User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2010

psi, kPa, MPa and bar
In Template talk:Convert you made a valid point. Keep up the good work and you'll convince User:Jimp yet. Peter Horn User talk 00:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Guangzhou-Toyota
Guangzhou-Toyota is the brand of the Guangqi Toyota Automobile Co., Ltd. which belongs to the Guangzhou Automobile Group. They are assembling cars since 2004. But they have no licence to sell their products. The sales are a part of the Sichuan FAW Toyota Company which is the only manufacturer that produces their car only under the Toyota name; also without an add of a Joint Venture name. See here: Guangqi Toyota Automobile Company. --91.89.156.99 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link. Unfortunately I am having some trouble finding information about where it is made. Most of the links I follow are just the normal advertising telling us how wonderful they think it is. Can you provide me with a more specific link about where it is made. Something similar to where I found it's model name at http://gac-toyota.com.cn/2008/search/archive.jsp?id=2197
 * Thanks.  Stepho   (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a bit difficulty to find the information. But its not unpossible to find them. The Best was is to use the Chinese language. This is more succesfully. --91.89.156.99 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The article about Guangzhou-Toyota is to find under the name Guangqi Toyota Automobile and Sichuan FAW Toyota is to find under the name Sichuan FAW Toyota Motor --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Celica Production Date
The Celica was display for the first time at 1970 Tokyo Motor Show in October of that year. It was officially marketed from December 1970, so actually production started from October in order to supply demand by December. Regards, Arvin (Celica21gtfour). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.19.8 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Arvin. Are you the same Arvin that helped me decode post 1977 model codes on my website many years ago? Anyway, you have a reasonable argument but Toyota's Vehicle Identification Manual says production (not sales) started in 7012 (Dec 1970). I suspect the 1970 Tokyo Motor Show car was a preproduction sample used to test the assembly line before production started in earnest. Of course, being a show car, it would have also have had a lot of hand finishing. But I'm always open to new information. Can you point me to your source? Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stepho, Yes, I think so. I was active in the GT-Four list years ago and provided Celica model codes. Perhaps the export models started production from Dec 1970, and for JDM was from Oct 1970. I guess the prototypes / test cars were built even before Oct 1970. You are right, the Toyota manual book mentioned the mass production date. For ST185 (and FF AT180/ST18#) the prototypes were built as early Dec 1988, the production model was launched in Japan in Sept 1989, and mass production FF models from Sept 1989, ST185 from Oct 1989. Production of 5th gen Celica was ended in Sept 1993 when they began to produce 6th gen cars, but Toyota manual book (export model) mentioned ST185 until Nov 1993. Regards, Arvin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celica21gtfour (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the Japanese data and it also says the production started at 7012. I had my Asian wife translate the Japanese characters and they are definitely 'production date' - I specifically asked if they said 'production date' or 'sales date'. I've put a copy of the early Japanese data on my web site for a few days at (JapSpecsCelica1.tiff, JapSpecsCelica2.tiff). This is similar to how the RA25 shown at the 1971 Tokyo Motor Show was actually a custom modified TA22 (says so on the build plate, production didn't start until April 1973).   Stepho   (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 Toyota product recalls
Please stop deleting the 2009 Toyota product recalls edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkspank101 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal at talk:Toyota.  Stepho   (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, It has come to our attention that the internet website link http://www.ToyotaBrakeRecall.org is being edited or removed from the 2009-10 Toyota Vehicle Recalls Wikipedia webpage located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009–10_Toyota_vehicle_recalls&diff=prev&oldid=343367672

Due to the safety nature of its content and our concern worldwide for customers and passengers of our automobiles, we ask at this time that the link not be edited or removed until our Information Technolgy Systems Department has completed an officially based discussion forum. We appreciate your cooperation during this sensitive time.

Thank You For Your Cooperation,

Rob Funk Product Integration & Social Media Planner Toyota Motor Sales, USA 19001 S. Western Ave. Torrance, CA 90501 F 310-381-7978 recall@toyotabrakerecall.org

Follow us at: http://www.facebook.com/toyota http://www.twitter.com/toyota http://www.youtube.com/toyotausa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyota Motor Corp USA (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-dive geometry
Not sure how to cite the antidive and caster adjustment changes for the MR2 article. Those numbers were derived from suspension geometry software and were not published by Toyota. It is "verifiable" as far as modeling and analyzing the suspension geometry. The lack of caster adjustment is, however, as easy to verify as taking a quick look under a 1993+ car. Bdc101 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shinjin vs. Toyota and GM
I see that you have deleted the alternative name of the Corona T40 generation. It is right, that Shinjin Motor was the South Korean manufacturer of this model. But the company built this vehicle under its own brand name Shinjin as Shinjin Corona, too. It was the first car of my grandfather. If you want see the complete (heritage) model range, see: here. Some of the vehicles was available as Daewoo, too. But the Shinjin vehicles had another specifications. Any of the models had another spelling, too. For example: Rekord under the Opel/Daewoo and Record under the Shinjin brand. --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the T40 being made by Shinjin (which is why I put it in the assembly field and kept your reference). My only problem is whether it should be listed as an alternative name. Dozens of manufacturers in different countries assembled Toyotas from CKD (complete knock down) kits. I'm not very keen to list each of them as a separate name when the only thing that changed was the company name in front of the model name. I note that '신진' translates to 'young' (new?) and '코로나' is a transliteration of 'Corona'. I've assumed that '신진' is part of the brand name, not part of the actual model name. So that leaves the name Corona written in Korean characters. Do you have enough information to write an English article for Shinjin Motors? We need good sources (copying from other language Wikipedias is not allowed). I can help you if you like. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

here are some sources: --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Corona
 * Publica
 * misc.
 * |en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 misc.

Chrysler 245 + 265 engine
The article you're after is Chrysler Hemi-6 Engine. 22:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.87.203 (talk)


 * Thanks.  Stepho   (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, but what on earth made you add that bizarre text to the Slant-6 article claiming that Chrysler Australia's 215, 245, and 265 were named "Slant-6"? That's wrong. Reality simply didn't unfold that way in this universe, and as far as I know nobody reliable has ever claimed it to be so. The 215, 245, and 265 are upright engines called the Hemi-6, and everyone who cares even just a little bit knows it. So, um, like, why'd you do that? 06:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.242.14 (talk)

MR2
Hi Stepho, Just wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look over the Toyota MR2 article. I've spent a lot of time cleaning it up and I was going to suggest re-evaluation of the quality grade, but I wanted to get someone else to look over it first. I've removed a lot of uncited/unverifiable/irrelevant information and tried to make it easier to read. You seem to be pretty active on old-Toyota pages so you'd be a good person to pick out any glaring errors. Thanks! Bdc101 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I'm not too knowledgeable on the MR2 in particular but I'll see what I do to help.  Stepho   (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Units
Hi, regarding your recent edit to Toyota RAV4, WP:MoS suggests that units should be spelt out in the text, and abbreviated only in tables/infoboxes. U.S. spelling is probably best to be used for Japanese cars, as Japanese automakers tend to use American spelling as opposed to the British style.

Also, please see: Talk:Toyota Camry in regards to the Toyota Vista. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. What I was mostly trying to correct was that another editor had changed 'litre' to 'liter'. I usually revert any US vs UK spelling changes if the article was already predominantly one style (regardless of the topic). For the RAV4 article it originally had two occurrences of 'litre' and none of 'liter' but plenty of cases of 2.4L and 2.4 L (inconsistent spacing). So I took the easy way out and made them all into a consistent 2.4 L .  Stepho   (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sable2322
Thanks for the heads-up. I doubt I would've noticed that soon enough myself. --Sable232 (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Diplomacy_Barnstar

 * Thank you.  Stepho   (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Camry SDV10
Hi Stepho, regarding your Z + X = C equation for the ACV30 Camry, I have obviously been able to work out the equivalents for other engines and Camry generations. There remains one exception: with the XV10 series, in Australia at least, the 2.2 L 5S-FE engine had the SDV10 code from 1993 to 1995, and then the SXV10 code from 1995 to 1997. Where did Toyota get the "D" in SDV10 from?

The equation for SXV10 is S + X = SX. However, both the SDV10 and SXV10 have the same 5S-FE engine. The "D" makes no sense in this application.

The V6s get even more confusing. Toyota Reference lists the V6 version using the 3VZ-FE engine as VCV10. This GoAuto article refers to the same car in Australia as VDV10 (1993–1995), with this GoAuto article listing the 1995–1997 versions as VXV10. Again, the engines did not change in the Australian cars (the V6 in the U.S. did, with its code becoming MCV10 inline with the new MZ engine). So what is the code for the car, VCV10, VDV10, or VXV10? OSX (talk • contributions) 11:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, tricky. Short answer - I don't know. One possibility is that Australian made engines and/or bodies cause a slight variation of the code (increment C to D). I will hunt around and see what I can find.  Stepho   (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:1977 Toyota Sport-800 Gas turbine hybrid 01.jpg
You disputed the deletion of this image, but it unquestionably qualified for the F2 speedy deletion. Please read the criterion — "Files that the MediaWiki software is unable to read or generate resized thumbnails of, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images." Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you lost me on this one. The image is obviously not empty, nor is it corrupt. It displays fine in small form. It has a description as follows "English: Toyota Sports 800 Gas Turbine Hybrid 日本語:  トヨタ・スポーツ800ガスタービンハイブリッド" (note: the Japanese text says the same thing as the English text). The date it was uploaded corresponds to the EXIF information in the file. The setting and the EXIF information is consistent with the image being taken by an enthusiast at a museum (ie no copyright violation). If you want a more detailed description, it would be easy enough to simply ask the uploader to provide more details. Or if you only want a text description of the image, then you or I could do that. Deleting an excellent image of a rare vehicle over such a trivial matter seems excessive when it can be fixed with such little effort.   Stepho   (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is on Commons. Criterion F2 permits the deletion of local description pages for images on Commons.  Nobody was attempting to have the image itself deleted, and as I'm not a Commons admin, I have no ability to delete Commons images.  Because there is no image on the English Wikipedia under this name, it's considered an empty image.  Nobody is saying that there are any problems with the image itself or with its Commons description page; the only thing that was deleted was a page containing only a single category.  I deleted the image soon before I left the first comment on your talk page; now that it's been deleted, please look at it and see if you can find any differences from before.  Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:1977 Toyota Sport-800 Gas turbine hybrid 01.jpg looks like a page at the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org) but it displays the image commons:File:1977 Toyota Sport-800 Gas turbine hybrid 01.jpg which is at Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org). At File:1977 Toyota Sport-800 Gas turbine hybrid 01.jpg you can click either the small Commons icon in the upper right corner or the text "description page there" to get to the Commons page. Categories for the image should be added at the Commons page and not at the English Wikipedia page. That is why Nyttend deleted the English Wikipedia page where you had added a category. This deletion does not affect the Commons image which can still be displayed in the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both - that makes sense now.  Stepho   (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Vista
Please see, Talk:Toyota Camry. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Expansion
Hi,

I restructured the Toyota article (before I registered an account, BTW) and as part of it, tagged several sections of the article for expansion. As Wiki's resident Toyota guru, it looks like you're the one to fill those in.

Thanks, Dondegroovily (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

6th generation Celica
Did you change the year from 1994-1999 to 1993-1999? I know that the 6th gen Celica was introduced in Japan in Oct '93 and in the USA as '94 model year at around the same time. Rests of the world were mostly in 1994. Australian brochure printed Dec '93, but only less than 200 units sold in '93, the others were sold in 1994-1999.

Another Australian said 1990-1994 Celica is ST184, based on the last ST184 sold in 1994. It would confuse people if ST184 is 1994, and ST20# is 1993. So, I always mention 5th gen 1990-1993, and 6th gen 1994-1999.Celica21gtfour 16 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Hi Arvin,
 * There are numerous numbering schemes in use: sometimes calendar year was used and sometimes model year. Sometimes productions dates were used and sometimes purchase dates. Sometimes dates for one country were used and sometimes global dates were used. Sometimes the most common dates were used and sometimes oddball vehicle lifetimes were used (eg Datsun 1200 ute was made for something like 30 years but the sedan was only made for a few years).
 * It's far simpler to use calendar dates for everything from the very first production run to the absolute last production run . As you said, this then makes the dates mid 1990 to mid 1993 and mid 1993 to mid 1999. But this is what the automotive project is doing for all automotive articles, so this is consistent with what all articles will eventually be. I've already converted a number of Toyota articles to this scheme. Sadly, other manufacturer's articles are all over the place - such is life. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Toyota acronyms
I have nominated Toyota acronyms, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Toyota acronyms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Snotty Wong  speak 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Rotary Atkinson cycle engine
Hi Stepho-wrs, I noticed that you included a section on the Rotary Atkinson Cycle Engine. “Disadvantages of this design include the requirement that rotor tips seal very tightly on the outer housing wall and the mechanical losses suffered through friction between rapidly oscillating parts of irregular shape.” This is statement is not factually correct. I have had several talks with the inventor of this engine. Whilst the Wankel engine requires apex seals, this engine does not. The main seals are within the housing not the rotors. They can be hydraulically controlled, so that sealing friction is not really an issue. The sliding connector friction is comparable to the piston sliding friction on a conventional engine. I have not changed your entry on the Atkinson cycle page, but you may wish to do so. Just a side note; with the diesel version using the fuel also as a lubricant no seals are required! Regards, Sowilo (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sowilo. I think you have made a mistake. My only changes to the Atkinson cycle article have been simple edits to do with dates. I don't recall editing the rotary section at all. But now I'm kind of curious about your claim. I'm not very familiar with rotary engines but my (meager) understanding is that one of the main problems was making a seal that included right angles in it (piston engines having the much easier job of sealing against a constant curvature). Since I am not familair enough with the subject, I won't object to you editing the article. Of course, you need verifiable sources to back up your claims or other editors may revert your changes. Good luck.   Stepho   (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Toyota acronyms advice
Hi Stepho,

At WP:Articles for deletion/Toyota acronyms you haven't actually listed a !vote, thought you might want to do that! If you go to the Toyota acronyms page linked in the title the AfD notification will give you some guidance.

I'm sorry, but this page will almost never be acceptable under wikipedia's policies of notability. WP is a third party source. It records what second party sources deem important to write about. In this case, Toyota is the first party source as they created the information. If no-one else (a 2nd party source) thinks it's important to pass on, such as a car magazine article about Toyota acronyms, then it is not appropriate to be recorded in wikipedia. Perhaps it could be turned into a wikibook or there might be a Toyota wiki out there (I saw an MR2 one the other day).

I hope that's of some help. Bigger digger (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC) ps. Sorry, just read the rest of your talk page and seen that you've been here quite a while - I hope you don't find the above too condescending! Bigger digger (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being civil about this - I've seen many of these discussions turn in heated arguments. However, I still feel that the page is worthwhile.  Stepho   (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly useful, but en.wp is not, in my reading of the guidelines and policies, the place for it. Good luck with all the notable articles, ;-) Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese titles
Regarding this edit, reference titles should be an exact quote of the original, regardless of any typos, errors or the language. This way, if the reference becomes a dead link it is much easier to find an updated version. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. But most readers don't understand Japanese. Some of them might want to use one computer translation but would first have to translate the titles into English just to find out which ones are worth the effort of further translation. Perhaps we should put the English translation in brackets just after the Japanese original.  Stepho   (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I just discovered the "trans_title" field at Template:Cite web. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, that does the trick nicely. I'll have to remember that one.  Stepho   (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Stepho:

Yeah, sure thing -- I'm sorry -- I just get lazy re: edit summaries, but you are correct of course. Re: preview function -- I do try on that one but often the damn thing looks really good and then I notice one more thing...

Regards, RadioBroadcast (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No probs. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Link anchors
Your addition of anchors has messed up the section headings on at least a couple articles, putting them inside code boxes (like you'd get if you put a space at the beginning of a line). I don't know how the anchors work so I don't know why they're doing this. --Sable232 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I normally double check to see if I screwed anything up. I guess I got bit careless and let a space creep in to my cut and pasting. I've just gone over the articles I changed this morning and fixed the ones I broke. Thanks for the heads up!
 * Anchors are very simple beasts. Essentially they provide a nice target for links but are otherwise hidden from the reader. We can put inside the Toyota Crown article just above the S180 section. The we can put Toyota Crown in some other article to link to the S180 section. This is more reliable than using the section title because other editors often change the section title (change the dashes, change between model years and calendar years, etc) which breaks any links. Practically nobody changes anchors and we can have multiple anchors for the same section, so linking to anchors requires very little maintenance.   Stepho   (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth
Hi Stepho. I've seen your comment at Talk:Plymouth, so  I  thought  you  might  like to  opine at Malvern, Worcestershire. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I only looked at Plymouth because I'm interested in cars. Also, beware of WP:Canvassing. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about automobile infobox
Hi Stepho-wrs. Since you are member of the WikiProject Automobiles, perhaps you can guide me or provide advice on how to go about the following idea. To the best of my knowledge there is only on template for use as infobox for automobiles. Considering the existing EVs already in the road, the eminent launch of plug-ins and more EVs, and even the features of some full hybrids (a short EV range), it will be very useful to developed a new template or modify the existing one to account for key features such as all-electric range, equivalent fuel economy, the characteristics of the electric motor, etc. Is there somewhere a discussion about this issue? Where would be the right place to propose such a new or improved infobox. I am open to your suggestions. Thanks, and see you around.-Mariordo (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that these are important fields that should be added somewhere. As you said, the two ways to do this is to either extend the existing (but there is always strong resistance to the ever increasing number of fields) or to create a new one, say 'infobox automobile EV' (but keeping this in sync with changes to the old template is a pain). I'd suggest that you raise these two suggestions as a new topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.   Stepho   (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the guidance, I will post the request with some detail in the WikiProject as you suggested (as soon as leisure time allows).-Mariordo (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oil barrels
Stepho, Please see Template talk:Convert and try out 2.8 MMoilbbl. Have fun with that extra "M" which would make the template "correct"...but the "correct" version does mot work. Again, have fun. Peter Horn User talk 19:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the template talk page. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of tyre
No hard feelings. I was following the article since it was started, and took a pause from editing. Imagine my surprise when this popped up on my watchlist and I tracked down some mystery editor that had rewrote the entire article without cause. There are plenty of other articles using tyre (which I found after a quick search). I would support those staying the same as well. I wish you all the best, and now we can put our energies towards improving articles and fighting vandals! Ng.j (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, no hard feelings.  Stepho   (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level
Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the Audi S3, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model.

This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Century Royal
I'm not going to fight the issue as, relatively speaking, you are a somebody around here and I am a nobody.

However, I still have to strongly disagree with you over giving the Toyota Century Royal "flagship" status. It is not a "very limited production" as you say, it's a "one-off" as the article always says. (And that wasn't my edit either!) I think it therefore goes beyond the definition of a factory production car, if going by nothing else than the "spirit" of the term.

And after all, do not flagship cars represent the very best that an automaker sells? And the car in-question was never for sale in the traditional sense. Is the presidential limousine that US President Barack Obama rides in, the one nicknamed "The Best", considered Cadillac's flagship car?

Anyway, that's all. Please think it over and make the change if you see fit to change your mind. I wish you good health and bid you goodnight.BulgeHackman (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! I'm not used to being called a somebody. But your view is just as important as mine. I thought a little about what a flagship is and what a production vehicle is. I still think that the Century Royal is a very limited production run - the article says four were built by Toyota and I assume they were road licensed. But any reasonable definition I can think of also allows concept cars and factory race cars. There is a discussion of whether race car specs belong among the production cars specs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. I think that discussion can be expanded a little to talk about the position of cars like the Century Royal and Obama's Cadillac. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)