![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Is the use of these going to be required? I personally dislike using them, and in the case of cubic inch -> liter, I know what most of them are off the top of my head anyway. I saw that you've been replacing already-converted text units with the templates, was there a reason for this?
I find that when a standard and metric figure are manually entered, it makes sneaky vandalism easier to spot (if one is changed, the other will be correct and they won't match up). -- Sable232 ( talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Scheinwerfermann! You seem to be the expert on the topic of UNECE Regulations. In the article on ECE Homologation, the German Wikipedia says in pertinent part: The ECE and EG-Approval will only be issued after all relevant governmental agencies of the EU have approved. (Wrong. Approval by one country's agency suffices, but that's only a minor faux pas compared to ....)
It then goes on: "The following non-EU countries accept the ECE-approval:
Australia Bahrain Brasilia Japan Canada Croatia South Korea Tunesia Ukraine Russian Federation United Arabic Emirates United States of America ..."
AFAIK, the U.S.A (and for all intents and purposes Canada) vehemently oppose UNECE Regulations. The English article underscores this. Apparently, there is a confusion in the German Wikipedia between being a signatory of ECE (which the U.S.A. are,) between being a signatory of the 1958 Agreement (which the U.S.A. aren't,) and between readily adopting the ECE regulations - which the U.S.A. definitely don't, and which other countries do with varying fervor. The EU usually makes every UNECE regulation law, however, even isolationist Japan
has already adopted 37 ECE Rules Correct so far? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Disclosure: I'm in the parts business. I export parts from China to Europe. Half of my time is spent helping the Chinese navigate the trecherous waters of ECE Regulations. I also added something on China's CCC to the German article. CCC is China's answer (or retaliation) to ECE ... there is already a great article on the "China Compulsory Certificate" in the English Wikipedia.
Talk to you soon. Thank you. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: There are three new member states: (E53) Thailand, (E56) Montenegro, (E58) Tunesia
-- BsBsBs ( talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If yo read horsepower article Americans used SAE net hp (gross horsepower) before 1972 and SAE net horsepower after that, I think if they used bhp it was very early on automobile history??.... --— Typ932 T | C 07:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I understand your question now. Yes, the old British horsepower and the old American (SAE gross) brake horsepower are the same: 33,000 lb·ft/minute. So there's no need to modify the template. There is, however, a need to clarify this point in Horsepower; I'll go do so. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 22:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Scheinwerfermann, I respect your enthusiasm and dedication to the WP and am very much wanting to work with you on all of this template discussion we've been having lately. I completely see your point and the value to having auto-specific templates, but I do not agree with absolutely discouraging {{ convert}} usage as it is explain on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Both could and should be represented equally on here. In the case of {{ auto hp}} specifically, I can't see a reason this couldn't be recreated and explain on this page for editors who may not want to fully specify a {{ convert}} template, but I would also say convert is a completely valid template for use if editors want to add all of the flexibility convert has to offer. {{ Auto hp}} for editor with a more simplified form of editing and {{ convert}} for editors who want the specifics and flexibility. Again, I'm only trying to work with you here. Consistency throughout automotive articles is absolutely a main concern for me as well. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 06:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm sorry if I offended you somehow, but I don't consider this sort of commentary to be appropriate on a discussion page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you accused me of making up a term with scare quotes. How dare you accuse me of anything you incompetent fool. If you did just a little bit of investigating, you would see that O'Reilly says that he is not a conservative but a traditionalist. In fact he wrote a whole book about it. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 06:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you don't mind my moving this discussion here, if you want to keep it at the article discussion page that's fine with me, but I don't want an edit war. The reason quotes are important is because people like you are trying to remove this information. So the most non-POV way to include it is simply to quote Frank himself as was done by the NYTimes. If you want to add information that vindicates Frank or suggests he made efforts to increase oversight of Fannie and Freddie you are welcome to do so. But certainly the current chairman of the House Bank committee's history on the issue is notable. This is a big crisis. I'm not sure why you are trying to take out the word "opposed". Isn't this an accurate way to describe Frank's position of the Bush proposal? Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were ... Congressional Democrats. Would you prefer the word denounced that the NYTimes used? ( Wallamoose ( talk) 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
I was just glancing through your user page. Kudos! Definitely well written with a wealth of info in there that says mountains more than any group of userboxes could ever say. If I could find a barnstar that saluted this, I'd definitely throw it up here. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 01:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings,
I replied on my talk page with some ideas for us that may not be ready for the project page yet. Please review and advise over on my talk page. Thanks, Oilpanhands ( talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering how you chose your username? Thanks, -- DerRichter ( talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Scheinwerfermann, how're you doing? PrinceGloria started a discussion about the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix being related and not AKA. He's also trying to say that the Vibe's manufacturer is the factory where it's built and not Pontiac, despite the Infobox guidelines. I thought you might be interested because of our original discussion that stemmed from your placing the Vibe in the Matrix's AKA section.-- Flash176 ( talk) 01:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And someone is definitely home. That's the most I will do do for now, if the disruption continues let me know. Dreadstar † 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Automotive Barnstar | |
Scheinwerfermann, looking through your archives, I didn't see any Barnstars. Unfortunately, it appears that working on the automotive project is often a thankless job. I figured it was high time somebody gave you one. Thanks for all of your contributions. :)-- Flash176 ( talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hey, have a couple of questions for you.
About consensus, Wikipedia preaches it all the time, but I've never really seen any good guidelines about how it's defined. Like, does everyone have to agree or almost everyone? According to Dictionary.com, consensus is either the majority of opinion or a general agreement. I don't want to steam roll over anyone, but looking back at the two previous discussions ( August-September & October), Typ932 and PrinceGloria are the only two people who are against including model year in the infobox and keep using the same argument. Everyone else has at least tried to compromise, but they seem to be of the opinion that a major North American policy is unencyclopedic since other countries don't go by it. Everyone else who has stated an opinion (I count 8 in the first discussion and 2 new in the 2nd) agrees with adding a model year provision. Isn't 10 vs. 2 pretty close to a consensus? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting tired of Typ932 and PrinceGloria reiterating the same things over and over that we've already discussed and refusing to try and compromise. I believe that their views on this matter are somewhat narrow minded because they're not familiar with North American practices and think that model year is simply a marketing ploy.
Also, you never said anything more on my talk page about your adminship request. Did you see where I replied to you? I'm just curious when you plan on applying.-- Flash176 ( talk) 17:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes production time is definetly needed, because model year can be anything not even close the real time..article could also start like The Ford XXX production started in 1999 as MY 2000 or something if the info is available and for the last question Im not against model years but I think we should have the real production time, not MY alone --— Typ932 T | C 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scheinwerfermann
Finally I find someone to talk to about the flickering LED's. You seem to know a great deal about it, and I would be grateful for a discussion.
I'm new to this Wiki-business and I can't seem to resummon the message you sent me. But as I recall, your main reason for deleting my contribution is that it was unsupported, which is true. So, my bad. Sorry. And then you mention that there are ongoing studies which might verify or refute my claims that flickering LED's might be distracting and therefore dangerous in a traffic environment. Or maybe I misunderstood that part. Anyhow, I'd be interested to find out more about these studies. Who is conducting them, and how?
I think it would probably be a rather difficult test to construct. You might try it in a simulated computer generated environment, but I think it would be hard to replicate the exact nature of the flicker and light intensity, and hard to separate out eventual distraction of the flicker from other distracting things in the situation.
And then there's the other thing about flickering LED's. I don't really see any excuse for them. LED's have no need to flicker. Especially not if they run on battery. Why on earth are they flickering? Maybe it's different reasons for signs and for tail-lights?
Staffanlincoln ( talk) 19:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Road traffic safety#Interventions Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, this is the person who tried to cite on Jack Radcliffe. Thanks a lot for being nice in your critique. I was looking for some sort of guideline like those, thanks! I redid it and changed the way I sourced it. Please tell me if something is incorrect. I also used it to source the actor's name. Thanks again for the help! – Saphseraph ( talk) 00:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Portland Orange (desaturated approximation) | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hex triplet | #FF5A36 |
sRGBB ( r, g, b) | (255, 90, 54) |
HSV ( h, s, v) | (11°, 79%, 100%) |
CIELChuv ( L, C, h) | (61, 139, 17°) |
Source | CIECD |
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte) |
Hi there,
Your red boundary was wrong, btw - it's
Red boundary
y = 0.331
Anyway, I used the same calculation method as I did for selective yellow. The centroid of the trapezoid is (0.6346,0.3602). That's outside the sRGB gamut - desaturating to the gamut (moving it in a straight line towards D65) gives us (0.5782,0.3545). At maximum luminance, that converts to (255,90,54). Phew. I was a bit rusty on those calculations. And of course, it probably looks too red/orangey, as we discussed for selective yellow. KJBracey ( talk) 14:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Is the use of these going to be required? I personally dislike using them, and in the case of cubic inch -> liter, I know what most of them are off the top of my head anyway. I saw that you've been replacing already-converted text units with the templates, was there a reason for this?
I find that when a standard and metric figure are manually entered, it makes sneaky vandalism easier to spot (if one is changed, the other will be correct and they won't match up). -- Sable232 ( talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Scheinwerfermann! You seem to be the expert on the topic of UNECE Regulations. In the article on ECE Homologation, the German Wikipedia says in pertinent part: The ECE and EG-Approval will only be issued after all relevant governmental agencies of the EU have approved. (Wrong. Approval by one country's agency suffices, but that's only a minor faux pas compared to ....)
It then goes on: "The following non-EU countries accept the ECE-approval:
Australia Bahrain Brasilia Japan Canada Croatia South Korea Tunesia Ukraine Russian Federation United Arabic Emirates United States of America ..."
AFAIK, the U.S.A (and for all intents and purposes Canada) vehemently oppose UNECE Regulations. The English article underscores this. Apparently, there is a confusion in the German Wikipedia between being a signatory of ECE (which the U.S.A. are,) between being a signatory of the 1958 Agreement (which the U.S.A. aren't,) and between readily adopting the ECE regulations - which the U.S.A. definitely don't, and which other countries do with varying fervor. The EU usually makes every UNECE regulation law, however, even isolationist Japan
has already adopted 37 ECE Rules Correct so far? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Disclosure: I'm in the parts business. I export parts from China to Europe. Half of my time is spent helping the Chinese navigate the trecherous waters of ECE Regulations. I also added something on China's CCC to the German article. CCC is China's answer (or retaliation) to ECE ... there is already a great article on the "China Compulsory Certificate" in the English Wikipedia.
Talk to you soon. Thank you. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: There are three new member states: (E53) Thailand, (E56) Montenegro, (E58) Tunesia
-- BsBsBs ( talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If yo read horsepower article Americans used SAE net hp (gross horsepower) before 1972 and SAE net horsepower after that, I think if they used bhp it was very early on automobile history??.... --— Typ932 T | C 07:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I understand your question now. Yes, the old British horsepower and the old American (SAE gross) brake horsepower are the same: 33,000 lb·ft/minute. So there's no need to modify the template. There is, however, a need to clarify this point in Horsepower; I'll go do so. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 22:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Scheinwerfermann, I respect your enthusiasm and dedication to the WP and am very much wanting to work with you on all of this template discussion we've been having lately. I completely see your point and the value to having auto-specific templates, but I do not agree with absolutely discouraging {{ convert}} usage as it is explain on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Both could and should be represented equally on here. In the case of {{ auto hp}} specifically, I can't see a reason this couldn't be recreated and explain on this page for editors who may not want to fully specify a {{ convert}} template, but I would also say convert is a completely valid template for use if editors want to add all of the flexibility convert has to offer. {{ Auto hp}} for editor with a more simplified form of editing and {{ convert}} for editors who want the specifics and flexibility. Again, I'm only trying to work with you here. Consistency throughout automotive articles is absolutely a main concern for me as well. Thoughts? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 06:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm sorry if I offended you somehow, but I don't consider this sort of commentary to be appropriate on a discussion page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you accused me of making up a term with scare quotes. How dare you accuse me of anything you incompetent fool. If you did just a little bit of investigating, you would see that O'Reilly says that he is not a conservative but a traditionalist. In fact he wrote a whole book about it. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 06:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you don't mind my moving this discussion here, if you want to keep it at the article discussion page that's fine with me, but I don't want an edit war. The reason quotes are important is because people like you are trying to remove this information. So the most non-POV way to include it is simply to quote Frank himself as was done by the NYTimes. If you want to add information that vindicates Frank or suggests he made efforts to increase oversight of Fannie and Freddie you are welcome to do so. But certainly the current chairman of the House Bank committee's history on the issue is notable. This is a big crisis. I'm not sure why you are trying to take out the word "opposed". Isn't this an accurate way to describe Frank's position of the Bush proposal? Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were ... Congressional Democrats. Would you prefer the word denounced that the NYTimes used? ( Wallamoose ( talk) 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
I was just glancing through your user page. Kudos! Definitely well written with a wealth of info in there that says mountains more than any group of userboxes could ever say. If I could find a barnstar that saluted this, I'd definitely throw it up here. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 01:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings,
I replied on my talk page with some ideas for us that may not be ready for the project page yet. Please review and advise over on my talk page. Thanks, Oilpanhands ( talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering how you chose your username? Thanks, -- DerRichter ( talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Scheinwerfermann, how're you doing? PrinceGloria started a discussion about the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix being related and not AKA. He's also trying to say that the Vibe's manufacturer is the factory where it's built and not Pontiac, despite the Infobox guidelines. I thought you might be interested because of our original discussion that stemmed from your placing the Vibe in the Matrix's AKA section.-- Flash176 ( talk) 01:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And someone is definitely home. That's the most I will do do for now, if the disruption continues let me know. Dreadstar † 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Automotive Barnstar | |
Scheinwerfermann, looking through your archives, I didn't see any Barnstars. Unfortunately, it appears that working on the automotive project is often a thankless job. I figured it was high time somebody gave you one. Thanks for all of your contributions. :)-- Flash176 ( talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hey, have a couple of questions for you.
About consensus, Wikipedia preaches it all the time, but I've never really seen any good guidelines about how it's defined. Like, does everyone have to agree or almost everyone? According to Dictionary.com, consensus is either the majority of opinion or a general agreement. I don't want to steam roll over anyone, but looking back at the two previous discussions ( August-September & October), Typ932 and PrinceGloria are the only two people who are against including model year in the infobox and keep using the same argument. Everyone else has at least tried to compromise, but they seem to be of the opinion that a major North American policy is unencyclopedic since other countries don't go by it. Everyone else who has stated an opinion (I count 8 in the first discussion and 2 new in the 2nd) agrees with adding a model year provision. Isn't 10 vs. 2 pretty close to a consensus? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting tired of Typ932 and PrinceGloria reiterating the same things over and over that we've already discussed and refusing to try and compromise. I believe that their views on this matter are somewhat narrow minded because they're not familiar with North American practices and think that model year is simply a marketing ploy.
Also, you never said anything more on my talk page about your adminship request. Did you see where I replied to you? I'm just curious when you plan on applying.-- Flash176 ( talk) 17:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes production time is definetly needed, because model year can be anything not even close the real time..article could also start like The Ford XXX production started in 1999 as MY 2000 or something if the info is available and for the last question Im not against model years but I think we should have the real production time, not MY alone --— Typ932 T | C 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scheinwerfermann
Finally I find someone to talk to about the flickering LED's. You seem to know a great deal about it, and I would be grateful for a discussion.
I'm new to this Wiki-business and I can't seem to resummon the message you sent me. But as I recall, your main reason for deleting my contribution is that it was unsupported, which is true. So, my bad. Sorry. And then you mention that there are ongoing studies which might verify or refute my claims that flickering LED's might be distracting and therefore dangerous in a traffic environment. Or maybe I misunderstood that part. Anyhow, I'd be interested to find out more about these studies. Who is conducting them, and how?
I think it would probably be a rather difficult test to construct. You might try it in a simulated computer generated environment, but I think it would be hard to replicate the exact nature of the flicker and light intensity, and hard to separate out eventual distraction of the flicker from other distracting things in the situation.
And then there's the other thing about flickering LED's. I don't really see any excuse for them. LED's have no need to flicker. Especially not if they run on battery. Why on earth are they flickering? Maybe it's different reasons for signs and for tail-lights?
Staffanlincoln ( talk) 19:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Road traffic safety#Interventions Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, this is the person who tried to cite on Jack Radcliffe. Thanks a lot for being nice in your critique. I was looking for some sort of guideline like those, thanks! I redid it and changed the way I sourced it. Please tell me if something is incorrect. I also used it to source the actor's name. Thanks again for the help! – Saphseraph ( talk) 00:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Portland Orange (desaturated approximation) | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hex triplet | #FF5A36 |
sRGBB ( r, g, b) | (255, 90, 54) |
HSV ( h, s, v) | (11°, 79%, 100%) |
CIELChuv ( L, C, h) | (61, 139, 17°) |
Source | CIECD |
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte) |
Hi there,
Your red boundary was wrong, btw - it's
Red boundary
y = 0.331
Anyway, I used the same calculation method as I did for selective yellow. The centroid of the trapezoid is (0.6346,0.3602). That's outside the sRGB gamut - desaturating to the gamut (moving it in a straight line towards D65) gives us (0.5782,0.3545). At maximum luminance, that converts to (255,90,54). Phew. I was a bit rusty on those calculations. And of course, it probably looks too red/orangey, as we discussed for selective yellow. KJBracey ( talk) 14:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |