The result was delete. henrik• talk 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. Corvus cornix talk 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
There are thousands of workshops around the world who would like to reference option codes for repairs, SCN coding, software flashing / enabling and do not have an independent source of information as to the valid cross match.
This information is not compiled in any one place and warrants being referenced as a general tool for people who need to know this information. Miroj ( talk) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC) — Miroj ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
How then would you know what Distronic on a Mercedes is called if you didnt know it was SA=219. Not everyone is interested in what happened to Bo and Hope. Some people would like technical information. Miroj ( talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Do you know this place or are you being a tabloid purist. Miroj ( talk) 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
When someone tells me to get lost I like to ask for directions. I have a clear idea of what is popular and what is famous. At the end of the day Wikipedia need not serve the needs of the LCD. There are people who value information for their own useful purposes. This is far from entertaining but it is also far from useless. Miroj ( talk) 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I should point out that in the official Mercedes Benz system there are also blank entries and information omitted. There is no single source which is pure and free from error. The EPCnet system is now free in the USA and EU. People should bear in mind that using a large and complex system is aided by the inclusion of ecclectic resources elsewhere. Miroj ( talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
There are hundreds if not thousands of proprietary part numbering systems around the world, from things like NATO-STANAG through ATA codes for the airline industry and down to specific part numbering systems for individuals manufacturers. The detailed list of none of those belong in a general encyclopedia. At most a top level description might be appropriate IF the coding system is sufficiently widely used - such as the ISBN system, or the Dewey decimal system. But in neither case would I expect an explicit listing of the code system; for that I need to consult an appropriate specialist manual. I don't want people trying to order parts to do maintenance on ANYTHING - be it a lawnmower or a Jumbo Jet - from Wikipedia! MadScot ( talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia I thought, represented the sum total of human knowledge. Including those items which bind and collate loose information into a unified format. Thus giving rise to many-to-one and one-to-many mappings. There is nothing unusual about wanting to re-index information under a theme or tighter criteria. This generally saves a lot of time and represents the mindset of users / owners / groups which Wikipedia is intended to represent.
You could just as easily file articles loosely and dilute the capacity to derive a greater number of theme oriented ideas. How much deconstruction do you apply before you end up at Hawking radiation and Quark's.
The building of knowledge is also the building of collective and collated ideas. Otherwise we end up with, for example, 1000 articles on mathematical sub theory and no person can adequately denote which ideas are contradictory, opposing and unified.
Similarly, I was looking at the article for MOST (Automotive) and that was flagged as "nothing" - but it is the global standard for Automotive communication (telematics) for all European cars. The simple fact that someone doesnt know about it "back then" is meaningless. The contra-notion geist is alive and haunting in these journals. Ideas come from non-trivial fields and are being contested on the same level as what Brad Pitt did on his last vacation. I think that needs to be a detached one from the other and categorical value stands within its own niche. As a means of binding together hundreds of Mercedes articles, the option codes are entirely consistent with those existing pages. Miroj ( talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I also contest the directory argument as I have sourced several items via Wikipedia including [content management systems], [internet radio], [SQL server]. There were extensive and highly detailed lists of suppliers, sources, costs and formats. Not to mention brand names and their sites. Please clarify your comment.
Miroj (
talk) 02:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
There are already hundreds of articles on Mercedes products in Wikipedia. Precisely how would you know they relate to a Mercedes if perhaps it wasnt obvious, which one and in what context ? Precisely how would you be able to find them all if perhaps you were not aware of the rather obscure naming conventions. Cross-listing for items within wikipedia is not unreasonable. I happen to know that BMW, Audi and VW followers have us much interest if not more in these topics but that information is not as easily available to them as there is an exclusion by the manufacturer from the method. For example, if you owned a Porsche ... you are more or less bound by their terms and conditions. That this information is available via Mercedes is a credit to them. I draw your attention to the fact that it is an enviable situation for Mercedes owners and those in the industry.
It is nothing more than a cross-listing of existing car related material in a more defined code system. If you want me to fragment all the codes into individual pages (as some dont exist) then sooner or later someone will want to index them all over again. It is just a convoluted self-referencing objection. Miroj ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC). reply
As a child I had several reference libraries. I only ever wore out the ones that were readable as opposed to being popularly regarded as superior. Miroj ( talk) 15:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Miroj ( talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. henrik• talk 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. Corvus cornix talk 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
There are thousands of workshops around the world who would like to reference option codes for repairs, SCN coding, software flashing / enabling and do not have an independent source of information as to the valid cross match.
This information is not compiled in any one place and warrants being referenced as a general tool for people who need to know this information. Miroj ( talk) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC) — Miroj ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
How then would you know what Distronic on a Mercedes is called if you didnt know it was SA=219. Not everyone is interested in what happened to Bo and Hope. Some people would like technical information. Miroj ( talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Do you know this place or are you being a tabloid purist. Miroj ( talk) 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
When someone tells me to get lost I like to ask for directions. I have a clear idea of what is popular and what is famous. At the end of the day Wikipedia need not serve the needs of the LCD. There are people who value information for their own useful purposes. This is far from entertaining but it is also far from useless. Miroj ( talk) 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I should point out that in the official Mercedes Benz system there are also blank entries and information omitted. There is no single source which is pure and free from error. The EPCnet system is now free in the USA and EU. People should bear in mind that using a large and complex system is aided by the inclusion of ecclectic resources elsewhere. Miroj ( talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
There are hundreds if not thousands of proprietary part numbering systems around the world, from things like NATO-STANAG through ATA codes for the airline industry and down to specific part numbering systems for individuals manufacturers. The detailed list of none of those belong in a general encyclopedia. At most a top level description might be appropriate IF the coding system is sufficiently widely used - such as the ISBN system, or the Dewey decimal system. But in neither case would I expect an explicit listing of the code system; for that I need to consult an appropriate specialist manual. I don't want people trying to order parts to do maintenance on ANYTHING - be it a lawnmower or a Jumbo Jet - from Wikipedia! MadScot ( talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia I thought, represented the sum total of human knowledge. Including those items which bind and collate loose information into a unified format. Thus giving rise to many-to-one and one-to-many mappings. There is nothing unusual about wanting to re-index information under a theme or tighter criteria. This generally saves a lot of time and represents the mindset of users / owners / groups which Wikipedia is intended to represent.
You could just as easily file articles loosely and dilute the capacity to derive a greater number of theme oriented ideas. How much deconstruction do you apply before you end up at Hawking radiation and Quark's.
The building of knowledge is also the building of collective and collated ideas. Otherwise we end up with, for example, 1000 articles on mathematical sub theory and no person can adequately denote which ideas are contradictory, opposing and unified.
Similarly, I was looking at the article for MOST (Automotive) and that was flagged as "nothing" - but it is the global standard for Automotive communication (telematics) for all European cars. The simple fact that someone doesnt know about it "back then" is meaningless. The contra-notion geist is alive and haunting in these journals. Ideas come from non-trivial fields and are being contested on the same level as what Brad Pitt did on his last vacation. I think that needs to be a detached one from the other and categorical value stands within its own niche. As a means of binding together hundreds of Mercedes articles, the option codes are entirely consistent with those existing pages. Miroj ( talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I also contest the directory argument as I have sourced several items via Wikipedia including [content management systems], [internet radio], [SQL server]. There were extensive and highly detailed lists of suppliers, sources, costs and formats. Not to mention brand names and their sites. Please clarify your comment.
Miroj (
talk) 02:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
There are already hundreds of articles on Mercedes products in Wikipedia. Precisely how would you know they relate to a Mercedes if perhaps it wasnt obvious, which one and in what context ? Precisely how would you be able to find them all if perhaps you were not aware of the rather obscure naming conventions. Cross-listing for items within wikipedia is not unreasonable. I happen to know that BMW, Audi and VW followers have us much interest if not more in these topics but that information is not as easily available to them as there is an exclusion by the manufacturer from the method. For example, if you owned a Porsche ... you are more or less bound by their terms and conditions. That this information is available via Mercedes is a credit to them. I draw your attention to the fact that it is an enviable situation for Mercedes owners and those in the industry.
It is nothing more than a cross-listing of existing car related material in a more defined code system. If you want me to fragment all the codes into individual pages (as some dont exist) then sooner or later someone will want to index them all over again. It is just a convoluted self-referencing objection. Miroj ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC). reply
As a child I had several reference libraries. I only ever wore out the ones that were readable as opposed to being popularly regarded as superior. Miroj ( talk) 15:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Miroj ( talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply