Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 9

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WikiProject_Automobiles_newsletter_bot
What do you think of my suggestion of having a newsletter bot?? I thought it could be useful! --SunStar Net talk 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a newsletter bot. Karrmann 19:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot suggestion 

message: Please check the article's history to see what I mean. I really don't know what should the course of action be, and I don't want a pointless revert war and risiking breaching 3RR - can somebody help with that? BTW, Happy Easter everyone :D PrinceGloria 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted his edits and given a final warning on his talk page. If he does it again, report him and hopefully he will be blocked. I would also like to determine if the sockpuppets who have been creating hoax articles belong to him. I have traced the recent ones back to User:Hardlinger, and I suspect that Teddy Coughlin may be behing it all. --Sable232 14:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More hoaxing:  (took care of that, though the article itself needs a major rewrite). I guess it would be good to go through the "contributions" of URL 23.218.46.5... PrinceGloria 23:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Teddy.Coughlin]] and [[Opel Corsa]] 

message: ...this time, as .
He's created the following hoax articles:
* BMW 5-Series Coupe
* Talbot Solara (2008)
* Opel Aveo
and added bogus information to the Peugeot 407 article, which I've just removed.
Looks like we have our own automotive version of MascotGuy. Maybe this should go to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser?? --SunStar Net talk 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fasho, and the articles should be speedied ASAP. It is really upsetting to see people finding it amusing or rewarding to be disruptive in such a childish way... PrinceGloria 11:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last two are speedied as sub-stubs that obviously don't check out.  Is the BMW 5-Series Coupe really clearly a hoax as well?  (I'm not familiar enough with it, and the words are unfortunately difficult to Google) And filing a checkuser request is probably a good idea. --Interiot 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The E60 5-Series Coupe is the E63 6-Series. Given that hoaxer's hoaxes usually do come in all-hoax series, I wouldn't give it any credit just because BMW's alphanumerics make it look more confusing. It is speculation anyway, so it doesn't belong in WP (it would if there was a manufacturer's press release referenced). PrinceGloria 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoaxer's back again.... 

message: We need to do something about this hoax business (RFI is gone, don't know what else to do at the moment). We have a line of sockpuppets making hoax articles, and a user adding misinformation to articles. Hopefully we can get a checkuser run. If all these users resolve to 23.218.46.5 (which is most likely Teddy.Coughlin's IP) we can have this twit taken care of. I won't have time to do this until Monday. If anyone thinks that's too long to wait, go ahead and do it yourself. --Sable232 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a complete update to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/NewArticles, based on an automated query...   could a few people check out the most recently-created articles, and make sure they're properly referenced?  Thanks, --Interiot 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's end this

message: "As a result of that and being made available to anybody, many bought the car purely as an investment at the time. Ferrari, onward in order to deter investors, only invited loyal customers to buy their supercars."
I don't think the F50 had that kind of restriction. I would like to see a reference for that. And anyway all Ferraris since the F40 can be considered supercars, from the base models (360 Modena etc.) up. I am aware that the Enzo required buyers to be invited by Ferrari, and from the tone of the media publicity it seemed it was the first time.
I think this is the page I am supposed to do this on, excuse me if I'm wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howboutpete (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, comments about individual articles are invited on the article's talk pages. Also, if you feel that some information in an article is incorrect or incorrectly sourced, be bold and edit it accordingly and/or insert appropriate templates. Happy editing!  PrinceGloria 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrari F40 article inaccuracy 

message: The page on the Citroen Traction Avant seems very "Francophile" as it neglects to mention the DKWs of the early 1930s. The statement that it was the first large scale production FWD is wrong in this respect and contradicts other articles on FWDs. The DKW F(numbers 1....n) models are not listed in the list of FWD vehicles either. I assume there are other similar inconsistencies. Wouldn't it be possible to construct a bot (I am not competent in such software designs) to collect all FWDs mentioned in other articles and use it to reconstruct the list with links to the article. I attempted to edit the list manually but somehow didn't get access to it at all.
GernotHir 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A small thing, but just noting this here in case anybody is following it up, since it's vaguely in the same topic: a similar problem sometimes affects the Renault 16 which people sometimes claim was "the first ever hatchback". If we come up with any clever "which came first" solutions, it'd be nice to apply them globally to hatchback as well as front-wheel drive. – Kieran T (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citroen Traction avant page prejudiced - Front-wheel drive topic needs cleaning?

message: There was a good article I came across, although it was very hard to find:  U.S. Automobile Production Figures.  Does anyone have any sources to support this information?  I would hate to loose this info.  Also, is there anyway to tie this site to Automobile production statistics.  Also some overlap, common data:  List of automobile manufacturers.  Here is a article with sources, similar data List of automobiles by sales.
FYI, just had to share this.  You can find almost anything on Wiki:  New car smell, you've got to love it.  --Drussel3 14:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobile Production 

message: I've done the best I can. See User:Sable232/Standards. It's awfully short, but I really cant see how much more there can be. It definitely needs a lot of work.
I'll be busy this weekend and I don't know how often I'll be able to get on here. 
Debate away. --Sable232 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject standards - please discuss 

message: Well, the admins don't give a rat's ass about this. An admin said there needed to be more evidence. When I pointed out that there is no evidence because  it's all been deleted, the case just got closed. I guess this project just isn't important enough for anyone to care. --Sable232 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoaxer 

message: I am in the middle of a major revamp of the Cadillac CTS article. I will have to stop for now, but I will restart later. During this time, please go ahead and make fixes to the article you feel are necessary, and feel free to give me ideas on how I can improve this article. Karrmann 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cadillac CTS 

message: Could a few users with opinions please visit the Nissan Maxima talk page? Thank you. IFCAR 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nissan Maxima image question 

message: An S-Class owner keeps adding a "reliability" section to the W220 section of the Mercedes-Benz S-Class, making broad, sweeping statements about how the car is "unreliable" and an "embarrassment" to Mercedes-Benz. I have removed his additions and explained why, but he just keeps adding it back in. Could some of you just keep an eye on this page to make sure it stays factual? I feel like all I ever do on this site anymore is revert vandlism. Jagvar 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchlisted here. :) Lewis Collard 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Collard. I'm glad you toned down his language, but I'm just not sure that anything he wrote should stay. He cites Consumer Reports as his resource (a bit weak), and frankly, I don't see how the S-Class' reliability issues are in any way remarkable. If you want to claim that any car is "unreliable," I'm sure you can find quotes in Consumer Guide or a similar publication to support your POV. I think the whole section should just go. Thoughts? Jagvar 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete this one-sentence "section." The statement that one particular Consumer Reports article found the S-Class to have poor reliability can be built in somewhere else. Such mention should not, however, constitute more than one sentence as it is quite unremarkable. Signaturebrendel 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm completely in agreement with the above. The material should stay (and be toned down, as per me) since it is properly sourced and pertinent. But it definitely does not merit its own section. Lewis Collard 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still believe, however, some information, however well sourced, has no place in automotive articles and "reliability info" belongs there. Besides Consumer Reports, there are many more organizations and companies compiling their own reliability statistics, and theoretically we would have to leave the door open to each and ever of them. Imagine how would the articles look if we allowed all of that, and while we are at that, why not quote prices for every market, maintenance/spare parts costs, paint codes etc. There are external sources the readers can go to for their reliability data, just like for many other verifiable data we do not include, so I think we should limit the inclusion of information on reliability to cases where it is really "notable". PrinceGloria 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And in general, you will find far more "sources" for a car being unreliable than for a car being "exceptionally reliable." In fact, what does that mean? A car is "reliable." So? Reliable in that you can drive it for three years with no maintenance? I find that most of the time, when a (used) car is considered unreliable, it is because of lack of maintnenance. The Ford AXOD transmission is notoriously weak, but I'm willing to bet that very few people actually change the fluid often enough. --Sable232 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact vs. Opinion in [[Mercedes-Benz S-Class]] 

message: As a lot of you probably realised Maserati MC12 was on the main page yesterday and so it was edited by many. One significant change is that the info about the transmission/gearbox was moved from the "chassis" section to the "engine" section. I always thought of the transmission and suspension and such as part of the chassis. Really I would say the engine is also part of the chassis, but it's enough to warrant it's own section. My question is am I being "over-protective" to move the info back to the chassis section? Basically undoing this edit? Should it stay in the engine section? James086Talk | Email 08:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The transmission and suspension are not really part of the chassis. But the transmission isn't really the engine, either. :) Something like "Drivetrain" might be appropriate for engine and transmission. Though if you think there's enough information on them to stop the sections being too short, then "Transmission" might well merit its own section. Lewis Collard 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd move it back to the old section, and rename it "Drivetrain" or "Powertrain". --DeLarge 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That leaves the problem of the suspension and chassis. I could rename the engine section Drivetrain/Powertrain and include the transmission. Then it would be as it is now, but the chassis section should probably be renamed, I always thought of the suspension as part of the chassis which is why I put it there to start. James086Talk | Email 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I'd usually put chassis and suspension together and engine and transmission together. Although of course they can all be changed independently of each other, so perhaps they should all have seperate sections! 4u1e 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chassis? 

message: One of our templates is up for deletion.  See  Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_25#Template:Concept_automobile to review and comment.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template has been a pet peeve of miny for quite some time now, so it would be great to finally see it go! PrinceGloria 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept Automobile Template is up for deletion 

message: Hi all! I've been working hard updating the article on the Volkswagen Jetta. As with many automobile articles, it was previously not well organized, laced with opinions, and focused almost exclusively on the USA. It rightfully had a "globalize" tag on it, but I'm confident with my re-write that it no longer deserves it. I basically re-wrote the entire article, see: Page compairision. To summarize, I cleaned up the infoboxes, added engines that were missing, got rid of the tedious region specific trim line information, removed trivia, added many many citations, corrected numerous factual errors, use proper and consistant units of measure, added history, and the like. I'm pretty much done with the heavy editing at this point, so I'd appreciate it if a few people would take a look and offer any suggestions as to how it could further be improved. Thanks.--Analogue Kid 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I love the photograph you've added to the infobox! We need more images like that. Jagvar 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! That's my car actually. So is the red Mark 2 (or it was before I sold it). --Analogue Kid 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like quite an effort on your part! That said, I think there is still a lot to be done, but rather than babbling about it I intend to just get down to work on the article in due course. Oh, and I also absolutely love the photo! PrinceGloria 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive, I've never seen someone buy a car so they could put a photo of it in their article. That's dedication to the Wiki, keep it up ;) I'll make some suggestions on the talk page so you don't need to check here all the time. James086Talk | Email 13:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volkswagen Jetta 

message: So, after reading all the bit about paint codes I was going to go through the Toyota Supra article and organize the video games section and just create a "Toyota supra in popular culture" section. As I went over the page and re-read it.. I noticed the 1985-1986 section is missing. I thought to myself "that's strange, i don't recall it getting deleted in the past". So I went to edit and as I looked in the edit box and I saw plain as day ===1985-1986=== was in there. I got sidetracked from the popular culture thing and tried to investigate why it's not displaying on the actual article. I went through edits all the way till the beginning of January and _even then_ it seems it was not displaying. I've given up for the night as my eyes are burning... But if anyone else could continue or try to figure out what the deal is with it not displaying it would be really awesome. ren0talk 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Missing slash in a ref tag. Sorted. --DeLarge 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Toyota Celica Supra]] 

message: Hi. A request from a WP:F1 member - can anyone advise in which article a description of a suspension top link should be covered? Ideally I need a link to it from Brabham BT19. A fairly common rear suspension set up for racing cars in the 1960s was a reverse lower wishbone, top link and two radius arms. That sounds to me like a crude multi-link suspension, so perhap the top link should be covered there. Equally I would suspect that it's just a form of control arm, but that article seems to be completely focussed on wisbones (wider at the base). Anyone got a suggestion as to where it should be covered (I'm only looking to add a line or two). Cheers. 4u1e 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top links 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to address this little detail, but the section on the Aston Martin DBS is incomplete.
The DBS V8 was conceived by Aston Martin around 1965 as the successor to the DB6.   The car was to have a quad cam V8 Engine designed by Aston Martin's Tadek Marek.  The body design and tooling was ready by 1968 but the engine had revealed some reliability problems during endurance testing at Le Mans.   Commercial pressures being what they were, it was decided to release the "DBS" using an upgraded 4 litre version of WO Bentley's famous twin cam straight six. 
By 1969 the V8 engine was ready and the DBS V8 was released, having upgraded brakes, quad cam 5340 cc V8 with Bosch Mechanical fuel injection, and a ZF five speed transmission.   Autocar magazine tested a DBS V8 on the then un-opened M25 around London recording a two way average speed of 161mph, making it the fastest production car they had tested to date.
For a time during 1970 AM it was possible to order a DB6, a DBS, or a DBS V8, very unusual indeed given that AM had only ever produced one model at any time, notwithstanding the variants (Vantage & Volante)
405 Aston Martin DBS V8s were built up until 1972 when David Brown lost control of the company.  The body styling was changed to a single headlight and the cars were designated "Aston Martin V8".   Tadek Marek's V8 engine lasted for many years and the supercharged 550bhp engine used in the V8 Zagato in the mid 1990s was the same basic unit.
Holger Lubotzki
202.78.22.129 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aston Martin DBS V* Details 

message: I noticed that in the McLaren F1 article, there is a section listing every F1 made and who owns it. Now I don't know if this is encyclopedic or not, so I want a second opinion. I knida want to purge it, but that is just me. Karrmann 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was referenced, it could be dealt with by a link in the EL section (the QV500 link is closest). I'd prune the list (citing WP:NOT and WP:ATT), and while you're there, I'd get rid of most of the external links as per WP:EL; only the first, last and QV500 offer any value at all. --DeLarge 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, I'd go further. Trivia? Reference it or remove it. Bugatti performance figures? Should be at the Bugatti Veyron page, not here. The F1's figures aren't at Jaguar XJ220, and the XJ220's stats aren't at Ferrari F40 (although some RUF nut has shoehorned a reference to their car in to that page). This is an encyclopedia article, not a "I'm a Bugatti fanboi and my car beats yours" site. --DeLarge 10:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mclaren F1 

message: The idea here is to guage the arguments for and against, not to indicate your support. So it's not a poll, just list any points that may affect views. This is to make it easier to sum up the discussion. Note that these are opinions, if you disagree with a point don't remove it, though please add to the lists.
====For====
*Privacy and safety in the case of identifiable cars (eg rare or exotic cars)
*Number plates may be used for criminal purposes
====Against====
*It detracts from the image and/or is distracting 
*It requires extra effort to make the image
::OK now, I will not expand on the reasons why "publishing" somebody's license plate number, esp. along with the vehicle, is either against the law or just improper in case of vaqrious countries, mostly because I have injured my right palm and writing is much more of an effort to me now :D But still, I do not find it distracting or disturbing in any way if the license plate number is removed in a tasteful way like in the case of the Mondeo above. I really don't think it hurts to show a bit of courtesy towards owners who did not express consent for their vehicles to be photographed and featured on one of the most-visited sites worldwide. I really think there are more important things for us to focus on now, (e.g. User:Sable232/Standards)... (whew!) PrinceGloria 09:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments for and against number plate blanking/blurring

message: *It detracts from the image and/or is distracting 
*It requires extra effort to make the image
::OK now, I will not expand on the reasons why "publishing" somebody's license plate number, esp. along with the vehicle, is either against the law or just improper in case of vaqrious countries, mostly because I have injured my right palm and writing is much more of an effort to me now :D But still, I do not find it distracting or disturbing in any way if the license plate number is removed in a tasteful way like in the case of the Mondeo above. I really don't think it hurts to show a bit of courtesy towards owners who did not express consent for their vehicles to be photographed and featured on one of the most-visited sites worldwide. I really think there are more important things for us to focus on now, (e.g. User:Sable232/Standards)... (whew!) PrinceGloria 09:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: This talk page is now like 100kB+ long, so I guess it could use some archiving. While we may continue to do it by hand, I have recently learned of a rather nifty bot that can take care of it - it's called MiszaBot II. AFAIK, we can simply make for it to archive our talk page quite simply (see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for details, in case you are interested), and I will gladly take care of that - I just need to know if there are any members against bot archiving, and secondly, your opinion on how old should a thread be for MiszaBot to archive it (we can set up almost any period, for most talk pages it's 7 days). I think this bot might also be useful because while archiving threads one by one, it can bring to attention a thread that became forgotten buried under more recent ones, but still would need some more discussion, and then somebody may bring it back from archives.
So, what would you say to that? PrinceGloria 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care much for bot archiving. Moving it by hand, which is how the past few archives have been done, we can preserve the edit history. It seems that once it hits 50 old threads is when it's supposed to be archived as a whole, and then the newer ones are moved back to the main page. FWIW, the past couple archives only have two months' worth of discussions.--Sable232 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving via MiszaBot II 

message: Not sure how to go about establishing a Template, but I would propose a template for:  Defunct Automobile.  Items I would propose below (examples provided do not correlate directly to any one entry).  Any suggestions, any help???--Drussel3 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:  Defunct Automobile 

message: Last night, I went to a modified car show at the Montreal Olympic Stadium.  I, however, used flash on those photos, but I had my HP Photosmart camera.  I'll show you a gallery.
Image:2007 Acura CSX Type-S.jpg|Acura CSX Type-S
Image:Eunos Cosmo.jpg|JDM Eunos Cosmo
Image:'73-'78 Honda Civic 3-Door.jpg|First generation Honda Civic (3-door)
I will be uploading more photos ASAP. -- Bull-Doser 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, but unmodified images of cars are generally preferred on Wikipedia than those modified ones. These images are really only appropriate on articles deal with modified cars, or unless there is not already an image of that particular model, which is only the case for one of the cars in question. Not only do these photographs inadequately illustrate the car in question, the modifications detract the viewer from the main features of the car. I hope you don't take this the wrong way. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car Show Images, Again 

message: The list of trivia on the Jaguar page is just ridiculous. It's titled "Jaguars in fiction and the media," and includes every appearance a Jaguar has made in a movie, television show, book, or song. I really dislike this kind of trivia and feel that it adds noting to the article except unnecessary space. If the majority of you agree with me, could somebody delete this? I'm so tired of trivia lists and obscure pop culture references. Jagvar 16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yep it is funny, its even longer than Jaguar history section....so the whole page looks like some media article rather than Jaguar page, there could be short section anyway with major appearances in popular culture...--— Typ932T | C  18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nuked the section in its entirety. About to be reverted by someone else in 5, 4, 3, 2.... Lewis Collard 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jaguar (car)|Jaguar]] trivia list 

message: I would like to invite some feedback from any engineers who may work at any automobile company.  There is some debate on two seperate articles Automotive engineering vs. Vehicle Engineering.  Please see Discussion Talk Page  --Drussel3 16:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automotive Engineering vs. Vehicle Engineering 

message: I just added an entry yesterday, Hackett (automobile), and I classified it as a stub.  Today it now has a THIS ARTICLE NEEDS EXPANDING notification.  Isn't that was Stubs are all about?  Why was this put against this article? Will all the auto company article stubs I have recently added, be binned this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drussel3 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why you're worried about it getting binned. Nobody's going to delete it because of that notice. Lewis Collard 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Template talk:Expand says it's not for stub articles.  --Interiot 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly - don't put that template on articles that are already flagged as stubs.  I reverted it for you. SteveBaker 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding Notification - classified as stub 

message: Hi, I have created a Qxz Add for WikiProject Automobiles. The purpose of the advertisement is basically to attract Wikipedians to the project. If you are interested, please feel free to inlude this ad to your user page, and if you have any suggestions for improving the advertisement, I would appreciate your feedback.
The source code that produces the Qxz Ad is:
 Image:Qxz-ad41.gif
rect 1 1 468 60 Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles
desc none 
 Image:Qxz-ad41.gif
rect 1 1 468 60 Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles
desc none 
OSX (talk • contributions) 09:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qxz Ads 

message: Are individual car clubs normally called out with a standalone article, see Escortevolution?  They could get pretty numerous.
--Drussel3 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines already exist, at WP:NOTE and more specifically, WP:ORG. There were no reliable secondary sources for the club, so it failed notability and I tagged it for speedy deletion. --DeLarge 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car Clubs:  Escortevolution 

message: I found a photo of an old car at  while browsing through the Library of Congress collection and thought it might be useful, if someone could identify the car. Any takers? howcheng  {chat} 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure this is a 1931 Chevrolet Independence AE 4-door sedan. HTH. :) Lewis Collard! (natter) 00:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, we don't seem to have an article for that car. I'll put the photo up on Commons tomorrow sometime in preparation for a future article. Thanks for the identification! howcheng  {chat} 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car identification 

message: Just want to bring these two articles up as this anon user may be a newcomer as he/she have bought on the bit about Chevrolet Impala  & Honda Civic  in Demolition derby events. As all the edit talks about is how good they are in demolition derbies and rollever events, all I can sum up is it is not that well written and very much unsourced, more like that old edit about the Toyota AE86 before I got involved, when at the time all it mentioned about in motorsport was street racing and illegal touge runs. Also I don't know if demolition derbies are what manufacturers intended their cars to be good at either, so what is your comment on these edits.
Willirennen 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivial. Remove on sight. PrinceGloria 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Routine housekeeping -- no need to bring that here. WP:NOTE, WP:V, etc etc. --DeLarge 15:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevrolet Impala & Honda Civic in Demolition Derbies 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Chevrolet Caprice about this. I know this won't be that last time this comes up, so I would like to get some kind of consensus or at the very least have a discussion to refer back to.
In the 1977-90 section of the Caprice article, there was a gallery of eight pictures. I removed a couple and dispersed others throughout the text, but it was reverted. I find a gallery of that size to be extremely unprofessional. It makes it look like someone threw a bunch of pictures at the end as an afterthought. There is no reason why at least some of those can't be put next to the pertinent text. But I was told, in effect, that that's my personal preference so it doesn't matter.
What do GA/FA reviewers generally say about galleries?
Thoughts, please. --Sable232 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but think that this is what the Commons are for... Lewis Collard! (natter) 18:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I dislike galleries - the photos should be there to back up the text.  A gallery is a place for cruft to accumulate as everyone with that kind of car tries to get their favorote photo in there.  Since there is no absolute purpose to any of the photos, it's hard for a responsible editor to say "The previous eight photos were OK - but yours is one too many".  Better to say "This photo adds nothing to the narrative - it backs up no previously not-backed-up fact - so it's history." - the only time I'd maybe consider using one would be in a situation where (for example) you were trying to pictorially demonstrate a sequence of events or a range of options...but even so, it would be a last-ditch measure in the event that working the pictures into the narrative was somehow too hard. SteveBaker 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ^^ Yeah, what he said. :) Lewis Collard! (natter) 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The benefit to a gallery is that it can illustrate the various versions of a car without taking up too much space in the article or causing formatting problems. The point of a gallery is not to just have lots of redundant pictures of the same car. IFCAR 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this could be served just as well by a gallery or category on the Commons, if someone really badly wants to see lots of pictures. Lewis Collard! (natter) 20:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article about the Chevrolet Caprice is the best place for information about the Chevrolet Caprice. It's not as if a gallery takes up much space in an article. IFCAR 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 638x506 pixels, for the record. Not nuts on something that big, especially for a 1024x768 or 800x600 screen rez. A gallery of four (or better, three) would take up one less row and therefore be only half as high. Do you really need to show amber tail lights, for example? That's a characteristic of the target export market's legislation, not the Caprice itself. And the fact that export versions were sold with amber tail lights can't be that important, since mention of it appears nowhere in the main text. Same with the fishbowl rear window -- pic, but no accompanying narrative. It seems like a lack of editorial discipline to be unable to pick and choose only three or four photos from eight. --DeLarge 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleries - How much is too much? 

message: Dear all,
Template:Lancia and Template:Autobianchi have been butchered today by some people who apparently derive dirty carnal pleasures from being overzealous in applying Wikipedia policies on fair use and copyright. You can find the details @ . I have left Wikipedia once due to this issue and I wouldn't like to admit defeat again, so if you can chip in and help anyway, I would greatly appreciate it. 
Regards, 
PrinceGloria 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a good design, but it had to be removed just like with all the other templates that had prominent logos. I also tried to have them keep the brand design in the template some time ago, however ....   Just sharing your frustration, but life goes on without logos CZmarlin 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder in the light of the day 

message: See Special:Contributions/Pam1855. This known vandal has redirected a bunch of pages, and some of those do not look like they should have been done. Could someone with a little more experience with those cars take a look? --Sable232 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fixed some of that damage yesterday. Didn't realize there was more. I'm not sure if they're bad faith edits or not, but the user was screwing up the formatting really badly on the one.--Analogue Kid 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable redirects