User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2012

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there, Stepho. I don't believe we've met, but you were mentioned to me recently as someone who might be able to review an article and help determine whether it needs work before warning tags can be removed, or if it is OK now. The article in question is

The article is my creation, undertaken as a project on behalf of Global Automakers. Well aware that my connection to the subject presented a potential

The bottom line is that I feel I was very careful about disclosing my

Good gravy. I don't aim to crap up your talk page; I will keep this note short so I can go lever my eyebrow back down to its neutral position from where it was elevated by the article in question. My comments are

here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C

05:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the long delay in answering - at work I'm tied to the desk and can answer quickly but at home the wife has me outside doing chores :(

I've been watching the debate from the sidelines but didn't feel any great urge to stick my nose in. But since I've been asked, I'll look into it and I'll try to give a fair assessment over the new couple of days.  Stepho  talk  01:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year. I've started a discussion at ANI. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, i guess it makes sense to split it up by class that way. In that case, in the future, next time I add a different class to an article, should I always split it up? Is this a rule or just you neatening up the article?

There is no hard and fast rule. It just seems to make more sense to put things that changed by generation into the generational infoboxes and put the things that never changed into the overall box. Otherwise it could be argued that every engine, every length, every weight, etc ever used in the vehicle could be put in the overall infobox with lots of (2002-2005) qualifiers. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  04:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect the "In 2009 (for the 2010 model year)" preferred format puts all the onus on American cars (which have more than their share of superlatives). Given Americans are only 5% of the world's population I suppose this is fair, and now that I know this, I shall attempt to use this format in the future. But, let me pose a question. If non-Americans state that something occured in say "1971" are we to assume that is a calendar year? The reason I ask is because it appears that there is a tie between Imperial and Nissan for 4-wheel electronic ABS. But if Nissan did not introduce it until January 1971 then clearly Imperial gets the trophy.

By the way I appreciate the civil criticism. It is truly refreshing. Sadowski (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made changes there prior to your reply. Please don't view these changes as presumptious. Sadowski (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, civil discussions are a rarity on WP. I find civility is both more enjoyable and is more likely to get the desired results.

Unfortunately America and the rest of the world have developed differing ways of label automobile years. America typically changes to the next year around Aug-Oct. So a Ford made in Nov 2011 is called a 2012 Ford. Most other countries would call it a 2011 Ford. For cars that are predominantly sold in America (eg Mustang) many readers painfully learn that the model years are typically one year ahead of the manufacture date. But for cars sold around the world (eg Toyota Corolla) we wind up with an American editor talking about the 2012 Corolla and an English editor talking about the 2011. For some countries, the year is the calendar year of introduction, so the 2011 Corolla could go from mid 2011 to mid 2012 - as opposed the an American calling the exact same car a 2012 Corolla for the exact same time period. Both are talking about the same car but it gets even more confusing when the English editor talks about the 2011 Corolla (ie the current car) and the American editor talks about the 2011 Corolla (ie the previous model). After much discussion, the Automobile Project agreed that the Americans were the unusual case (as opposed to the rest of world), so unqualified years refer to calendar years.

For your recent changes after my first post to you, perhaps you have gone a little too far. "In 2009 (for the 2010 model year)" is preferred for prose (as I pointed out) but it gets a bit tedious when over used. Calendar years are still preferred but American style model years can be used as "2010 MY" for brevity. The main idea is to point out that Americans use a different dating system and that both American and non-American readers should be aware of this. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  04:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how this is in any way a useful edit? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I was trying to revert the same thing that you were reverting and must have made a mistake somewhere.  Stepho  talk  01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, we probably tried it at the same time; headdesk! Silly software. Oh well - no harm, no foul :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Stepho, i'm having trouble with one of the templates you provided for Euro NCAP results. I can't get the reference in the table without it messing up and so i'm left with a reference name and no reference. How do i fix that? Here's the ref im trying to add http://www.euroncap.com/results/citroen/c3_picasso/2009/344.aspx Thanks Jenova20 15:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Easiest way is to add |reference_code=344 to the template (same number at the end of the link you gave me). This is true for all 2009+ cars.  Stepho  talk  00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Will that reference+344 always be different?

Sorry, just looked at your change and this is jibberish to me. I can see you did something, i just don't think i could replicate it even for £1,000,000.

Very grateful though, thanks Stepho Jenova20 08:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The trick is to find the page on the Euro NCAP web site. Look at the numbers at the end of the web address. In this case, the Picaso page had 344.aspx at the end. I think they just increment the number for every test they do. So, 344 is Euro NCAP's code for the 2009 Picasso test. We add |reference_code=344 to the template and it can then figure out the full address to the PDF file (which is also based on the number 344). Other cars will have a different number. E.g. The 2010 Honda Civic is at http://www.euroncap.com/results/honda/civic/2012/475.aspx, so we take the numbers at the end and use |reference_code=475 in the template on Wikipedia's Civic article.  Stepho  talk  08:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's ingenious! =]

Thanks so much Stepho Jenova20 08:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can i ask just one more favour?

I'd like the table on the left and the writing to the right but the few attempts i made didn't work. And i would assume you could do something so simple. Thanks Jenova20 11:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that will be trickier. I will have to study other templates and see how they put things left or right. Probably it will be another parameter.  Stepho  talk  22:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you have the time as it would save a lot of wasted space =]

Thanks Stepho Jenova20 23:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a new parameter. Add |align=left to put the table on the left and other text on the right. Add |align=right to put the table on the right and other text on the left. If the parameter is not present then the table uses the entire line and the text appears underneath (ie same as before). I've done the C3 for you.  Stepho  talk  04:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for that, it's great =]

Any criticism on the article currently that stands out? Thanks Jenova20 08:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mostly it looks fine. The references would be better formatted with {{

web cite}}. All metric units would be better with {{convert}}. I've done a couple - compare before/after my last change.  Stepho  talk

  09:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an improvement =]

I'll give it a try, i'm just adding more text at the moment. Thanks Jenova20 10:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it would be better to fix those engine code redirections also, otherwise the same problem is again there soon, if some bot or e.g autowikibrowser is used on that page -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll put them up for deletion.  Stepho  talk  09:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask you why you undo my contributions to the Lexus ES and Toyota Avalon articles. I changed wheelbases because they were wrong. They where put in inches and then converted to milimeters. But because 1 milimeter is more precise measure than 0.1 inch, if you write a measurement in inches a conversion in milimeters will be wrong (it could be correct only by luck). If you have a measurement in milimeters a conversion in inches will always be correct. You could see that my conversions to inches stay the same thay were before. So please undo your undo. I noticed a lot of wrong measurements in wikipedia automotive arcticles because they are written mostly by british, americans, AUSTRALIANS who don't have meter standards. So rather than undoing my contributions, help me changing dimensions, becauese we have a ton of work. Let me tell you that japan (they have a meter standard) automakers wheelbases (they define platform) almost allways end with a digit 0 or 5. In milimeters of course.--Zvrkljati (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You are partially correct. The US inch is defined as exactly 25.4 mm, so 1⁄10 inch is 2.54 mm. So metric measurements do give a finer measurement than imperial (roughly twice as good). However, we must also be careful of false accuracy. For example, if I measured the width of a town in metres and then converted to feet, it would appear that the feet measurement is 3 times more accurate. To say that Japanese manufacturers always make vehicles to 5 mm (ie end in 0 or 5) is an assumption. I have hundreds of brochures and manuals for Toyota vehicles (collecting old Toyota cars, brochures, manuals, etc is my hobby) and I too have seen that the numbers they display are nearly always rounded to 5 mm. But I suspect that these are actually rounded numbers and are not the true measurements - especially on measurements like length and wheelbase that involve flexible parts like bumpers and rubber tyres that can flex by a few mm. I have looked at many chassis diagrams that show measurements like the distance between suspension mounting points and they are often shown as 0.1 mm - not rounded to 5mm or even 1 mm. My training (I have a mathematics degree) has taught me to take whatever number I am given and to work in those units. I checked the references for the Avalon and the ES and the reference all used 1⁄10 inches. To convert these to mm and then use {{convert}} to convert them back to inches is mathematically wrong. You are taking a measurement in inches (from the references), converting it to mm, applying a rounding factor based on an assumption and then converting it back to inches and applying a second rounding factor of 1⁄10 inch. However, if you can find reliable references that gives those measurements in mm, I would be more than happy to use them. My country (Australia) has used metric since 1966 (also the year I was born). I have changed many articles to use metric measurements if I can find a reliable reference. If all the references are in inches than I change the article to consistently show metric first and then inches second by using disp=flip in the conversion (this feature was added to 'convert' at my request). I prefer metric whenever possible but I am mathematically forced to use inches if the references only give inches.

However, there is another way to that might make us both happy. 'convert' has a disp=5 feature that rounds to 0 or 5. I will ask the maintainers of 'convert' if they can make the disp=5 and disp=flip features available at the same time. This way, the inches measurement is still used as input but displays mm ending in 0 or 5 . Cheers.  Stepho  talk  20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I was talking exactly about false accuracy when measures are given in inches and then converted in mm. I never talked about or changed lengths of a car because they vary from market to market. I only correct wheelbases. Wheelbases are almost impossible to change unless you totally redesign a car. Nothing flexes. I personally collect data about automotive platforms and wheelbases. Wheelbases often end in 0 or 5 because they are the fist thing that is defined when you engineer a car. That's not my assumption, that's a fact. Reliable reference can be a Japanese wikipedia (and sometimes German). I use it as a reference. You don't have to understand a word of Japanese to distinct a measurement, but I see you do understand a little. Again. A fact that proves that my measurement from Japanese wikipedia in mm are correct (and finer) is that conversions to inches stay the same they were from your manuals. Thank you! --Zvrkljati (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

About disp=5 feature. I don't like it. I prefer exact measures. --Zvrkljati (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE say that wikis (Wikipedia or otherwise) are not reliable references. Can you provide a reference (not a wiki) that wheelbases are always designed as ending in 0 or 5 mm. As a counter example, please look at measurements taken from Toyota chassis repair guides - http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/engcodes.htm#Crossmembers . You can see that critical design points like the front suspension mounting points are definitely not restricted to multiples of 5 mm. Or look at this data for many measurements like weight, front/rear track, power, torque - http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/celprod.htm

. You can see that nearly all numbers end in 0 or 5. I find it very hard to believe that every engine Toyota made in the 1970s and 1980s made power that ended in exactly 0 or 5. It is much easier to believe that the numbers are rounded for display/marketing purposes.

Alternatively, can you provide a reference (again, not a wiki) that gives wheelbase values ending in 0 or 5 . We can not use the Japanese Wikipedia as direct reference but sometimes it shows a reliable, external reference that we can copy. If I'm only given references that say the Avalon XX30 wheelbase is 111.0 inches then I can not convert to mm, round to 5 mm and then convert back to inches. But if at least one reliable, non wiki reference is in mm, then I can use that as input to the convert template. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  00:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Avalon XX30 and XX40: http://pressroom.toyota.com/releases/sensational+new+2013+toyota+avalon+world+debut+2012+new+york+auto+show.pdf

--Zvrkljati (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have used the mm measurements for the Avalon XX30 and XX40.  Stepho  talk  07:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have twice reverted an edit made without citation or justfication. The link (have you followed it?) is potentially offensive, and I am not aware of any connection with the VW Type 2 - I heard the epithet more often with reference to the Ford Transit. I think the edit verges on vandalism, which is why I orginally rolled it back. I would like you to know, though, that I take considerable offence at your categorising my two edits as "edit warring". Might I suggest you read

To quote from the first line of

WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Mr Neese added something which you didn't like and you reverted it. That's fine and normal. Mr Neese should have then opened a discussion on the talk page to attempt to convince you of why his edit was valid. Mr Neese took the next step into the edit war by reverting your revert. At this point you should also have opened a discussion on the talk page to attempt to convince Mr Neese why his edit was wrong. You took the next step into the edit war by reverting his revert of your revert. These are the first steps by both sides into an edit war. I was bit blunt by calling both sides uncivil though. However, you have now entered into a conversation on the talk page and have not done any more reverts (adding a 'cn' instead - thank you), so your behaviour has become civilised and I thank you for that. Mr Neese remains on the uncivil side in spite of my asking him on his own talk page to discuss it on the Type 2 talk page. Note that I am neither for, nor against your position - I am only trying to get to the conflicting parties to present their reasons on the talk page so that a consensus can be found. Cheers.  Stepho  talk

  23:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In this context "repeatedly" means more than two edits. I removed the inappropriate text, My edit was reverted, and I repeated it, with a reason. That is neither uncivil nor an edit war. Your accusation, on the other hand, is uncivil. Could I suggest you refrain from sitting in judgement on other editors quite so precipitately? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't repetitively mean more than once? Nonetheless, I apologise for my bluntness.  Stepho  talk  03:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Sorry to be nosey here but Stepho this reference you used - [1] has been picked up by my Kaspersky anitivirus as having a concealed trojan on the page. Don't know if it's a false positive but beware. Thanks Jenova20 08:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. My site was infected a few months ago and did indeed have a simple redirect/popup added to it but I cleaned it. Not sure if it has been attacked again or if Kaspersky is just being slow to update its status but I will double check it. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  08:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked my website and it had an extra iframe on each page that inserted code from googlecounter.in . That site typically lies dormant for a long time and then suddenly springs to life for a short time, giving viruses to every visitor. I removed all trace of it - the advantage of a hand coded site is that I know what every single line does and nasty stuff sticks out like a sore thumb. It may take a while for Kaspersky's robots to rescan it and give it the all clear. Thanks for the heads up.  Stepho  talk  23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You did good, it's showing as clean now. Jenova20 08:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to

Hi Simon. Wikipedia does not promote either term above the other. For topics closely related to America, the American usage of 'gasoline' should be used (typically for American made vehicles). For topics closely related to Britain and other members of the British Commonwealth (eg my home of Australia), the British term 'petrol' should be used. For non English speaking countries (eg Japan), either may be used according to the first editor's preference. This is spelt out in

WP:ENGVAR. For myself, when editing Toyota articles (my main task in WP), I prefer 'petrol' whenever I get the option (ie no previous use of 'petrol' or 'gasoline'), otherwise I just follow whatever was put in place by earlier editors. Sometimes an article has a mix (like fuel injection), so I convert it to whichever was more common on that particular article. Since 'turbocharged petrol engines' is not directly related to either the British Commonwealth or America, the choice is entirely yours.  Stepho  talk

  00:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Stepho. By the way, sorry for accidentally putting this in your front page instead of talk. — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 01:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries.  Stepho  talk  04:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's Not A Comparision. It's Not Silliness. Previa, Sienna, Ipsum, Wish, Spacio, Verso , Yaris Verso And Verso-S/Ractis/Space Verso Are Rangemates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.162.92 (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about this at Talk:Toyota Sienna#Sienna vs Precia vs Wish. You are quite welcome to participate in the discussion there. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stepho. Since you are more familiar with all the conventions of WP:AUTO, do you think the new BYD Qin plug-in hybrid should have its own article, or should in be considered the second generation of the BYD F3DM, and included as such in the existing article? Check this source here, and there are a couple more in the F3DM article. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: And I almost forgot. The article

transit lane is about to be merged to High-occupancy vehicle lane. During the merge discussion one editor (see here

) said that in Australia these HOV lanes are only used in city streets and not in motorways. I google but I couldn't find any details, and actually transport authorities call them both HOV and transit lanes. Since I am about to make a major expansion of HOVt article, can you confirm how the transit lanes (T2 and T3) work in your country.? Thanks.

I'm afriad I can't help much with the transit lanes either. Western Australia (my home) doesn't use HOV lans (in name or in actual use). Around 1990 we tried a multiple persons required (ie driver and at least one other) for a single bridge that was a major entry point to the central city but it was stopped soon after as impractical. It seems to be a thing used by the more crowded east coast cities. We do have "bus only" lanes but only on a few major roads and a few entry/exits for highways.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When the time comes, I will keep the Qin article separate.--Mariordo (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, in case you didn't realize, there actually isn't a 2008 model year in north america, and the facelift was in 2011, not 2010. Thanks.

Hi! The misunderstanding is because of the difference between model years and calendar years. A vehicle introduced during the 2008 calendar year corresponds to the 2009 model year. Wikipedia has an international audience that has little or no understanding of the US model year system, so we need to use calendar years. I changed the title of the table column to say 'Calendar years' to make this clearer. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  06:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but calender years would be confusing to anyone because of how Model years work in North America. Also, wouldn't going by calendar years technically make the 2ZZ-GE engine from 2008-2010, because there were some 2010 models produced in 2010? Just saying.

Bookster451 (talk

) 04:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Conversation continued at talk:Toyota Corolla (E140)#there isn't a 2008 model year in North America.  Stepho  talk  06:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sosrry about the confusion. I didn't realize it once said calendar years. I fixed that.

Bookster451 (talk) —Preceding undated

comment added 17:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

No worries. We all make mistakes from time to time.  Stepho  talk  23:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Not you! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a relief. Hope I'm not the enabler :( Either way, I'll try not to stir it up.  Stepho  talk  12:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stepho, i'm trying to create a tree for a project (User:Jenova20/List of Civilization III Technologies) with a Cladograph (Template:Clade) but can't even get close to what i want. Are you any good with these? I only ask since you're the brainiest person at templates i know. Plus i can bribe with rewards/barnstars =P Thanks Jenova20 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cladographs are new to me too but I'll have a look.

Could you list out a few of the relationships in simple text form (eg A splits to B,C,D ; B splits to E,F ; C splits to M..P ; ).

You might also want to look at

familytree}}.  Stepho  talk

  04:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The best way would be to email what i already have as i was about to cheat by using an image.

If even 1 Cladograph is finished i should be able to do the further few i require.

Thanks, will email Jenova20 08:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the simpler option completely was missed. Here it is [2]

The biggest problem i can see is that i would have to build it backwards and i just couldn't figure that one out. Thanks Jenova20 08:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately a cladograph won't be enough. See how Mathematics has 2 inputs. You need a bi-direction graph (each node can have multiple parents and can split into multiple children) and cladographs are uni-directional graphs (one node can split into many smaller nodes but never has more than one parent). I will look around but I don't know of any existing templates that do this.  Stepho  talk  15:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's terrible news! I looked at all the tables and that looked the best option =[ Jenova20 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Are

template:Cladex any use? Thanks Jenova20

13:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the Clade group of templates won't do. Cladographs can only split as you go from the left to the right. But your picture wants to both split and merge. so far I haven't found anything that will do the job. You might have to use paint after all.  Stepho  talk  13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh well...it was a nice dream to have. Thanks for looking Stepho and i appreciate the effort Jenova20 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries.  Stepho  talk  13:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting typo. Hengistmate (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem.  Stepho  talk  23:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, can we use the photos of the Briska at this site using the same copyright declaration used for the factory photos of the Chevy Corvair? (Regushee (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

I would say no because the original copyright belongs to Hino. Otherwise I have hundreds of brochure photos that I would love to use for Toyotas from the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe a lo-res version could be used under fair use due to it being nearly impossible to find other photos but you would have to ask someone more knowledgeable about such things. But you can use that brochure as a reference - including a link to that site.  Stepho  talk  22:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that this image of a Cervo has been up for nearly three years by now. The worst thing that could happen is that someone would find a free pic and then the other one would be deleted - but that'd be a good thing, right?  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I note that your recent edit to the above article is to change "Commercial U.S. production is slated to begin in December 2012 at Nissan's manufacturing facility in Smyrna, Tennessee" from 'is' to 'was'. I'd think Nissan still plan to open its new plant and start production by the end of this year. Has Nissan changed its plan? Thanks.---Now wiki (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake., I was thinking of Dec 2011. Thanks for the heads up.  Stepho  talk  14:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs: Thanks for your questions about connections between diecast companies. I keep tabs on many of these pages. If I find out anything I certainly will address where appropriate. Looked on the Biante website and saw some references to AUTOart, but could not figure any clear connection yet. Best to you. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven. I've seen your many good edits on various diecast pages and I am very grateful for your work. I collect scale model Toyotas (mostly of older Toyotas), so my interests are mostly on Japanese manufacturers. I have a huge amount of info on the real cars, but unfortunately I have very little solid information on the model manufacturers. There seems to be a craze in Japan for putting scale model cars on top of drink cans from vending machines and in chocolate eggs - I have a modest collection of them too.  Stepho  talk  00:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an extensive collection of small-scale models, mainly Japanese cars. If you need any photos or such, I would be more than happy to assist (although it will take me four weeks as I am currently travelling).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like our interests overlap once again :) I don't have any great intention to write much about scale cars but that's mostly due to lack of knowledge about the manufacturers. Like you, I also should make photos of the cars in my collection. You might want to search the web for ToyotaGeek for some real nice Japanese collections.  Stepho  talk  07:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. On my Brooklin Models page there is a user 75.79.15.35 (talk)‎ who keeps deleting information that I put on. This is mostly information that I have cited and it builds on the article. He just changes (mainly eliminating) stuff I put in without any comment or explanation. Could you take a few minutes and review his and my changes, and give me your opinion? In my view, he is in, or close to, vandalism. It is to the point where I simply undo his deletes of my information. How would this person (I.P.) be limited or blocked - if administrators see that as the final outcome? Thanks for your help, now and in the past.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talk page. I doubt it will make a difference but we have to at least give him a chance. He may be just a new guy who has a legitimate complaint against the Roberts information but doesn't know how to tell us (after all, he did remove it cleanly and left the rest of the article alone - ie periods still in place and no half sentences). But more than likely he is just jerking our chain. Keep reverting him as long as he gives no explanation. As long as he gives no explanation, then I will revert him too to help avoid

WP:GAIAV. Cheers.  Stepho  talk

  23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that your table on Stout dimensions accidentally had the wrong bed dimensions for the RK101 - could you do me the favour of double cheking this number in your RK47/100 and RK101 manual? I am curious if JDM Stouts received the elongated cab, and if so when it may have happened. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Double checking bed lengths:

• RK47: 2,275x1,575x425
• RK100: 2,275x1,575x425
• RK47V-B: 2,245x1,560x1,205
• RK101, RK101-K: 2,275x1,575x425

only the panel van (RK47V-B) is different.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean, sorry about that. I agree somewhat with that. Unfortunately it does has the same effect vice-versa, as a great deal of automotive journalists and enthusiasts will get such things wrong themselves. One person might say that, "The LS430 debuted in 1999" as it's listed as a 2000 model or on paper mistake a 2000 LS400 to be the same as car an early production LS430. I've seen this happen a few times, so that's really where I was coming from. Also, the LS430 was actually released to the United States in October 2000, definitely not mid-2000. I remember my father doing car shopping in late July 2000 for a new luxury flagship sedan and the LS400 configurator was still present on the Lexus website. There was no trace of the LS430, as it even went on sale in November/December 2000 outside of the US. The original UCF20 was only sold in the US from November 1994, later being introduced in January 1995 for Europe and parts of Asia. Yet it is called a 1994 model when it really isn't, the first generation is. You won't find a 1994 registration UCF20 anywhere in Europe as it wasn't sold there that year. Even as someone from the very city where Jaguars are now made, I don't understand why a vehicle introduced in December of 2012 will be called a 2012 model alongside its 2012 predecessor. I understand for anything released between January and August 2012, but not as late as the 4th quarter. That is not how the automakers do it themselves. I think this confusion happens as only in the U.S. is it that model years are officially advertised by corporate press and media. In Europe I have never seen corporate marketing campaigns point out a model year as they rather shy away from them. Only dealerships, third-party media and/or vehicle registrations do that. This practice has allowed for people in developing countries to scam and defraud customers into buying an older model of a car that became all-new or updated the same calendar year. An uninformed man looking for a newer facelifted "2004" Mercedes-Benz C-Class W203(MY2005) was almost tricked into buying a pre-facelift 2004 C-Class due to a seller considering both of them to be the same model year of 2004. In the U.S. they simplify this by separating all-new or updated models into different model years. I will say though that it has gotten way out of hand in the last 15-20+ years. Now you have 2013 models debuting in 2011 and going on sale in January 2012, instead of October-December 2012 which would be more plausible. Anything newly manufactured after September 30th of this year should not be called a 2012 model, unless it is a completely new addition to an automaker's line-up. It would be a less complicated world if new or updated/facelifted cars were released in January and model years truly ran through December. Thank you for politely explaining this all to me.---Carmaker1 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it sure is a mess no matter which way we slice it. I've been confused on some older Toyotas that finished they're 1973 modle year on 1 jan 1973. Had me confused no end until I figured out that the 1973 model years started in mid 1972.

The best we've come up with so far is to mark the model years field in the infobox the way the Americans want it - that stops them from changing the production field. The production field is then marked by calendar years and preferably with a month - which avoid the Americans converting it to model years and also avoids the confusing you said above with pre/post facelift changes within a calendar year. Section headings are always done by calendar years inclusive of both start and end dates (excepting purely American market cars which can use the US style model years). Eg a vehicle sold from Oct 2003 to Aug 2007 has Oct 2003 – Aug 2007 in the production field in the infobox, 2004–2007 in the model years field in the infobox, 2003-2007 in the generation section heading and generally says things like "In 2003 (for the 2004 model year), ..." or even better "In Oct 2003 ..." To be consistent, we need to do this even for vehicles introduced in December - consistency helps a lot to clear confusion.

We also need to be aware of international readership. So, if a vehicle is introduced in Japan in Sept 2002 but doesn't go to the US until Sept 2003, then it must still be listed as starting in 2002 (preferably with the month as well), even though an American would say it didn't start until the 2004 model year. of course, we should try to clarify misunderstandings by saying in the text that sales to any particular major market (Us in this case) were delayed by a significant time by saying something "Sales in the US began in September 2003 (for the 2004 model year). There's a bit a question mark about whether the model years (a US invention) in the infobox should reflect only US sales or world wide sales - ie there never was a 2003 model year for that vehicle in the US but other markets didn't use model years for that first year.  Stepho  talk  10:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, I greatly apologize for not replying back as Wikipedia never alerted me unfortunately. I will gladly be accommodating to the world market and not the monopoly-market US. It does fit in much better with development and production dates in some articles, as it does look weirder if a car's general outward appearance dates back 6 years, next to it's first U.S. model year(i.e. Mercedes-Benz vehicles). I'll clean up articles with dates that appear strictly as U.S. influenced model years and have them reflect international standards. Thanks again!--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stepho-wrs. I have started a discussion at WP:CARS about {{Toyota vehicle}}, which you recently created. I invite you to participate in the discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.  Stepho  talk  10:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated {{Toyota vehicle}} and {{Toyota engine}} for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wayne. Can you place the percentage symbol on the car templates in bold to match the other two? As you can see on Citroën C3 Picasso, there are 3 columns but only 2 headers are in bold and the percentage sign isn't. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean where it says 'Test Points %' ? Its hard to see but the % already is in bold. Copy and paste that % to a word processor. Then copy and paste the ordinary % from the adult line. Highlight both and change the font size to something large (be careful not to set them both to the same font). They will look a little different. You can also experiment turning bold on/off on each in the word processor. Sadly, Wikipedia's choice of font for bold table headings has a rather skinny % character.  Stepho  talk  09:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's strange...oh well...Thanks for the quick response. It really was a minor issue anyhow ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the template previously allowed more than one image at the top. Now it doesn't. Was this deliberate and if not would it be easy to fix? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, one image per infobox was the recent consensus on the automobile project page (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#How to separate the bot edits from the "normal" edits and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Production years and model years when start dates don't line up. This was always the intention but the old infobox code didn't enforce it. Other images (if still wanted) should be put into the article by other means such as [[File:filename.jpg]].  Stepho  talk  02:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, well, no wish and so no intent to start a squabble about it but I can't see a consensus there. You have the advantage on me - you see the whole project overall in a way I don't, well, OK, in a way I can't be bothered to (mind not big enough or devoted enough to the subject) - some things are better left to others! Still I miss that facility too as well as frames and brakes and suspension which were once upon a time important and track when a high enough wind might blow a vehicle over. Regretful regards, Eddaido (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stepho-wrs. I'm not sure I understand your complaint about trying to define where a city is in relation to another city. I am a geographer, so I politely disagree. I think it IS important to understand where a company is and why - it can explain a lot. Oporto is a city of nearly a million people. This industry, then was taking place not in some isolated village, but in the 'suburb' of a major urban area. To say it is not useful to those not from the area is to assume nobody knows nor cares where a product is made. For me, this IS important information, as it informs, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly on the 'reason for being' of the business. Just my 2 cents. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! If we were on the Espinho, Portugal article, then yes, I'd agree with you that mentioning the large nearby city of Oporto would be useful - in fact, the Espinho article does exactly that. In the context of List of model car brands, does the location of a nearby city add anything worthwhile for somebody just interested in model cars? Perhaps it would be useful if there was some history showing that they had to produce outside Oporto or some other similar reason but so far there is nothing to hint that the exact location is needed on this particular article. The original entry had the name of the town and the name of a nearby city but not the country. I had to search for a country that had both the town and the city before I knew which county it was from. I'm not going to make a big case of it if you choose to add it back in but to me the location of nearby cities is not relevant in this particular context. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  09:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Hello ! Thanks for your help with this, and with other matters on Toyota related articles earlier on ! Sincerely, Hoikka1 (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Paljon kiitoksia. Thank you very much.  Stepho  talk  10:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stepho, any good references for the ST151 Corona? Also, the AT151 is of interest - these were presumably export-market models (also sold as the Carina II in Europe) but I would love to pin down some hard info on them. I found an old NZ catalog on eBay which may give me summat, but you ought to be a good resource.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look when I get home tonight. My interest is mostly in the RWD models (stopping at the T140 series) but I may have something floating around. My off-the-cuff guess is that ST150 and ST151 differ mostly in the base engine (ie 1S vs 2S vs 3S). Likelwsie, I'd guess that the AT150 and AT151 differ in the base engine (ie 4A vs 3A).  Stepho  talk  04:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Too tired to do a proper look but this might help you:

• http://www.toyotaoldies.de/galt15.html

Note: "Limousine" means sedan.

T140 was the last of the RWD Coronas. The T150 series was the first FWD Corona and also when the Carina took on the Corona chassis (the Celica joined with the T160 series, when the Celica coupe and the Corona coupe were practically indistinguishable to the untrained eye). The T150 series looked a bit like the Camry V10 series. I've got the full model list of export production in the 1984 Toyota Vehicle Identification Manual. It lists the T150 series in a common section for both the Corona and Carina II. Export grades were STD, XL, GL, DX. Gearboxes were 3/4 speed floor shift auto and 4/5 floor shift manual. ST150 has 1S-L, AT151 has 4A-L, CT150 has 2C-L. All came as sedan (4-door) or liftback (5-door). AT150 and ST151 apparently restricted to Japan (some with twincam 4A-GELU and 3S-GEU) but I don't have references for that at hand. Too tired to research more tonight.  Stepho  talk  13:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The 2S-engined ST151 seems to have been available in NZ and some European markets. What I have been able to find suggests that the ST151 only appeared in late 1985, so it wouldn't be in the sacred VIM (I need to get my own!). Also Peru and Thailand seem to have gotten it. I think I am getting bogged down in silly detail here, I should probably get cracking with my calculus homework instead! Toyotaoldies was where I first saw mention of the ST151. Was the ST161 model code restricted to late 1838cc JDM Celicas?  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. My book stops at late 1984, so I can't verify beyonf that. Beware that NZ often had grey market imports second hand from the Japanese market rather than normal export models.  Stepho  talk  23:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I just got an old Corona Van brochure (45.06, aka June 1970) for the new Corona Van. It seems like an introductory brochure, is the 70.02 intro date for the Wagons gospel, or was it assumed? Also it was available as the PT86V in Japan, with the 1345cc 3P engine. Would you like a scan? Another minor errata is that the RT86V is a three-speed manual, not an auto.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The T80 series was introduced in Feb 1970 - including the RT86V and PT86V. I just checked these in my parts catalogues. Actually, the PT86V is new to me (could have sworn the P series engines were phased out in to 1960s) but it also checks out in the parts catalogues as Feb 1970 to Aug 1971. The RT86V went from Feb 1970 to Jan 1971 with the 2R engine and was then replaced by the RT87V with the 12R engine (Feb 1971 to Jul 1973) I'd love to have a scan. Would you like me to put it on my website with other scans? http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brochures/  Stepho  talk  22:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I am happy to share this with the world and am glad that you are willing to provide the medium and space. August 1971 is news to me, I will update the Toyota P engine page accordingly.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Got them. They're in place now.  Stepho  talk  23:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Stepho. I'm comfortable with your first couple of edits here, where you substitute reasonable uncited content for more detailed and thus more questionable uncited content. However, you then go on to insert "choice of a 1,407 cc

You are right that I did not add a proper reference. My only defence was that I was rushing to leave for work but didn't want to leave the article implying that the Carina was a Corona-sized performance car. In Japan the lowest Carina had the 1407 cc T engine and drum brakes. This model was not offered outside of Japan, so most people think all Carinas had the 1588 cc 2T engine and disk brakes. I will add proper references tonight (parts catalogues, brochures, repair manuals and Toyota histories) and remove the English reference (or at least mark it as UK only). I intend to give the article a good overhaul 'one day' :)  Stepho  talk  04:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle here - the Carina was indeed marketed as a sportier family car in most places (hence no Vans originally, and none in the export markets until later). I have lots of local references to support the Carina's sporting nature, naturally without putting it on par with the Celica. A 1.4 Carina, while not powerful, still had sportier intentions than a 1.4 Bluebird - perhaps. But maybe we ought to have this conversation at the Carina talk page instead? And obviously all of us need better sourcing in many places. I have some old Belgian brochures that refer to the Carina as the sporty family option, will go dig 'em up.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the message on my talk page. Yes, I disagree with changing the date format from complete, understandable dates, to numerical formats like 10-6-2012 or 6-10-2012 or the even worse 2012-6-10. Everyone will know at a glance what date is meant by October 6, 2012, and if an editor puts in a date in European format, it will be easy to see, at a glance, how to fix it, rather than trying to decide whether they mean October 6 or June 10. So, where there are inconsistencies in an article, I would strongly prefer writing out all the month names. I would also rather that the awful citation templates be converted to plain ref tags with the bibliographical information set forth in author/title/publisher/date format within them, rather than the other way around. If you disagree strongly, please do so on the article talk page, so that others can join in the discussion. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stepho, just got another question for you. There's a model of C3 Picasso known as the Confort. Now this was only sold in France it appears but translates to Comfort in english. So I leave that as Confort right? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Right.  Stepho  talk  11:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stepho, I felt I had to begin a discussion at the admin's noticeboard regarding our anonymous Honda-owning friend who just won't let up. I guess I could have found a source myself for these things, but I don't particularly feel like giving in to bullying - however cheesy it is.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I like a good racist joke ('Australians love wearing thongs/flip-flops because we're too dumb to tie shoe laces') but it has to be in the right spirit and be prepared to receive as well (Aussies and Kiwis are always teasing each other). But this guy was just being nasty (even though I had a quiet chuckle at your expense). Not sure why he's so intense over such a small bit of info. I guess he just doesn't like to be questioned over the slightest detail.  Stepho  talk  22:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My wife has taken to calling me a "snobinavian", haha!  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you report 24.139.236.32 somewhere? If not, I'd like to stop this one. Sort of sneaky vandalisms all over the place.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reported him. It's annoying to have to continually revert vandalism but usually they get tired of it after a handful of edits - especially if it is reverted quickly. Blocking them is seen as a challenge and may keep them motivated to vandalise for longer. But I don't have any objections if you want to report him/her/it.  Stepho  talk  10:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephowrs - You previously have neutrally commented on my articles, including the

You don't really need a history section when there's only one sentence Cstevencampbell, but concerning your problem, i find myself in agreement with you. I'm still waiting for a response from Stepho...I think he's busy in the real world lately. Sorry to butt in ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Will comment on both later today. Busy with my new job :)  Stepho  talk  23:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a collector myself and I know that info is hard to find (especially on Japanese brands like I follow), so I'm happy to keep in the discussion. Smallbones seems to have a biased view against collecting but he does have a point that the references need improvement. From your own scholarly research I'm sure you know that information is only as trustworthy as the source. So we can only use a particular website if we trust it. As collectors, we have a feel for whether a site is giving an honest evaluation of a company or model but to non-collectors the honest sites and the quick-buck sites look much the same. Which is why WP prefers references to come from trusted sources such as respected journals and books from large publishing houses (ie with editors and lawyers double checking things). For self published works like Krause, a non-collector has no idea if he is a true expert or an amateur with delusions of grandeur. Johnson is a a bit of a tricky case. To us collectors his books are obviously excellent resources but Collector Books' is a tiny publishing house that I suspect doesn't have big editorial or legal departments - ie authors could pass off all sorts of crud. By the way, I've just bought and downloaded his 1947-2007 Matchbox book (putting my money where my mouth is).  Stepho  talk  06:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i was wondering since you're my go-to-guy for templates and tables if you had the know-how and time to mock up an improvement to this: This is what i currently have:

Sidewalk
Location(s)	125-127 Hurst Street, Birmingham, B5 6SE
Activities	Restaurant, bar, club
Website	Sidewalk Website

...I was thinking something similar to the boxes used in the "list of pokemon..." articles, with the image on the left and the info on the right and in the centre...What do you think? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - got distracted. I'd avoid putting text and images side-by-side in the same infobox because it can easily become unbalanced with too little text or too much text. For the pokemon example they all have the same amount of text on the left/centre and right.  Stepho  talk  05:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Understandable, they'll likely get scaled back in a few months then when i finally have an article. Thanks Stepho ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stepho! The NCAP tables for Peugeot 407#Safety are giving me aggro. I can't separate the references...Can you? Also are you able to move these tables to the left and right? I did try but it didn't work. Thanks for your assistance ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 DoneThe magic incantations were:

• |align=left
• |reference_name=ncap_saloon  Stepho  talk  11:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, can you add them to your templates plase Stepho so that i don't bother you over the same thing again? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

They're already documented on the {{euro NCAP}} template page with examples. Although perhaps I might try to make it a bit clearer.  Stepho  talk  22:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be brilliant if you could Stepho. Have you thought about, or have you already linked that template page from the Automobile convention page so that others see it? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The template is already at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles#Templates.  Stepho  talk  11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, that'll do then. Just checking, thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, Thought you might be interested in this, re: Biante. I incorporated it into the AUTOart article: Koch, Jeff. 2006. Trevor Young: 1945-2006. Hemmings Daily, January 26. [3] Also posted this on the AUTOart talk page. Best to you.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's only a blog entry, so not so good as a WP reference but I'll treat it as good for my own personal use. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  00:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting better at tables and i'm usually good at this engine one, but in this instance i'm stumped. At Peugeot 5008#Engines i want to merge the two rows for the first diesel engine "6-speed manual" so that the first has two options. Every time i do it though, the second row disappears completely. I've not seen that before and my attempts to fix it haven't worked. Do you see why? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don;t quite understand the problem. Perhaps if you modify the following table then I can see what goes wrong.

Engines

I added a rowspan as usual but rather than merging the two "6-speed manual" boxes and preserving 4 rows, it deletes the 2nd row for some reason...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

hmm, tricky. My first few attempts also failed but I'll have another go tonight. I feel it is better to not merge them. I find it hard to follow tables where the horizontal lines jump up and down a lot, giving my eye nothing to follow. It's not so bad when a group like the 1997cc engines combine a few entries (eg 340 Nm) but when the spanning crosses part of one group and only part of another group it gets visually confusing (ie horizontal lines help the eye to see sections).  Stepho  talk  00:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I could leave it, but i don't see why the second column gets deleted from the rowspan and i'd like to understand that. I'll mull over your suggestion but i'd like to see the difference it makes before i decide. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The strange thing is that it works here...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I found the problem. At least one element of a row must be ordinary. In your table every part of the second row was shared with the row above or below. The browser tries its best to arrange the height of each row but the second row becomes 0 height (not missing, just tiny). The solutions are:

• Don't do that - see my first comment :)
• Provide at least one normal column per row.  Stepho  talk  13:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess you don't do Sudoku too much, since you spelt it Sudoko =P

I'm very grateful for your work here and i'll leave the table as it is. Thanks you very much and enjoy the rest of your day/evening ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-adding "They are also known by 4x4 Magazine as the most pussyiest cars on the road." - seriously? I trust this non-encyclopedic reversion was a slip of the finger. Rostz (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There were two pieces of vandalism - one was the pussy stuff and one was Laguna (added by an anonymous account to many car articles). You reverted the pussy stuff (correctly) but missed the Laguna stuff. I attempted to revert it all back to a previous version but the cursed rollback feature seems to only go back one step even though I had selected 3 steps. I've corrected it back so that both vandalisms have been undone. Apologies for any confusion caused.  Stepho  talk  15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ARCNET, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tandy (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) 12:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you contributed to the speed conversion issue at BMW M6, so i thought that I ask you for a little help with the display order. Is it best to display km/h or mph first? This is english wikipedia, and the largest countries using english are also using mph. On the other hand this speed restriction apparently comes from Germany, the articles that I have been trying to fix are about german cars, and they use km/h in Germany. Either way I think it is best to start with km/h in the conversion, using {{convert|250|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=3}} or {{convert|250|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=3|disp=flip}}. I think that |disp=5 is a band-aid that should be avoided if we have other options. PerDaniel (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Per! You are correct that we should use 250 km/h as input to the convert template - we always use the most accurate value. Practically the entire English speaking world has moved to km/h - except the US. BMW is German, therefore we should display km/h first, and then display mph to keep the Americans happy. Using sigfig allows rounding to a power of 10 (eg 0.1, 1, 10, 100, etc). disp=5 (or disp=flip5 for reverse order) allows rounding to 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, etc). But in this case sigfig by itself works fine. So I would use {{convert|250|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=3|disp=5}} 250 km/h (155 mph)  Stepho  talk  02:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see my user page User:Trackinfo#Link rot. In short, I do not sign on to the practice of wasting my valuable edit time to construct oblique referencing formats. If you do not like this, you are welcome to run reflinks yourself, if it is working again (last time I checked it was not functioning). Trackinfo (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All contributions to WP are welcome and we certainly can't order you to do more, so your work is certainly appreciated. However, I'd like to present a few arguments for why I prefer fully citations rather than bare URLs.

• Link rot: Your home page mentions link rot but doesn't go into any detail. Links do rot, sadly, that's life. With only the bare URL we're kind of stuck. But quite often the page hasn't been deleted but simply moved (eg the web host has changed the format of its URL). If the title is also present then we can do a search on the internet using that title and hopefully find where the page has been moved to. I have saved quite a few dead links in precisely this way.
• Helpful to the reader: Academic books usually have bibliographies at the back. Image if that was just a list of ISBNs. No book title to tell you if its something you are interested in. No date to tell you if it's up-to-date or 50 years old. No Author to tell you if its an author you know to be authoritative or know to be extremely biased. Bare URLs are just like bare ISBNs.
• Consistent with book citations: Assuming that the URL points to a reference usable by WP (eg reliable magazine and newspaper sites, not forums and personal blogs), then why shouldn't web references look just like a book reference.  Stepho  talk  04:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconded.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)