User talk:Warren Whyte/Archive 2

OPEL ASTRA
Adam Opel AG (Opel) is the manufacturer of the Astra, while General Motors UK Limited (Vauxhall) being a subordinate business unit within the Adam Opel AG, such as Opel Eisenach GmbH, which is a unit of Opel to manufacturer the Corsa. visit opel.com company or opel media Miniotx
 * That may be so (though not according to various business websites who claim that General Motors Europe AG still exists) but that doesn't answer my point as to why Vauxhall Motors, or GMM Luton, or indeed General Motors Company isn't the manufacturer. You do not say why Opel is as far up, or as far down, the subsidiary/holding company chain that the articles need to refer to... If you could elucidate your reasoning I'd be very grateful. Warren (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SAIC Group
Hi, I would be most grateful for your comments at a post which I have made on the Talk page of the above article (Talk:SAIC Group about whether that article should now be converted to one about SAIC Motor following the recent company reorganisation. Thanks in advance.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

M139 rollback
Ref may support it, but ref is wrong. Just look at these pictures.

Maserati Quattroporte M139 front frame structure;

Maserati GranTurismo/GranCabrio M145 (M139 derived) front frame structure;

Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (M139 derived) frame;

Ferrari California front frame structure.

Does the California look even remotely similar to you? It is not a M139 derivative, no matter what ref says. And the same applies for all other parts of the chassis. Check for yourself on sites like Eurospares, which have all spare parts drawings, including chassis parts. --User:Aprovera (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All very interesting and does indeed look different but Eurospares website not really the normal sort of source one comes across... you could always put in an edit summary which is recommended and is helpful for other editors to understand the reasons for an edit. Also I didn't rollback, I only undid one edit. Warren (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong terminology. I've implemented your suggestion, for which I thank you for, and I hope the reasons for my edit are clear now. Unfortunately, especially regarding exotic cars or supercars, there is much misinformation being spread around, so knowing these cars I'm trying to set the record straight where possible. --Aprovera (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Autopatroller
Hi Warren, thanks for writing about those cars, I think you are more than ready for the WP:Autopatrolled flag, so I've set it on your account. Regards  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Warren (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pininfarina B0/Bolloré Blue Car
Hi Warren. I would like to close the merge discussion of the Pininfarina B0. Would you please drop by the discussion to check my latest post to see if we can reach consensus? Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Mini (marque)
Hi, I would be grateful if you could come and take a quick look at the above article, where IIIraute is now trying to impose a change to the marque's nationality despite the ongoing Talk page discussion, and despite my having reverted them. Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article did tell a lie → Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2007 to present): "The engineering was done in the United Kingdom by BMW Group UK Engineering" There is NO "BMW Group UK Engineering" division.. In 1994 BMW moved all Research and Technology for the MINI to Munich. See: BMW Group →  Research & Development  →  Network  →  Innovation network - there is a big map with all the different development sites.... none of them is based in the UK: BMW Innovation network: BMW Group Research and Innovation Center, Munich; BMW Car IT, Munich; BMW Group Research and Technology, Munich; Innovation and Technology Center, Landshut Plant, Germany; BMW Group Designworks, Munich. All the research and innovation, technology, engineering and IT has been done by BMW in Munich, Germany - where else?--IIIraute (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Italdesign Giugiaro was involved in the car's engineering. The italian version of the website has slightly different wording, saying that "The new generation of Mini has been completely engineered by Italdesign Giugiaro".--Aprovera (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe they were involved and BMW Group hired Italdesign Giugiaro, to coordinate the engineering, etc. - but this did still happen within the domain of BMW Group headquarters, Munich. --IIIraute (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Illraute: you need to cool down a bit. a) the "lie" (or maybe mistake?) was originally written, and subsequently removed, a while back by another editor so what has that got to do with me? b) I removed three refs to the location of the Mini's R&D as none of them supported the statement. However, you may well be right despite the interesting interjection by Aprovera, and you will concede that I did leave in your statement, but just updated the need for an accurate citation. c) And as for where else but Germany? BMW has interests around the globe, including several in the USA, so who knows what part of the conglomerate had an input to the design and development. Look at Chevrolet using bits from Korea, China, USA, Australia, Germany... Car manufacturing and design in the 21st century is an interesting and fascinating topic, so let's enjoy writing about it rather than all the sniping. Warren (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BMW's global presence
Note from BMW's own website: "Our research and development centres are: BMW Group Research and Innovation Center (FIZ), Munich; BMW Group Research and Technology, Munich; BMW Group Car IT, Munich; Innovation and Technology Center in Landshut Plant; BMW Group Designworks, Newbury Park, USA; BMW Group Engineering and Emissions Test Center, Oxnard, USA; BMW Group Technology Office, Palo Alto, USA; BMW Motoren GmbH Steyr, Austria; BMW Group Technology Office, Tokyo, Japan; BMW Group Development Office, Beijing, China." BMW locations


 * I was the editor removing the BMW Group UK Engineering claim, only a couple of days ago. The refs do support the statement, as MINI does belong to the BMW Group and the sites in question are not abroad: BMW Group Research and Innovation Center (FIZ), Munich; Innovation and Technology Center in Landshut Plant; BMW Group Research and Technology, Munich. As for the Designworks, the other ref clearly states that Stephenson moved his team to Munich. Looking at your last ref, you will realize that not a single location is in the UK.--IIIraute (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Stephenson penned the new Mini One R50 and Mini Cooper leading the team which developed the E50 car in Munich".--IIIraute (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For goodness sake, I never claimed the second generation was designed in the UK. But you have not given a clear citation to support your claim it was designed and engineered wholly in Munich (and the fact that ItalDesign was in on the act is also interesting so kind of suggests your assertion is not 100% accurate). Indeed the two pages from BMW Group you cite do not mention Mini at all in their text. Either way, perhaps you might want to bring this back to the relevant article's talk page.


 * As for the first generation, I also do not argue that the final look came from the BMW team in October 1995, but there is no reference to say the UK based Rover team was disbanded at that time and everything was done in Munich? And since when did any editor say that Mini hasn't been part of BMW? And don't forget that BMWism is a BMW fan site so while very interesting, it is also without many references. Warren (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But they mention MINI by being part of the BMW Group (BMW, MINI, Rolls-Royce). "The technological heart of the BMW Group beats in the BMW Group Research and Innovation Center, also known by its German abbreviation, the FIZ... Here, some 7,000 engineers, prototype builders, computer experts, and scientists from many areas... develop vehicles and technologies of the future for the BMW Group." BMWism is as much a valid reference, as are most of the other refs used for the Mini article.--IIIraute (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed BMW's HQ is in Munich (and when did anyone dispute that?) and no-one is disputing the fact that BMW owns the Mini marque - so why keep reiterating? However, nowhere does it say that is where the Mini Hatch second generation was wholly R&D there... I would be more than happy to see a relevant citation, but otherwise your assumptions and suppositions are just that I'm afraid. I find it strange that you persevere with this, but don't want to add in the ItalDesign fact to the article. I hope this doesn't mean you are pushing a POV? Warren (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am abolutely fine with adding Italdesign. But as I did write earlier - they were involved, and BMW Group hired Italdesign Giugiaro, to coordinate the engineering, etc. - but this did still happen within the domain of BMW Group headquarters, Munich... just as Stephenson was hired for the Design.--IIIraute (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Apart from that, I thought we were talking about (2006 to present), and Italdesign was hired earlier and is not involved anymore.--IIIraute (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Italdesign worked on the current generation, which is the one you're talking about. They also worked on other models from the current Mini family, including the Clubman, and the Cabrio. I also have first-hand knowledge of them working on the Coupé and Roadster models, although this last bit of information is not fit for Wikipedia as it's not verifiable with publicly-accessible sources yet.


 * The engineering work by Italdesign was not done within the domain of BMW Group headquarters. It was done in Moncalieri, Italy. And at least some of the engineering was UK based. Magna was involved too. As a sidenote, your Stephenson example is not fitting. He was a BMW Group employee, not a contractor.--Aprovera (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting.... if what you are writing was true. The first two sources (one really) is the same than yesterday - for the other ones ....that must be a joke, come on!--IIIraute (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is closed. Please continue on the article webpage should you wish to continue as the debate is between others and not me. Warren (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Chevrolet - Trinidad and Tobago
Hello Warren. I reverted an unexplained date change here but forgot to put my edit summary, a practice I follow religiously. Just to double check. Is 1998–2001 correct or should it be 1998–2005 that I reverted? Slight Smile  01:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't assist with that I'm afraid, I wasn't responsible for the dates. Warren (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

SLK R170
Hi, I would like to help maintain certain things you added in the SLK article, but I also would like to know how you provided the production dates of January 29, 1997 to April 7, 2004 for the R170. I can't find the sources as I thought November 1, 1996 was when the first 1998 model went into production for release in January 1997.Carmaker1 (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the main SLK article, the car was announced in 1996 at the Turin Motor Show, and presumably manufacturing started some time after that so no reason to dispute your suggestion. Sales in the UK started late in 1996, November being the most cited, so I can't believe I would have made the change to 1997. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback and friends
I just wanted to invite you to a second discussion regarding whether the Subaru Outback deserves a standalone article or if it ought to be merged into the relevant generational articles of Subaru Legacy (and Impreza). Thank you,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have another look and pass comment. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mini Vote
Hey, I have proposed a vote for something to be agreed on once and for all regarding the Mini issues; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mini_%28marque%29#Vote Yellowxander (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

500L
Hi, i don't speak english. In 500L article isn't copy edit o copy viol but is the translation of italian airtcle about Fiat 500L (the two first parts) http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_500L. i can't speak english and for this i translate (with google translate) the italian text (the references is the same) :) --151.75.167.132 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly it reads very badly, and would suggest that you do not rely on Google translate to form the main part of an article. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you correct (sentences, article, ecc) part of the text in Autobianchi Y10 and Lancia Y ?? Or you know a person who translate the text from italian version?? :( Te lo scrivo anche in Italiano: Puoi correggere parte della voce Autobianchi Y10 e Lancia Y ?? Oppure conosci qualcuno che puoi aiutare a tradurre le voci?? :(

Se puoi aiutarmi, ciaoo --Corvettec6r (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have added so much bad text that it would take hours to sort out. I would urge you to do this in a sandbox before pasting into the main article. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Register of architects, ARB
In view of the sections on 'Copies of the Register' and 'Online facility as service for registered persons' which were added to Register of Architects 4 weeks ago, it would not be accurate to conflate the online affair with publication for the purposes of the Act in accordance with the legislation. Qexigator proposes that your addition be removed, perhaps while inserting a cross-reference link to the fuller information about this at Register of Architects .Qexigator (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends how semantic one wants to get, but the Register is available to inspect via the website irrespective of any nuances of the Act. It also seems unfair to make potential extra work for the RIBA Library when the online register will suit many people's requirements. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Warren Whyte: Thank you for your response. Two points which make your edit insufficiently informative. 1_The section is about Inspection of the Register by members of the public. 2_ Accuracy about the effect of legislation relevant to a statutory function affecting public and private rights, such as the Register, can be as necessary as accuracy of measurement in engineering and construction. Qexigator, while not aware that his previous edit could sensibly be treated as 'unfair' to BALT or any other person or body, now proposes a further edit, to read:
 * 'Copies of the Register have been published annually from volume 1 for 1933, and hard bound reference copies of all volumes continue to be available for inspection by members of the public at the British Architectural Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects, London. For other more limited purposes, names of persons currently registered can be searched online at a website maintained by the registration body. ' Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really sure about the hidden agenda suggested by the phrasing about the online register, but seems reasonable enough to me. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Phrasing simply for link to fuller information at the linked article.Qexigator (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Qexigator's edit. I have volume 54 of the Register in my library. Whenever I clear books out to make room for more, this one gets passed over, for I refer to it 3 or 4 times a year. Perhaps historical reference is of interest to only a few, but the loss of that information would nevertheless be a loss. The online information contains no historical data; it is ephemeral, but the printed register has lasting usefulness. Salisian (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair point, but my edit to add access via the ARB website doesn't attempt to deny any of that! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
While our common friend Urbanowatcher may not be the most useful member of en.wp, his brutalist/combative style has certainly served to cause the incidental improvement of a number of articles recently. I salute all (both) of you editors who've made a thousand flowers bloom as a result of this duress. Thanks,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Phaeton
I see your note that some Uk motor vehicles were once called phaetons, can you name one or two? Please, Eddaido (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Austin 10 hp (a contemporary advert can be seen here) for one that immediately springs to mind (an interesting report I just found can be seen here too). <B>Warren</B> (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another period advert here for the Austin Motor Company's 18/24. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aargh! I have been shown to be wrong! And by an Austin advert too. Had to happen some time I suppose. My (Welsh) Granny had a phaeton. When they married in 1876 he promised her her own carriage (family joke). He gave her twelve children and the phaeton was tiny. I remember it in the corner of the stables in my youth. I think it had the name because the front wheels were small enough for the axle to be spun 360 degrees and so it could be turned in its own very short length. Anyway the only cars i ever heard described as phaetons were American - I've led such a restricted life. Thanks for sorting me out, Eddaido (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to set you right! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All of which reminds me, why is there this anxiety to roll US names for things in with British English names for things (I've cars in mind)? Eddaido (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no anxiety! In some areas, the British term wins out, in others, the US term. As long as redirects and the opening lead are clear, I don't get too hung up on the article title. My main aim is to make sure it all makes sense for the average non-specialist reader. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, . . and when you notice a television screen and the news coverage is of a G.P. Championship race you say to yourself, My! Just look at all those Open-Wheel Cars buzzing around?. I think not. Eddaido (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but we do have the British Touring Car Championship... not sure of the point you try to make?! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just that open-wheel cars is a (to me) very strange name for those cars on the tv screen I mentioned and yet you support the use of such names. Why? Eddaido (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You must have me mixed up with someone else; I've never called a GP car an "open-wheel car", nor seen such an article until you mentioned it, so still not sure of its relevance. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You must have forgotten. Well, sometimes people like to roll things into one seeing some commonality yet ignoring what I think are major distinctions. For a computerist (perhaps) the sameness of pizza pies and apple pies (think about it) would lump them together under one name, let's say apple pies, and that would be a mistake. The two pies are almost the same but:
 * (1) an apple pie usually has its topping covered with another layer of pastry and
 * (2) apple pie is generally sweet, pizza generally savoury and so they are generally eaten with appropriately flavoured things.


 * I used this merger / contrast / comparison to point up the unsatisfactory logic behind some merges of Wikipedia articles and you said you found it unhelpful.  That's why I write to you. Can we discuss it further?


 * While I'm here. I almost laughed out loud when I saw this / these edits, my personal sympathies are equally with both parties. :-) Eddaido (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Town and country planning in the United Kingdom
I understand your thinking, but internal links shouldn't have EXT too per WP:EXT. Widefox (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the organisation is sharing a principal domain, so not as clearcut as some internal links. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

C3 Picasso
The first was the prototype. It gives Citroen a year to set up a factory, hire workers, test the vehicle for issues, gauge interest from the public for another MPV in the market etc. All in just under a year before it goes on sale. Clarified? You are also free to help with the Peer Review if you like. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz SLK-CLass
I'm not sure of the form or protocol in replying to one of your edit's, so I apologise if this is the incorrect way to contact you. Re Wiki SLK page. I'm a Brit who runs an international forum for SLKs. Yesterday, I edited the page to include a link to this forum, as it is a useful source of information for current and prospective owners. It seems that you have removed this link, and I was wondering why you have done this? 109.144.233.192 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst I appreciate the work you do here, I think your logic is flawed. You say "This is an encyclopaedia and is not to be used for promotion of ... products/merchandise/publications." - surely a forum where owners can discuss/find help/discuss their vehicles is far less commercial than the other external links which are direct portals to the manufacturers website.86.189.13.73 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, you need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia external links: see WP:LINKSTOAVOID for the link you insist on adding, and WP:ELOFFICIAL for official websites. Secondly, you are arguing about my logic, but you will find that another Wikipedia editor reverted your edit, not me. Please avoid edit warring, and consider registering so that we know who you are. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)