestsellers ever, I don't know if the Chevrolet Impala or Honda Accord could have demoted it in the last decade. I have the same concern about the two "top ten bestsellers" tables in the new page, which are entirely based on the old article. They may end up disappearing.

Looking forward to feedback, --DeLarge 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Saturn
What did you mean by hoaxing? I simply updated the links to point to the correct article rather than the redirect page.

Eurovan
Why you changed the Eurovan names to generations? It reads in the text section anyway, it looks stupid to have car name as 1st gen and aka consist all the official names.--&mdash; Typ932T 06:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep but thats little bit different case as in those pages the main box has the car brand and model, this case it looks like the car name is eurovan.. but maybe its ok --&mdash; Typ932T 08:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

??
hey sweetheart whats the problem with you?? you just doing undids and something else nonsense, try to even make clear why you changin the articles--&mdash; Typ932T 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions in Infobox Automobile
I have edited all the automobile model articles in the Spanish-language Wikipedia (that include infoboxes, which are only around 50) to turn the engine field into prose text and merge the length, width, height and wheelbase fields into one (codenamed "dimensions", labelled "length / width / height / wheelbase"). The engine swap is easy, I come to the English-language Wikipedia and read the engine information; then I write a full text with each engine including capacity, maximum output, fuel and sometimes Xcharged/aspirated and valve number stuff.

The dimensions change is more difficult because some models have many body styles (es:Peugeot 307, es:Renault Mégane) and listing all of them takes a lot of space. But the merge makes the list shorter -- a single quartet takes only two lines.

Perhaps the best way to spare space is to remove the engine field, given the almost infinite quantity of automobile model articles. -- NaBUru38 04:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Give me some days, I'm working in Paint to make what you are saying with the dimensions field. But I think it will be very difficult to make it in wikicode. -- NaBUru38 16:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre
I have made many of the changes you have suggested. The article is certainly better as a result of your guidance. I am not sure if I have achieved the WP:WIAGA standard, but it is certainly closer. I am going to repost as a WP:GAC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have definitely read your review. It was a very challenging set of problems.  I don't truly believe I acted in bad faith.  Did you review the articles edit history or the diff summary I sent you.  The fact that it only took me about 2 hours of total editing time is a function of the fact that I am working at Blackstone Library today and had access to 3 architecture books which I felt substituted for pursuing certain expertise.   Given the architecture queue, it will be another week before my article is even under review.  I have a pretty good track record so far at WP:GAC as you can see on my user page.  I will put up notices requesting editorial assistance at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, WikiProject Architecture and WikiProject Illinois. I would go to WP:LoCE, but one look at their queue progress, makes me feel like my request is not imperative enough for their resources.  I do think I have gotten the article much closer to the standards based on your suggestions.  I will return to the article on Thursday or Friday, but it is definitely closer to the guidelines from what I can see. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ygnacio del Valle
I've edited the article and hope it meets your expectations. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun
An article that you have expressed interest in, Qian Zhijun, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. Thanks. ALTON  .ıl  23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You commented on Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Chevrolet HHR's classification
I cleraly understand what you are saying. The problem is that the HHR and PT Cruiser are cars hard to classify. These models are clearly not "authentic" sport utility vehicles, given their few to none off-road capabilities and lack of four-wheel drive.

But I don't see in the HHR (even though I've never crossed the Caribbean and Andes) any seating and structural distribution as a Altea or Scénic, its hood is too square and long, and the seats are as high as the floor, so the legs go more folded than in a minivan. I would classify it as a compact crossover SUV

The PT Cruiser can be considered a minivan, I agree, but some Americans don't because they think minivans must be large. That is the reason why I have heavily edited the minvan article to show other sizes.

If you really think otherwise, you can go to the talk pages... but some models are too controversial, so I don't guarranty any results ;) -- NaBUru38 16:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Taurus
Hello, PrinceGloria. I see that you put a NOPV tag on the top of the first generation section on the Ford Taurus article. Well, in case you don't know, I am pushing for that article to be featured, so I will do anything I can to improve that article. I just want to know what you see in that section that is POV, so I can fix it and get that ugly tag out of there. Or, if you feel that the entire section needs a going over, I will be willing to do that too. Just please let me know what I will need to do. Thanks! Karrmann 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Taurus article getting removed from the GA list would be quite a burdon. If you can please give me a chance to go over and fix the pointed out problems with the article, I would really appreciate that. Karrmann 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, even if that is a case, I would like to know what is wrong, so I can do what I can. I can recruit some Wikiproject members to help me if so needed. Karrmann 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My Merry Oldsmobile
Hello again, PrinceGloria. I just wanted to let you know that I am going to work on the Oldsmobile article, and I would like your help on it, as you noted that you would be willing to help anyone who was willing to work on the article. SO, any help will be a ppreciated to make the load a bit lighter. ENjoy this beautifful SUnday! Karrmann 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC in general
Thanks for the review on Paul Cornell (Chicago). Your review has caused me to reevaluate myself as a nominator. I have found the following statistics (to the best of my recollection).

For WP:CHICOTW, 8/17 plus three current GACs (one at 2nd round). 6/15 on first nominations.

As an individual, 9/19 plus 2 current GACs (both at 2nd round). 9/17 on first nominations.

What is the GAC promotion rate? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I think you implied in it and prior edits on the matter a review fishing mindset.  I assure you I revise all articles with the intent of raising them to WP:WIAGA standards based on prior review feedback.  I do not hope to get an easier review.  However, I know we are at odds on the quality of Chicago Theatre even though it is under second review.  It is not there hoping to find an easier reviewer.  The same is true of Blackstone Library and Haystacks (Monet). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In general the far misses at WP:GAC were the result of setting the goal of nominating each WP:CHICOTW for GAC. Washington Park Race Track, Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood), Washington Park Subdivision, Cities and Villages Act of 1872, Merle Reskin Theatre and Little Italy, Chicago all were probably in this group.  I feel all three current nominees (The Second City, Chicago Theatre, AT&T Corporate Center) are in the ball park.  On Feb 12th after 3 successful GACs I went on a spree that led to four rejections: Donald Trump, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Paul Cornell (Chicago), and Haystacks (Monet).  After getting former GAC promoted to WP:FA I attempted to pursue a WP:FT by promoting Andy Warhol & The Factory.  The only other nomination I can recall that has not yet been successful is Blackstone Library, which I am hopeful for under its current active 2nd nomination. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nominee Chrysler Sunbeam
I could not pass this article due to the majority of the article being sourced from only one reference. On that reference I couldn't find substantial references on it either. Please expand references with more verifiable ones and resubmit. Jazznutuva 15:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't written back sooner. On the following excerpt...

"On that reference I couldn't find substantial references on it either." The main reference www.rootes-chrysler.co.uk does not seem to be a definitive source. It appears to be written by one individual as his personal blog. I believe the article as a whole meets WP:WIAGA but for some reason I was hung up on the fact the majority of the article was a rewritten summation of one reference that did not source any references himself. Jazznutuva 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:GAC
i have finished editing on the page. can you please review the article namely- Himachal Pradesh 11:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Review record
I would be interested in what you feel are good GAs. You should keep a page like this. I would like to see your pass rate.

Here is my review record to the best of my recollection. You may add anything I may have forgotten. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My query was for your record as a reviewer. A nominator would be a plus. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Since you will likely not be the reviewer next time this goes up for WP:GAC, I know articles are suppose to be written for an international audience. I think most Chicagoans woud like to see the skyline because they would like the pic. Additionally, it is not included in every article. See Image:Chicago_Skyline_Crop_Labeled_2560_ver2.jpg. If you would prefer, I would be willing to use the WP:FP Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg instead. However, I like the labelled buildings and the fact that it is easy to locate the Blackstone in the lower left of the chosen picture. Would you suggest we switch to the featured picture version from the cropped and labelled version? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving comment
Hello PrinceGloria, thanks for commenting at WP:GA. You made some good points, which exposed some flaws in my original proposal. However, the second proposal is rather different, and does require editors to be uninvolved. So I took the liberty of moving your comment up to the relevant section. I hope this is helpful and does not cause any annoyance. Feel free to undo my edit if you think that is appropriate, or comment further as you see fit. Once again, thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Geometry guy 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm don't know if you saw this before you undid my move, but I hope we can work together, rather than at cross-purposes. Geometry guy 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Car logos
Hello. I noticed you reverted my addition of a non-free logo tag to Image:Lancia logo.jpg and Image:Logoautobianchi1.gif, but I don't understand why. Are you claiming that the logos of these car companies are ineligible for copyright or that the copyright has been released into the public domain? If you are not claiming this, then the images are guaranteed to be copyrighted, since they are derivative works (i.e. a close up photo of a copyrighted work is still subject to copyright). Best, nadav (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These photographs have been moved here from the Commons according to a consensus with Commons administrators, who, I believe, are well-versed in what should and should not be used in Wikimedia projects. I also believe being overzealous here does not benefit Wikipedia, but is rather an emanation of Copyright paranoia. PrinceGloria 11:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These images definitely can be used on Wikipedia. There's no problem since usage would obviously qualify as fair use. However, we cannot pretend the images not copyrighted. nadav (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on my talk page. nadav (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So did I ;) PrinceGloria 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: What's with you and GA?
There's just too much stress with it. There was already the issue with editors not wanting to take GAC reviews seriously. Add to that the recent drama with the mathematic adolescents academics at GA/R and it's just not worth it. I told Jayron that I was considering taking a break. It seems he has decided to as well. We're going to focus our efforts at WP:PR and WP:FAC where editors value reviews more, and we won't have to deal with morons who have nothing better to do than mess with other people because they're bitter... at least that's the hope. As I said in my last post at whatever hijacked page it was, I'll probably be back once the new kids go back to their own playground. Until then, you can find me (and Jayron) utilizing our review skills at the previously mentioned projects. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Message from an anon user moved from main userpage
I will be reporting you to the wiki admins because you are going around and deleting post of the Buick Enclave site that should stay up. So I will be reporting you for overstepping your powers. Thanks!

Seeming bad faith
As an editor who is generally successful at WP:GAC, I have a good feel for what is reasonable and when someone has an axe to grind. If you have a problem with me I would prefer if you would say it rather than run around and fail every article I list and delist those that pass after others acknowledge meritorious contributions. This was by no means a credible delist. I understand you may be frustrated with the fact that I am having success in spite of your efforts. I also understand your frustration at not being able to successfully get my articles delisted using the WP:GA/R procedure. I am getting tired of you failing my articles by holding GACs to WP:FA standards. Given that another editor has passed Chicago Theatre and you disagree, I suggest we take it to WP:GA/R. In short, I contest your delist which was not done properly. There was no line added to the ArticleHistory. I was not noticed. I suppose the passing editor was not noticed.

I would appreciate a talk page message the next time you run around behind another reviewer in an attempt to delist my nomination. Unlike your no class back door axegrinding attempt to fail I am telling you my problem with you and the action I am, taking to your wikiface. If you have done so on any other articles please send me a list of such actions. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Participation at GA/R
I'm not sure how others feel about this, so I only speak for myself, but your comments at Wikipedia talk:Good article review seem rather immature. I would appreciate it if you could act a bit more respectful, constructive, and civil. We're trying to improve the process. If you disagree with our ideas, by all means, counter them. But don't do it respectfully. We're in the beginning stages here. Throwing out ideas and commenting on them. It's not as if we're just making changes without talking them out. So respect others and their ideas rather than make fun of or insult them. Lara Love T / C  15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia list in Opel Omega
I've reverted your edit to this article. I don't think it is necessary to completely remove the list. I think it falls under the exemption of "Not all lists are trivia sections" mentioned in WP:TRIVIA. It is quite a concise list, and presents information that by itself is interesting but doesn't really warrant a paragraph in the article. Regards -- Rpvdk 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your deletion of the trivia list once more. It is a concise list, it's relevant to the article, and its partly sourced. Under 'Guidance' at WP:TRIVIA it says "Do not simply remove such sections" so I ask that you stop doing so. -- 11:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

JDM Honda Inspire
You requested reference to the current JDM Inspire being made in Japan (as opposed to made in USA) for the Japanese market, pls see the following:

http://www.honda.co.jp/factbook/auto/INSPIRE/200306/14.html

This document is in Japanese, & the remark at the bottom of the page (製造事業者：本田技研工業株式会社) says it's made by Honda Japan. Senna6094 10:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mazda Axela
Howdy. You may want to pop in over at Talk:Mazda_Axela and explain why you undid the move without participating in the discussion. Friday (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I really don't appreciate you repeatedly referring to some "standards" for car naming when you've previously failed to tell me where I can read about the supposed standard. It comes off sounding like you're being intentionally misleading, which I sincerely hope is not the case. Friday (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:GAR
I have noticed that you are a frequent reviewer at that Good Articles project. good article reassessment is experiencing a considerable backlog problem. There are several articles dating from August that still have not generated enough discussion to close. Could you please take a look at the oldest articles and make some fresh comments on them? Please note that some of these have undergone signigicant changes since they first came to GA/R; please judge the article only on its merits as of its current version. If you reviewed an earlier version of any of these articles, please also consider re-reading them and either revise or endorse any earluer comments you have made. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Aurion
Hi, I am just here to ask what the "numerous flaws" that you can see with the Toyota Aurion article. I am not asking you to do a full-scale review for me, but just to note down briefly what caught your eye as being bad. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 06:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry; i tried to review it during lunch that day, since then i have been busy with work. Dagomar 06:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, PrinceGloria. In going over the GA daily report, I saw that you've had this article marked under review for about 10 days. Just a reminder, in case you've forgotten.  Lara  ❤  Love  04:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

you sure like wikipedia
uhh, what gives you 'custody' of articles? just wondering. you seem like a bit of a diva. and you seem to get some strange pleasure out of reverting people's articles. that's a bit odd. just my observation. what's your background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.211 (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ford Granada article splitting
Thank you very much. (That's been gnawing at me for a long time, and I'm clearly not the only one.) Charles01 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Daewoo Kalos intro paragraph
Points taken, thanks for the feedback, good working with you... though you need to define "POV expression" if you and I are going to have an understanding.

Sorry that you are tired -- I hope that doesn't predispose you to cut and snip without noticing how the intro relates to the body of the article -- you might take another look.

There is actually quite a bit in the article about the design of the interior of the Kalos and its packaging: seat height, tall roof, class-leading headroom -- with citations... ie, the car is classified as a subcompact by the EPA though it actually falls over their volume index for a subcompact. I'll do better about qualifying these statements.

And there are several paragraphs in the article devoted to the generations, configurations and engines. I'll find back up for "high equipment level" and the "modest performance,"

But it is important with the introduction to place the car as fully as possible into context.

We'll get there. Again, thanks for the feedback, and thanks for keeping an eye on things. At some point, I can tell you're going to be a great resource for other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Buick Park Avenue
I suggest that the articles get split again, as the two cars are not related apart from the name. Poeloq (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Saturn Aura
I refined my entry so it would not contain the "misleading and borderline untrue" statements, with which I factually agree with you. It should be not so misinformed now, all the while massively improving upon the version you keep reverting it back to. I would prefer that you make modifications to my modifications, not completely undo my edits and call them "misleading and borderline untrue". Now that is thoroughly unnecessary. Also, I had about 20 small edits throughout the article fixing spelling, grammer, and consistency errors.

I will revert this page once more; do not, I repeat DO NOT undo my edits. Modify them so they meet your critera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydtron (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Random Question
So why does Infiniti M and Nissan Gloria have their own pages when they are the same car. Shouldn't there be one article named with the latter name? Grk1011 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks for the quick response. Grk1011 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Auto image policy development
Hi, PrinceGloria. I'm trying to move the ball forward on this topic and hold namecalling and invective to a minimum here on WPA. If you have a moment and can add your thoughts, the odds of a productive outcome would likely improve. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Daewoo Tosca
I have given you several clear examples of medium to large sedans sold around the world with transverse straight 6s long before the Daewoo Tosca. The cited ref is a press release that uses words like "unique", "dynamic" and "exciting" like they're going out of fashion. The Tosca's configuration is unusual, certainly, but not unique. 202.7.183.132 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've logged in. The Volvo S80 has been around since 1998 and has always been available with a straight 6. The Volvo is a bit bigger (and a lot more expensive) than the Daewoo, so how about this:

The Tosca is unique in its class in that it is available with transversely-mounted straight-six engines.

There are also I4 petrol and turbodiesel engines in some markets. Karldoh (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about unique having other meanings. Every dictionary I consult also lists other meanings, such as "unusual", "highly original" or "out of the ordinary", but the #1 listed meaning (and the one I adhere to) is "one of kind", "like no other". I confess in casual conversation I might say something like "somewhat unique" meaning "unusual", but would never use it in writing. But then English is a very fluid language, the lingua franca of the internet and we should strive to avoid confusion.

I am by nature a nitpicker, prone to find fault in anything, and abhor ambiguity. This could be why I wasn't open to other, less absolute, definitions of unique. I think we can agree that the Tosca is unique in its class, according to any definition. Or we could replace the word unique with unusual, notable or something similar.

I wish all Wikipedians were as pleasant as you! Karldoh (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is uncommon strong enough for you? Because it's neutral enough for me. Karldoh (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, uncommon is out. But I find words like unique and remarkable in this context read too much like a sales brochure. How about noteworthy? It means the same thing, and I think it's more encyclopedic. Karldoh (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we've wasted enough words on one little word already. The factual content of the article is fine, though I might like to rewrite the whole thing for flow and readability. But not today :) Karldoh (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles open
Informal mediation has been opened at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles at the request of Dddike, with you being named as a party to the dispute. The dispute is over the adoption of this process page without adequate consensus and other tangential issues. Named parties to the dispute are: Dddike, user:IFCAR, user:Scheinwerfermann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, user:PrinceGloria, User:842U. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Isis Gee
Prince, it looks like the new user is unfamiliar with our policies and is also pretty wound up. I'd hate to see the article locked downa nd people getting blocked. Could we try an informal dispute resolution technique? I'd be glad to help. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi your points are well taken. Any article where there is conflict is worth resolution; perhaps I'm naive, but maybe he will become a good editor once he understands the process. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's (1) get everyone to agree to talk, and (2) let's pick a version that we can agree on as a starting place. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your description this would be a classic application of the Third opinion model; however, with the IP user now involved 3O may not be effective. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Prince, take a break and walk around the room a few times. Let's assume good faith without being naive.  Let me see if I can find a compromise, but the first thing is to get the frustration reduced.  OK? --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request for block against Euro, but you are at risk too if the admin looks closely. I would just stand down if he continues.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

re User:Eurovisionman
No problem. Also, your header was fine - but using the one I sub'd just gets to the various pages more quickly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

re WP:SOCK
Re your message, since the major edit warriors are established accounts there is little to be done except file an SSP report. I think Polishchick99 is probably one, but as the ANI thread says "but who (cares)", but only possibly Isgreatestman. I have also asked Isgreatestman about the sock allegation about you, and warned them not to repeat it if there is no evidence. If you are able to advise me of any suspicion you have been under and any result, or any other basis of the claim, this would help me. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Added a report at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman. If you have any details on where Image:My picture of ISIS GEE.jpg actually came from, list it at WP:IFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and thanks, you have helped uncover a sockfarm run by a banned user. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread
You're being talked about at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Isis Gee
I'm glad that it's resolved. I'm surprised because this is the first headache of this sort (I can count three separate times similar massive sockpuppetry and edit warring messes) that didn't involve a "Ricky81682 must be desysoped and banned immediately" comment at AN. Probably because that would only increase the importance of the checkuser (which is ungodly slow around here). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very sad that the superpowers of Eurovision (Ireland) have taken to doing prank entries because they were never able to compete with the block vote even when they had a quality singer (Brian Kennedy). Dima was ok not that great, but his backup was far superior to the rest with the Olympic figureskater and proper violinist. Kalomoira and Ani Lorak didn't offer anything to anyone except legs.  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 03:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead infobox image convention: Consensus?
Hi, PG. Just wondering what your current thoughts are: Do we have consensus to go ahead and add the proposed text to the conventions? Also, just FYI, you may want to see here and here, as well as this. I have a little trouble keeping track of which of these users (if in fact they're not one and the same) objects to my having agreed with IFCAR regarding the Subaru Forester lead infobox image...whee! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Very fine; I've revised the convention per consensus. Let us hope 842U and Dddike, if indeed they're separate users, can bring themselves to understand that Wikipedia operates on a consensus basis, even if they don't agree with the consensus. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not individually poll each and every participant, no. It looked to me like consensus had been achieved, and I just wanted a second opinion on that. I will add a "done; if you feel this consensus was reached in error, please check the number and dial again" note to the talk page. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Autobianchi
For me is best looking and more functional the template similar to other italian automobile manufacturer template like Template:Alfa Romeo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.33.243.160 (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Top 10 best selling cars in Britain
I'm cross-posting at the talk pages of the participants at Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. After the article was deleted, I requested that it be userfied so that I could attempt to improve it. I've now made some small alterations, which are explained in greater detail at User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Basically, I've flipped the page so that the latest years are at the bottom (to make the TOC more intuitively navigable), and converted the 2005-2007 data into tables which now include precise sales figures.

The work done so far was quite labour-intensive, so before I commit more time to this, I'd appreciate any feedback to say whether it's worthwhile continuing with the years prior to 2005. Thanks in advance for any comments you can offer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Suzuki Cultus
Prince, I have taken a stab at integrating into the Suzuki Cultus article sections pertaining to the Chevrolet Sprint, Geo/Chevrolet Metro and Pontiac Firefly... such that those articles could be "deleted" and redirected to the Suzuki Cultus article. I believe this would bring the articles more into conformance with the WPA guidelines. Could you take a look, and weigh in on the discussion page with any comments you have? Thanks 842U (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Prince, could you look at the Suzuki Cultus article again. A few folks have reverted the Geo Metro merge (twice) and the Pontiac Firefly merge (once), Bull-dozer and IFCAR. I'm thinking the Cultus article is well-organized -- all the info from the old articles is now in place and has actually been updated fairly significantly, at least in the case of the Geo Metro.  Your thoughts would be appreciated. 842U (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation - are we done?
You have been involved in mediation at: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles. Discussion has subsided, and I think that the issues have been resolved if not specifically, more by identifying the reality of an apparent consensus. Is there any need to continue or should we close this process? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks for your kind thoughts and words at my talk page. Please let me know when and if I can help again. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and another question
Hello, I just replied to you on the Kia Mohave/Borrego talk page, and am interested in getting your input again. Thanks. NMS Bill (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help. I just left one more comment on the Mohave/Borrego page (now just Borrego, as you'll see). I think your edits are very good and as to the title of the page, I am caught between differing opinions of other editors. I'll stay out of it, but I figured you should know. NMS Bill (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nissan-Prince Gloria new images
PrinceGloria, I recently translated information about the car that you named yourself after, and found images on the Japanese side of Wikipedia that look better than the rear shot of a Prince Gloria Super 6 you are currently using. I found the same car in gold with a front view and a 4 door hardtop from the mid 70's. Have a look.(Regushee (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Grand Marquis/Crown Victoria
You never replied back on Mercury Grand Marquis's talk, but I was wondering if you could help me out on Ford Crown Victoria, I want to possibly get it up to GA, but if not at least improve it. I'm not a member of WP Autos, I only own a Crown Victoria so I don't know any of the guidelines. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved old engine-units discussion
Hi, PG. I'd thought the new consensus had put the issue of how to handle cubic inch displacement to bed, but a new call to strike out a convention has been issued. Thought you might want to stop by and take a look. —01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chaptalization, again
Thank you for your insightful criticism of the chaptalization article over a year ago. I just wanted to let you know that (finally) the problems you identified have been addressed, and the article has once again been nominated for GA review. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pontiac Vibe
PrinceGloria, please discuss on Talk:Pontiac Vibe before making any more reverts.--Flash176 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Isis Gee
I just read an old reply of yours on Talk:Isis Gee about admitting to being Isis Gee LOL. I almost died of laughter! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Car classification categories
I have a fairly straightforward (but very long-winded) solution to this problem, although it'll most likely require a bit of consensus building at the WP:CARS talk page. I've noticed you've not made edits in the last week or so; are you still available? If you'd like to discuss it off-wiki I can be reached by e-mail. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying. No, nothing needs discussed off-wiki, just wasn't sure if it was easier to communicate by e-mail.


 * I agree the categories should be restored. Looking through the admin's bot contribution log for the time, there doesn't seem to have been many articles which included the category; I'm wondering if the sparseness of the category's contents was a motivation in nominating it? Compare Category:Mid-size cars; even cars which should not be so categorized have been included (Austin Maestro is the most risible). It might be better, when recreating it, to make sure that at the very least, every car listed at the EuroNCAP source page is used.


 * There is a problem is with the tree of car class categories. For example, Category:Executive cars is bizarrely a sub-category of Category:Mid-size cars and Category:Luxury vehicles, while as far as I can see there is no differentiation between American and Australian mid-size cars, even though two different authorities will have classified them and, their respective definitions will most likely be slightly different.


 * My (long-winded) solution would be to redo all the categories. The parent category would be Category:Car classifications, which will need emptied of all articles which are not official classifications of some sort (we can come up with a new category for them, e.g. Category:Car body styles or something). The category tree would be as below:


 * Category:Car classifications
 * North American car classifications (with a link to the EPA and/or the relevant car class article)
 * Mid-size cars, Compact cars, etc
 * Category:European car classifications (with a link to EuroNCAP)
 * Small family cars, Large family cars, etc
 * Category:Australian car classifications (with a reference to the FCAI)
 * Whatever categories there are (User:OSX would be invaluable here)
 * Category:Japanese car classifications (with a link to JAMA)
 * Kei cars, etc


 * The biggest issue with this construction, which seems the most correct to me, would be the possibility of overlap between category names. If American and Australian mid-size cars are not defined in exactly the same way, then the current Category:Mid-size cars will need to be split/renamed. It would at least be a step away from the systemic American bias which constantly afflicts WP:CARS.


 * However, to return full circle to the original point, I agree the category should not have been deleted, and commented so at the admin's talk page. Unfortunately, passing comments by other editors at the time seem against the idea, although mostly these comments seem to be from people who don't get that these are official names and not merely descriptions. I think the above strategy is the best one to avoid summary re-deletion in future. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Paging PrinceGloria
Hi, PG. Mind dropping by and commenting? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Good to see you back!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention
Considering that I am currently in discussion with you at Talk:Chevrolet Cruze, I thought now might be a good time to recommence discussions about the WP:CARS naming convention. I believe all discussions stalled over a minor disagreement between yourself and User:IFCAR.

The previous discussions can be found at: User talk:OSX/Archive 4 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 20.

Basically, as far as I see both IFCAR's and your own proposal have their faults. I've long been umming and arring over which is the better. Basically, I think the best solution is to accept the "Rev 5" convention (yours and Scheinwerfermann's):

...but... allow an option to make an exception on a case-by-case example with ALL discussions to be held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. This way we won't have to worry about problematic outcomes such as the Toyota ist which we both know should be the article's title. Another example would be the Chevrolet Cruze that we are currently discussing. Is Daewoo Lacetti Premiere (South Korea) or Chevrolet Cruze (Europe/North America) the original name? The car was revealed and announced as a Chevrolet, but it was released in Korea long before anywhere else and much of the development was centralised there despite the car being a global GM effort. When you consider that Holden (in Australia, English official language) also markets the car as the "Holden Cruze" the whole issue becomes problematic. In such a case, the exception option would sever any issues and dictate that "Chevrolet Cruze" is in fact the correct name. Because there are incongruities with both revision 3 and 5, I feel that my revision 6 below will best counteract such ambiguous examples. The number or articles requiring such discussions would be quite low, so I believe that case basis exceptions will not become unwieldy and unmanageable.

Rev 6
How about it? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking such in-depth interest in the matter and reviving it, I barely have time and willpower to engage in WP those days... Now, I would attack the wording of the last bullet again, it is ambigious IMHO. I don't have a good idea off the cuff, but I do believe we should simply state that "home market" is the market the vehicle was primarily designed for. In case no direct statetment from the automaker regarding that can be sourced at a given moment, it should be assumed the "home market" is the market where the vehicle was first made commercially available.
 * Now, I believe we might easily source some statements from GM detailing how the Cruze is crucial for the North American, European and Chinese markets, where it is sold as Chevrolet. Same applies to any other vehicle in similar situation. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like the "where the vehicle was first made commercially available" provision, but I believe the below amendment will satisfy your requirements as it will work in (almost?) all cases. If not, we would still have the individual case exception proviso to fall back on.




 * Since this discussion has dragged on far too long, we need to be expeditious in agreement to move the discussion back over to WP:CARS. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, was the Cruze primarily designed for the US, Europe, China, Korea, Australia, greater South Asian region or whichever else? We can try to sort it out via press releases, but in general, this is very ambigious, I believe we need something more substantial to fall back on when the manufacturer isn't really helping with valuable guidance, and the more I think of it, the more cases I can recall when I never came accross a statement like that even in obvious cases. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Home market refers to the market the vehicle was primarily designed for. Where no such market is applicable or cannot be ascertained, it should be assumed the "home market" is the market where vehicle's manufacturer is headquartered. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly NOT headquartered, as we get into lenghty discussions as to whether GM, GM Holden's or GM Daewoo is the manufacturer blah blah blah. Isuzu's HQ is in Japan, I don't know if the Isuzu Panther was designed for Indonesia, Philippines or India the most, but we might check launch dates and get an unambigious decision here. My insistence really is based on substantial reasons. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * HQ issues are not going to be a problem because the usage notes states: "Some automakers have substantial national operations remote from their corporate seat, e.g., Ford Australia, Toyota North America. Use care to discern a vehicle's home market and its manufacturer headquarters from the location of the corporate seat." That is, GM Daewoo and Holden et cetera are to be considered HQ when their vehicles are in question. As for the Isuzu Panther, individual case discussion would suggest that because the vehicle is made in Indonesia, that country is the original market (regardless of whether it was sold there first, which it most likely was). Again, I feel you are making an issue out of a few obscure cases, which is why I have left the door open for case-by-case discussion if need be in my revision 6 proposal. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the point of a convention if we need to get down discussing anyway. The wording with "take care to discern" invites ambiguity and lenghty discussions about nothing. When somebody finds a snippet of actually verifiable information as to where the vehicle was launched first, we have zero discussion and ambiguity and 100% of eternal bliss. I hope I got my point accross clearly. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Okay, Home market refers to the market the vehicle was primarily designed for. Where no such market is applicable or cannot be ascertained, it should be assumed the "home market" is the market where vehicle was launched first.

Shall we invite IFCAR to the discussion to see if he approves of revision 6 7. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pls do. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rev 7
Tweaked just a tad, and includes the "where vehicle was launched first" clause. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a great job, patience and dedication!
 * 3 comments:
 * I would remove the exceptions clause - it is fairly obvious that every guideline has exceptions and its application is 100% of the time up for discussion, so we run the risk of being derided and/or accused of trying to overregulate WP if we include that. Let's simply leave it, if somebody feels the need to discuss, they will.
 * IMHO, the first-market clause removes the need for the ambigiuity-inducing "use care" clause, plus we place a bit too much weight on the "yes but no"-like ambigious "not necessairly top level thing", but I think other should weigh in on that
 * In the second point, you mean "manufacturer", not "manufacturer's headquarters", or you need to amend the first point as it gets a bit incohesive IMHO.
 * I am off WP for 24 hrs I guess, thanks again and take care!
 * PrinceGloria (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for inviting me in here.
 * If I'm remembering the last discussion, "all other markets" presented a concern to me, as it means a different name in one tiny obscure market could cause an article to be renamed. I think I'd suggested "most" back then, and I'd say that still makes it easier to make obvious exceptions. IFCAR (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, I thought it said "all English-speaking markets". I'd go by "all English speaking markets", as any vague quantitative such as "most" invites people to push it and discuss what is most, or we run into the 75% etc. lunacy. If all English-speaking markets agree, we go by that name. If they don't, we go by home market - with the rules of establishing home market listing above. Does that make sense? PrinceGloria (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I am not going to get off Wikipedia EVER... :) I am so happy we're reaching a consensus tho :)


 * Didn't we run into the question of what an English-speaking market was last time? I think India was tossed around as an example of a gray area there, and there are also plenty of former British colonies sprinkled throughout the world. IFCAR (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the necessary gray area, but for the sake of practicality it might be better than "most markets". With "most markets" somebody might come up with Columbia and we'll have to discuss as to why Columbia is not "most" (and what if the vehicle gets a proprietary name in each of the South American countries?) With all English, you have a clear-cut case which excludes throwing away Canada or Australia as "unimportant", and it is pretty straightforward until somebody really wants to be a spoilsport and come up with Barbados. And then it's time for discussion
 * It all boils down to whether we want to be more "global" or not in our choices, but I would strongly prefer "all" to "most" in any arrangement, as the vagueness of "most" voids any simplification and discussion-avoidance power of the guideline and makes it pretty much moot.
 * Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

PrincGloria, why remove the exceptions part? It's going to be necessary, because as IFCAR states, "it means a different name in one tiny obscure market could cause an article to be renamed". Common sense would suggest that if for example in the case of the Chevrolet Cruze, that while its sold as a Daewoo in Korea and as a Holden in Australia/NZ, the "Chevrolet Cruze" title is in fact the correct name, and not "Daewoo Lacetti Premiere" because not all markets use the Chevrolet branding.

IFCAR, please take a look at List of countries where English is an official language. This is a very long list, but why don't we narrow it down for arguments sake to the 10 countries listed at the English-speaking world article?


 * 1) United States
 * 2) United Kingdom
 * 3) Canada
 * 4) Australia
 * 5) Ireland
 * 6) South Africa
 * 7) New Zealand
 * 8) Philippines
 * 9) Jamaica
 * 10) Singapore

Take note of the ordering too, as it goes in order from country with the most number of people who "speak exclusively English at home" and not by population. There is a reason why I have stated that all discussions are "to be held at the WikiProject Automobiles talk page", because this way any anomalies can logically argued by people with the knowledge as opposed to those more likely to come up with more biased answers such as those produced at Talk:Isuzu Trooper. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the exceptions part because it is obvious. Guidelines are guidelines, not law - there is always field for discussion. We've been accused of self-policing before, and I'd be very wary not to look like the WikiProject tries to outgrow its shoes here by gracefully allowing users to challenge the almighty guideline. I would assume general and case-by-case discussions are by default a part of the package, we don't need to enumerate them.
 * I would prefer to keep the list of countries open-ended either way. In case some unusual case arises, we'll discuss that, we need to keep the guideline inambigious in as many cases as possible, but also flexible to accomodate different cases. I wouldn't really want to get into discussions as to why Singapore is a more of an English-speaking country than India (and I am fairly positive this Wikipedia gets more visits, if not edits, from the latter). In short, let us use "all English-speaking markets" without enumerating them. Checking just numbers 1-6, if not 1-4, on the list, should be absolutely fine and be understood as a good-faith attempt. The result should stand as perfectly valid unless somebody brings up a well-documented counter-example, which is unlikely unless there was a major omission (renaming valid) or a minor one, whence the home market rule would provide a good safety net.
 * In the very end, let us not forget there is the upper-level general naming convention, which says ambigiously that the name should be the most popular one the readers are expecting to find the subject under (try to determine that obejctively, eh?), so in the very end whenever the car-specific guideline fails to produce a sensible result, there still is something to go by. This is not a legislative process here, we don't have to write a catch-all bill of law, we are just trying to make our life easier.
 * As for the Chevrolet Cruze thing, I believe this should be decided by the home market rule, so this is irrelevant to discussing the wording of the universal name rule. Any way you slice it, the vehicle has a different name in one of the major English-speaking markets (Australia, plus NZ too FWIK), so one needs to resort to home market being either the US, Europe or non-Korean Asia or all of them as opposed to just Korea or Australia. Still, we might decide that guideline rules are insufficient here and agree in a discussion not to apply the guideline strictly in this case.
 * Oh, and for Isuzus I'd use the JDM name simply to avoid all that kerfuffle, those are great examples where the home market rule simply cuts down futile disputes.
 * Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OSX, I like that there is a formal list we could reference. I wonder if we could even get away with saying the top five rather than the top 10? I'd be fully behind that one. IFCAR (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Top five ("main countries") would be better, as the others are not "large enough" markets, and thus do not hold enough value to satisfy WP:Common name. Also in Singapore, only 71% speak English, in the Philippines it's only 52%, and in South Africa it's only 29%, as opposed to the top five which are all over 97% (see: List of countries by English-speaking population).


 * Now PrinceGloria, I think we should retain the exceptions part. There is a valid reason to keep it: you state, "remove the exceptions part because it is obvious. Guidelines are guidelines, not law - there is always field for discussion." You sometimes should state the obvious, it's something that I have learned in life. It avoids any potential confusion and ambiguity. If we do not allow for it, dogmatic individuals may say, "No, I object to the "Opel [insert model]" being called so because in England it's a Vauxhall so it should be "Vauxhall [insert model]"." I think you should compromise like IFCAR has done, as this is the only way we can progress. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rev 8

 * Just some slight copyediting from me at this point: as this was revised, the definitions departed slightly from the text, alternating between "market" and "country." Also, I'd strike "all other" from "used in all other English-speaking markets" -- the "all" is confusing when we limit it to five, and the "other" implies the home market is also English-speaking. IFCAR (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How's that? I've fixed up the wording a bit in the Rev 8 above. If you want to change anything else, please do so at your own discretion. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I obviously oppose for the reasons above which I find valid. I also believe we are gravitating towards something that would equal applying the usual WP:NAME, which I find preferable to just apply directly if there is no difference in the final result. The whole point was to devise rules for the cases where straightforwardly applying WP:NAME would be undesirable, as it would lead to disputable results and waste the editor's time on disputes.
 * Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

10 months later... I have added what has become consensus to WP:CARS/Conventions. It's not perfect due to it having to be scaled back to cater for the slight disagreements, but it is better than what was written previously (which suggested Mazda3 should revert back to Mazda Axela and Lexus IS to Toyota Altezza). OSX (talk • contributions) 11:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See my talk page. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bank Millennium branch Poland.png


A tag has been placed on File:Bank Millennium branch Poland.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Bank Millennium branch Poland.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bank Millennium branch Poland.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Bravada?
Hello PrinceGloria - I have always supposed you to be a new version of Bravada, if I am wrong please take no offense. In any case, a number of pictures you uploaded back in the days have since been deleted for missing certain small details. If you are indeed the same, please help protect your photos here. Best regards in either case,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Zilverparkkade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penthouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)