User talk:Typ932/Archive 2

Monobook
I have made several improvements to the monobook code since you last updated yours. Lightmouse (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

10 ft Risk of systematic error
In the Jaguar Mark VIII article I see that ten british feet convert as 3000 mm. That's wrong. I think ten British feet equate to about 3.048 meters. Might there be a systematic error of say 1.5% with this formula? Am I missing something obvious? What should I / you / someone else do if there is?

(How helpful of Jaguar to produce a car with a ten foot wheelbase).

Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

bhp:Kw conversion formula  110 bhp
Sorry to bother you with another of these but ....

I think the bhp / Kw conversion formula is excessively rounding the values. I took a random selection of cars that I have owned or own or used regularly (so for which I know the data relatively well) and found a systematic error averaging above 2%. I added to the sample some figures I'd been taking out of some old ADAC roadtests that I've been looking at, and added two more from powerful cars I wish I'd driven (to check a couple of bigger values). Some of the individual errors got beyond 5%, however, especially with the smaller engines. That's really more than you want when converting bhp power output to Kw output.

Questions:

1.  I'm not an engineer. I could be missing something obvous. Am I?

2.  But if you agree we have a problem here, is there something I or you or ? can do about it?

And please. And thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(I wonder if I can paste my workings here....  No.   But I'll paste the columns from my Excel spread sheet on MY talk page (in case you want to look at them - probably quicker to do the recomputations yourself, though).   That way I can avoid cluttering up your talk page, and clean them off my own talk page in a day or two.)


 * Yes.  Your explanations look like my solution.   Very many thanks.


 * (On 'British bhp' we the British are, as in so many ways, stuck in the gap between the two continents.  At one time one had to distinguish between bhp (SAE) and bhp (DIN).   These days, I think 'British' bhp is always the same as PS.   However, my son, who may be closer to current British usage than I am, doesn't.   You are fortunate in not needing to think about this because you appear to live in a country where they only use one system of measurement at a time.   We still get pounds or kilos and litres or pints selected according to which values the marketing department thinks looks better on the packages of whatever it is they want to sell us.)


 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think should make bmw 340 article with emw details

 * I think I agree with you (though provided there's a link from one to the other it doesn't necessarily matter so much which it is called?).  I guess at least among English speakers far more people would look for it under BMW than under EMW.   I guess that's the thinking behind your remark.
 * In a funny sort of way, BMW 340 looks more difficult than some of the other BMW entries I've been doing because there is much MORE information already in the other wikis, especially (but not exclusively) at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMW_340. So it won't be a quick one to do.   But (unless you will get in and do it first) it has been on my 'to do' list for a while and will stay there until it's been done.   And I'm sure that if I am the one to start it, I'll learn a lot (which is at least a part of the point for me) in the process! Might even improve my 'technical' vocabulary which is a personal weakness that the standard Langenscheidt doesn't fully address - though careful consideration of other wiki translations usually gets me there in the end.
 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me out. -- 224jeff6 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Iso Rivolta
Typ932, did Iso make mopeds? I'm only finding references to their scooters. I am thinking that Category:Moped manufacturers should be changed to Category:Scooter manufacturers, unless you know better. (Either way, Category:Scooter manufacturers should be added, but I'll wait for your advice.) 24.69.22.73 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [ rollback ] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro ?? 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BMW Models Timeline Template
I'm thinking about translating an entry into English on the BMW 3200 CS. In the process, I THINK I MAY have come across a couple of errors - questions anyway - on the timeline template.

I think the E9 link was wrongly directed. I have changed the link. If you think I am missing something obvious, please change it back.

There is a red link for the BMW 3.0 CS somewhere round 1962. I do not think BMW had a 3.0 engine at this date. There was a BMW 3.0 CS later - I think included with the E9 entry. But I have not removed this link in case I am wrong and / or because I don't know what it will do to the rest of the diagram if I start messing with it here. Do you have a view?

(Meantime I'm still thinking about turning the red 3200 CS link blue.)

Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We crossed edits
It looks like we both fixed the same anonymous "ferrari" intrusion at Lamborghini just now. Good work :) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Almera article
Thanks for the updates there, I forgot the predecessor information! James MSC 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template: Lexus
The 2009 RX is included because, if you look at Lexus' website and pressroom.toyota.com, the 2009 RX has been announced. Likewise, on the Toyota cars template, the 2009 Corolla, Camry, and Matrix have been announced. On the Toyota truck template, the 2009 Venza has been announced. On the Honda template, the 2009 Fit has been announced. But all other 2009 models on all four aforementioned templates have not been announced. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why another editor and I had agreed with the usage of blank space instead of the space used for "no model released", something that other editors seem to have disagreed with. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's officially confirmed. It wouldn't be there if the manufacturer hadn't explicitly stated the availability of the 2009 model. Extending lines without confirmation violates WP:Crystal Ball, and not extending lines for announced models does not provide factual, up-to-date information Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actually, the RX proves your assertion wrong. People DON'T know when replacing models are coming, people can only speculate. Case in point, the RX was speculated to be redesigned for MY2009. People had made a section in the RX article stating this fact, and people that advocated extending lines had made the MY2009 RX block a new model. But Lexus announced that the MY2009 RX would be a carryover, proving my point that only announced models are to have extended lines. Speculation can often turn out to be disproven. Another example is the Toyota Sequoia, which had been rumored to be redesigned as an MY2009 car, but Toyota opted to release the new Sequoia as an MY2008 model. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybach Exelero
Alright, thank you. I'm going to get a jumpstart on that. That page needs some serious cleanup! -- Carerra "OoOoOooh!" 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Userboxes
I don't know what you mean. I have a vague idea though. For example, I added the original box on my user page and you left a greeting on my talk page, and adding me to the list of members. Is it that the new userbox doesn't add people to the list of users? And I don't know how to make it add to the list of users. I'm still new to Wikipedia. -- 224jeff6  TALK2ME 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter, Issue 1
If this isn't a swift delivery, then I don't know what is! Enjoy!-- Diniz (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue 2
Welcome to Issue 2!

Fiat 131
You undid some edits to Fiat 131, with particular regard to removing WikiLinks from dates, citing WP:CARS. However, if you were to follow this sub-link - WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts - you will see that you are in fact wrong, as dates are CLEARLY Wikified in car pages. I have therefore reversed your edit. Rgds -- Teutonic Tamer 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reply with the following link Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 makes no mention of NOT including date links - so where exactly are you getting your info from? I personally think you are vey wrong at deleting all the car date links!!! -- Teutonic Tamer 10:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That link you provided (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29) is on a TALK page. Furthermore, that relates to linking years in "lists" - the 131 (and all car articles) are NOT lists.  Until an "item", or specific concern is clarified - and actually appears on the main article page, then it isn't deemed as being the established protocol!  Regarding your comment on why I link years - I thought that would be fairly self explanatory - look at the toolbox on the left side of the page, "what links here" - and you will find that a superb tool for specific searching on a particular subject - particularly year pages.  -- Teutonic Tamer 10:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can justify that linking dates DOES help readers. Take the date when the 131 was introduced - 1974 - readers may also like to learn of any other events of that year: other cars introduced, fashions, global economies, political events, etc, etc.  As far as I can see, there is absolutely no harm in linking dates - afterall, if the reader has no desire to read no further than the original article, they they are not forced to click on the link!  -- Teutonic Tamer 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added my reply on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles - Rgds -- Teutonic Tamer 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you very much, Sir.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

kW template
First, let me say that it is indeed very pleasing to work with you and Charles. --- As you may have noticed, I´ve begun to use PS/hp/kW templates for European (mostly German) cars (and hp/kW templates for the US versions). Now, there are several markets where they have used kW for decades - South Africa, Australia and, strictly speaking, even Europe. What is missing therefore is a template kW - hp - PS (or kW-PS-hp). Unfortunately I´m not able to create such a template. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about those things, so could you probably help? Would be great. Regards, --328cia (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Gosh, hadn´t seen that...that´s a template missing from the Wiki Auto templates page, if I´m not mistaken. Thank you, great! --328cia (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole hp conversion thing will bother us for a long time. It used to be so simple, but with a new DIN norm doing away with the old conversion formula (1.014) and the recent US hp adjustments, this will be Pandora`s box. D`oh! --328cia (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Hi there, yes you're right it is wrong, thanks for the info. Stonufka (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Next NW (Early)
This is early for reasons LB22 and I understand.

Automotive industry
Indeed, all figures are from 2006 (as were the Scania numbers I added). However, if the page reflects current ownership structure (which it does, both for Scania/VW and Daimler/Chrysler, for example) then the 2006 production numbers for each group should also reflect the total of the group members. This is the difficulty in combining current state (company/brand ownership) with old statistics -- but unless we revise the table to reflect the state of the industry as of 31.12.2006, I believe we need to have the numbers match the table. Tomh009 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, those were the 2006 Scania figures I added to VW's 2006 figures. If you're OK with that, then, I'll add them back in. Tomh009 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, will do. Thanks for the suggestion ... ja hauskaa viikonlopun jatkoa! Tomh009 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PS revisited
Hi Typ 932, would you please fill me in why the PS/hp/kW template should be obsolete? Am I missing something? Also, the bhp/kW/PS templates you just inserted into BMW E39 are clearly wrong - 150 bhp equal 152 PS, in the case of 520i for instance, whereas the car had 150 PS = 148 hp. Strictly speaking, a kW/PS/hp template would be correct, as power outputs were officially measured in kW at that time (and semi-officially only in PS). Regards, --328cia (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don´t like kW either - but as the EU is about to rule out any mentioning of PS in advertising and brochures, I think one should respect that (grudgingly). Plus, I don´t see what´s so difficult about the difference between PS and hp; in the final analysis, it comes down to if you´re a narrow-minded, biased person or someone interested in the world outside your own pigsty...(being cynical now). It´s this kind of person that´s increasingly upsetting me; another popular point here is the perennial mixing-up of calendar and model years...(see my recent edit of Porsche 993 for this - introduced in "1995", ha-ha.) --- Happy Easter days, --328cia (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that´s true (and annoying enough). Do you have a link to any model year vs. calendar year discussion or corresponding guideline within the project, for future reference purposes? --328cia (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! (kiitti? kiitos?) --328cia (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A car manufacturers name is not included in the model name
Can i ask why you have reverted to adding the name of the car maker to each car model - mainly listing them as Opel's?

Opel is part of the General Motors group of companies so your listing of the Omega, for example as an Opel product in the title of the article is incorrect as it appears under several different names within the GM group of companies car lists.

Also each of your corrected articles state again for example below:

The Opel Tigra is a small coupe produced by Opel.

You also have introduce repartition in each article where i removed the makers name from car model name and the line above should begin with:

The Tigra is a small coupe produced by Various manufacturers in the GM group.

Opel is the make of the car and Tigra is the model, when you inspect the brochure the cover will say "Tigra" and not "Opel Tigra".

I would welcome your comments on this query?

msa1701 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What i am also saying is that you are labelling all these car models as Opels - but they are also made and badged by other companies within the GM group so your labelling of them as only Opel models is incorrect would you not agree?

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Car brands / models
From your message you see all these cars as Opels but reviewing your homepage you are from Finland so you would only see Opel products, i am in the UK (England to be exact) and we have Vauxhalls which are the same models as yours and these cars are not listed as opels - so the articles should all begin with the model name and then list who it is manufactured by.

What i am saying is listing these cars that you have corrected as for example "The Opel Astra" is incorrect Opel is not the exclusive manufacturer of GM vehicles.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While seeing your point and (honestly) trying to adjust for my continental bias, there´s still the fact that Astra, Omega, Vectra and so on have, to the best of my knowledge, been developed by Opel and were/are mainly built at Opel´s factories. Besides, have you ever seen a "GM Corsa"? I bet not, and in my opinion, it´s sufficient to have an "Opel xxx" page and enumerating in the first paragraph or in the infobox the cloned models, as it is currently handled. According to your logic, there would be a "GM Monza" page, for instance, containing as disparate models as the Senator-based coupé, Chevrolet`s Monza and the Brazilian Vectra-based Monza; I don´t think this would make a lot of sense. Also, in many cases the badge-engineered cars do have their own wiki page anyway, e.g. Holden Astra. --- Like Typ 932, I propose you bring this topic up on the WP:Cars talk page; there will be knowledgable people who can tell if this has been discusssed before or if there are corresponding rules to go by. Cheers, --328cia (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, a Ferrari Testarossa would then be a Fiat?? --328cia (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates reply
Hi Typ932, I replied to your question on my talk page. -- de Facto (talk). 20:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I could be mistaken, but this appears to be a misunderstanding or mistake of some sort, at least at first glance. I've contacted the blocking admin. Please stand by. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's too obvious, I unblocked. Max S em(Han shot first!) 08:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Typ932, my most sincere apologies for this. It seems I accidentally blocked the wrong person at this article by clicking the block button for the wrong contributor, purely by accident. Again, apologies so much for this; if you like, I'll further annotate your block log to note my apology. Thanks also to Max and Luna Santin for dealing with this in my absence. So sorry, and I hope you have a good weekend, Daniel (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominate for F1POM & F1DOM
YOU can nominate for the F1 picture of the month here and F1 driver of the month here. 'Chubb 'enna itor  18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WPF1
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Maserati logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Maserati logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Auto image policy development
Hi, Typ932. 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) 15:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

F1POM and F1DOM
You can vote for the Formula One Picture of the Month/Driver of the Month at User talk:Chubbennaitor/F1POM and User talk:Sage Callahan/F1DOM. We really need your votes as the last picture and driver was decided. 'Chubb 'enna itor  07:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work
I wouldn't have the patience to edit the way you do on car articles. Certainly makes things look a lot better. Good to see. John Nevard (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Prius and Minor edits
Just thought I'd mention that you marked an actual change in the facts of the article and marked it as a minor change. WP:MINOR is for "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera."Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing the list of cars by CO2 and adding substantial data to the sales area, even if they are sourced changes, are changes to the content, not just changes to formatting. The changes you made are sourced additions and fine for contributions, but if you have to cite it, it's not minor.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I use section edits to avoid having to hunt around on the page.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A quiet word . ..


-- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. You seem to be resorting to personal attacks against me (WP:ATTACK), both article talk pages, and on some edit summaries - I don't like them, they are untrue, and I don't see why either I, or Wikipedia should tollerate them. Whilst I accept that we are all individuals, and have differents points of view (sometimes diametrically opposed!), we should all assume respect and good faith towards one another. At the end of the day, we are all here because we want to improve articles in Wikipedia. We are all human (apart from the Bots!), and all make mistakes - if we do find that we are disagreing with each other, then can we please try to work together, rather than antagonising each other. Warmest regards -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree with the WP:CARS (which what I think you meant!) concensus, but I don't think that we should automatically accept that the "current" concensus be "set in stone". I'm sure you have gathered that I am not afraid to challenge the convention, and even if it appears to go against me, at least the issue is raised, and a new perspective to the argument discussion can be added.  I accept that sometimes you win, sometimes you lose in situations like this.  If I do appear to "lose", I would like to hope that it doesn't portray me in a bad way.
 * Regarding the "fan" issue - unlike you, I only have interest in, and experience of European car brands. I do have a specific expertise in Ford, Vauxhall/Opel and the Volkswagen Group brands (being a qualified Motor Vehicle Tech, and working on them for many, many years), which is why I generally stick to what I know, and which is probably why you think I'm a fan of these brands (if anything, I'm more of a "fan" of trucks, and Unimogs!), but I certainly try to be un-biased.  I don't think it would be appropriate for me to edit, say, american car articles (because I have no knowledge of them, and I don't actually like most american cars) - is that a good method or bad?  I too try to be encylopaediac in my edits, sometimes I get it wrong, but I do try to get it right.  I don't know if you have looked at my user page, where you can find details of my academic reference books, which I tend to refer to when in doubt.  Anyway, kind regards -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Conversion formulae on your user page
Morning. I've just noticed the Conversion formulae on your user page - I hope you don't mind if I link your user page on my own! Could I possibly ask a suggestion? Would it be possible for you to put them all in a WikiTable, so that the answer examples are all aligned? One other question, you have striked through the "auto PS" formula, and whilst I understand that the convention is to use kW where preferable, many manufacturers (particularly German and French) still only quote engine power in PS - or is it possible to use one of the existing conversion tepmlates? Regards -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 10:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tables = much better, thanks -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 12:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)
-- Diniz (talk)  20:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your monobook needs to be updated to avoid an error
Hi,

Your monobook needs to be updated to avoid an error. The convert template code has changed and it will no longer accept 'sq' or 'cu' with metric units. Thus '|sqkm|' will have to be changed to '|km2|'. All existing pages have been updated. Any new use of the template with '|sqkm|' will produce an error on the page. The code for non-metric units is unchanged and can be either '|sqft|' or '|ft2|' format.

For example: should be changed to
 * $2 sqft
 * $2 sqft

If you want more advice, please ask at Template talk:Convert. Or ask me, I would be glad to help you update your monobook code. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your monobook needs to be updated to avoid an error
Hi,

Your monobook needs to be updated to avoid an error. The convert template code has changed and it will no longer accept 'sq' or 'cu' with metric units. Thus '|sqkm|' will have to be changed to '|km2|'. All existing pages have been updated. Any new use of the template with '|sqkm|' will produce an error on the page. The code for non-metric units is unchanged and can be either '|sqft|' or '|ft2|' format.

For example: should be changed to
 * $2 sqft
 * $2 sqft

If you want more advice, please ask at Template talk:Convert. Or ask me, I would be glad to help you update your monobook code. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)