![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
image:John Young Sangster.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Care to review this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Spec here. I think it's petrol, but am unsure. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone know a good source? I'm using Helpfindmea.co.uk but it has some missing. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 12:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I just merged Opel Movano into Renault Master and turned the blank page into a redirect. It's the same vehicle and i could fit all the article content on a grain of rice, so I didn't consider it controversial enough for a discussion. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 11:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I've started a vote on the separation of the Automotive alternators section to a new article, and how it would be separated. There seem to be a number of things that require work with this article, but I have put just this to vote for now, with other issues to be addressed at a later date.
Please see Separation of automotive alternators to new article for the discussion and vote. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you guys give your opinions on the preferred infobox image for the Kia Sorento here? I prefer the left one for the given reasons but @ Fetx2002: does not. I'd rather bring it here than allow it to escalate into an edit war. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverted image change back to OSX's. @ Fetx2002: isn't getting it... ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 14:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The scope of Diesel exhaust is under discussion, see talk:Diesel exhaust -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 05:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please add a timeline table for the engines. Like the ones they have for the cars.
Engine size down the left side and the years across the top and the engine name/code in the middle showing the years avalible.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.164.23 ( talk) 04:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This. I don't like the wording (in a table of all places) since it implies vehicles are "born", rather than produced, built, created, etc. Am i to leave this, revert, or do we have any prior consensus on this? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 16:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Get rid of the "born", if it means anything in this context, it's slang, but to me it looks like someone has inserted it unintentionally using one of those tools that encourage edits for style and layout without adding content. That said, I'm not sure the inclusion of (-2012) or (2012-) serves any useful purpose in this table anyway, what does it mean? Mighty Antar ( talk) 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone thought of adapting our automobile infoboxes to have sections/dividers, much like the Frenchpedia has? They are more pleasing to the eye with how everything is divided into sections: performance, engines, dimensions, etc. What we have is just a block of text with section placement differing from article to article. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As none of the editors who have commented on the issue of adding headings to the infobox has expressed any opposition to the idea, I have now been bold and added them in. I have chosen the same background colour for the headings as the one used in Infobox tram network and Infobox tram route, but that colour can be changed if desired. (We could even use the same colours for the background and text as fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile if that is believed to be a better combination.) I have also moved the parameters around a little; the "designer" parameter now displays in the "overview" section, and the "chronology" parameters have been moved to the end of the infobox, as per fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile. Bahnfrend ( talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hurrah! The system works! My faith in humanity is restored! Thanks guys ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 19:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with changing the header style from outside to inside the infobox. I don't think there is a reason for such a major change, considering that most contributors have got used to the style used so far. It is also contrary to how the most widespread infoboxes on Wikipedia are structured, particularly to those which are closely related to the Automobiles project, such as infobox company, and it was also not in the initial original request. I understand that the edit was done with good faith per the bold policy, but I think the improvements should not be done unpleasing other editors. I have recently been editing the infoboxes of the automobile artciles, in order to bring them to a common style, but I was very disappointed when I found out this modification. I prefer we keep the style used so far, which was with the title of the page outside the infobox. It is also easier to read since it does not add a colored background to the title. I do not disagree though with the category headers, yet I think that the related field should remain at the bottom of the infobox, as it is not a primary information that one would look for when reading the article about a specific vehicle and also because sometimes it spans over multiple lines (when several models share the same platform). In such cases information of lower importance occupies a large portion of the upper side of the infobox, before the information of essential importance, and in my opinion that is not appropriate. BaboneCar ( talk) 13:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I marginally prefer the outside name layout per consistency and I don't see an objective reason to change it. Regards. Urbanoc ( talk) 12:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This says 1610/1625, but is that 1610mm without the aerial and 1625mm including it? I don't want to assume. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Tho it's a bit OT for this project, I wondered if there's a specification template for vehicles? In particular, something that would be useful for this, capable of including everything from turning circle to gradient performance. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a novice editor trying to drat an article about the JCNA, but it appears he could really use some help with sourcing, WP:Notability, etc. If anyone is into Jags and likes being helpful, it'd be great if you could drop him a line offering assistance. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 16:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
After finding yet another cite for it, I'm now so thoroughly confused about the actual wheelbase(s) of the Packard Eight, I'm not sure any of the numbers are right. Can somebody who actually knows something about Packards, or with a reliable, well-organized source, take a look? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone got time to look? A table appears to have got tangled and i'm currently too busy to look into it. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The naming of the article Automobile ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Automobile -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 21:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Is a mess. Maybe someone knowledgeable (not only about old Bentleys but also about WP policies and guidelines) could spearhead some much-needed improvements? Writegeist ( talk) 04:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The original VW Santana B2 had stopped its production. However, VW Santana Vista 1.6L / 1.8L is still in production only for taxi fleets. See http://blog.autohome.com.cn/article/11370.html. Santana 3000 / Vista 1.8L & 2.0L shares specifications, so please fix the first row of the table "Shanghai VW Santana Specifications". Get 2007 Santana 1.8L specifications from http://www.autohome.com.cn/149/297/options.html. Get 2008 Santana Vista 1.8L specificationshttp://www.autohome.com.cn/207/options.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.115.237 ( talk) 15:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It was suggested to me by a Wikipedia editor that the Automotive Industry Action Group page might be improved by review by members of WikiProject Automobiles, especially those who might have industry insight into frank reviews of the effectiveness of the group. I'm having a hard time sourcing articles that aren't directly or indirectly from the organization. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in writing a stub (or a DYK) about this weird contraption I photographed a while ago? I am not seeing that much on Google, but it seems notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Ferrari 158, an editor has questioned whether a 180° V12 is in fact the same thing as a flat-12. Some quick Googling suggests that they are different, but I don't completely understand the explanations provided, so I was wondering if someone here might be able to explain the difference at Talk:Ferrari 158. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 31#Template:Infobox electric vehicle. OSX ( talk • contributions) 12:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The article BMW Concept Cars has a lot of photographs from Commons that were copied from a web site that does not state the sources of their photos. At least one of the photos is attributed to Pininfarina where there is no record of the site using such a licence from Pininfarina nor of the site having Pininfarina's permission to use the photo. Worst of all, a copy of the photo is in a book I have, and the book's photo credits do not include Pininfarina.
Is this a grand theft of auto pictures, or am I overrreacting?
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 05:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Stands accused by me of (now years of) persistent following stalking or dogging.
Here is the evidence, a week without the recourse that might otherwise be expected for these straightforward reverts:
Eddaido ( talk) 09:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That alone says it all but you can certainly embroider it with obsessed stalker and follower,
WP:Hound and
WP:DE. Maybe I should mention Svengali
Thanks for the above chat about edits and things. Its a long time since I've read anything Samblob has written beyond its first few words (if that) so I can't comment further.
And, please don't mistake me, I do want to belabour the point about Dogging - it is the whole purpose for my writing here.
Wait on, there is something else—readers should consider the possibility that if they think Samblob has changed a statement and corrected it that might just mean they know as little about it as Samblob does. Eddaido ( talk) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
Eddaido sent me scanned copies of the newspaper articles in question and I have put them on my website at http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brilliant/ I will probably delete them when this is over.
To me it's a bit 50/50. The lawyer definitely had a brilliant career and Google finds plenty to gush about him, including this trial where Hooley was set free and the other man sent to prison. I think it fair to say that Isaacs presented a very good case in court. Whether 'brilliant' is the right word to use here is more subjective. Possibly we could say that Isaacs (as Hooley's lawyer) was instrumental in having Hooley set free while Lawson (representing himself) was sentenced to a year of hard labour ( http://books.google.com.au/books?ei=bS-CUqjqFMfjkAWQwoDgCA&id=6KIKAQAAMAAJ&dq=hooley+lawson+hard+labour+isaacs&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hooley+lawson+%22hard+labour%22). And of course the supporting references of the newspaper articles and "The First Marquess of Reading" book should be added. Stepho talk 13:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Some assistance recquired. This vehicle, which is a very limited run and low notability, keeps getting recreated instead of being a redirect. Sourcing establishes the vehicles statistics, but not its notability and it's a double intersection of vehicle generation (EL series) and vehicle specification (GT). There was a discussion at Talk:Ford Falcon GT#EL GT but the editor is now ignoring it. Your advice? -- Falcadore ( talk) 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
While I do not normally put forward ideas of starting new organizations for fear of having to be involved in the creation of them, I have noticed the Special Interest Groups in WikiProject Motorcycling and I think it might be a good idea to have one in WikiProject Automobiles for British automobiles. To paraphrase the
one for British motorcycles, it would aim "to ensure that the coverage of the history of British motorcyclingautomobiles on Wikipedia is as accurate and comprehensive as possible."
There are many articles on British automobiles and automobile manufacturers and they vary widely in content, quality, and compliance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Would it be helpful to have a task force of editors to assess and improve existing articles and create new ones where necessary?
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This project really could use a few truly dedicated obsessives. What might be the best way to try to attract them? sincerely, Eddaido ( talk) 06:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This heading should be deleted. It is here to mock and harass SamBlob. Either drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, or take it to WP:ANI.
With regard to content, both SamBlob and Eddaido need to listen to and heed the opinions of others who have joined the disputes, and accept that they might not get their way. But clearly it is Eddaido who is using sarcasm, mockery, and personal attacks, and that must stop. Now somebody delete this thread and let us never speak of this again. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
From our Mercedes Benz SL article i found these two pictures:
Is anyone able to confirm that these are Saloon/Sedans or Coupes? And if they are both convertibles (One clearly is). There is no mention of the available body styles in the infobox or article. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Roadster (automobile) says "A roadster is an open (without a fixed roof or side weather protection) two-seat car with emphasis on sporty handling" (my emphasis). Convertible says "A convertible is a type of automobile of various automobile body styles that can convert from open-air mode to a provisional enclosed (roofed) mode." Assuming the car is of a sporty nature (ie not an open top boulevard cruiser), this seems to imply that a convertible is a subset of roadster. So if a sporty car can sometimes have no roof or sometimes have a soft top or sometimes have a removable hard top, then it is both a roaster and a convertible. Stepho talk 05:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Mustang ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Mustang horse -- 65.94.78.70 ( talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinion about this recently created article: Range extender (vehicle). Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 17:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Many of our vehicle articles have all the references in yyyy-mm-dd format. But a recent policy change at MOS:BADDATEFORMAT says that year+month dates (ie without a specified day of the month) are no longer allowed in the yyyy-mm format (claiming a conflict with year ranges in the 2013-14 format). This requires a reference date such as 2013-04 to be changed to April 2013. But this conflicts with MOS:DATEUNIFY, which requires all reference dates to be in the same format and thus forcing all other reference dates in the article to no longer use the yyyy-mm-dd format. If you hate the yyyy-mm-dd format and want a chance to boot it out then add your view at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format?. Or if you love the yyyy-mm-dd format and want to keep it, then add your view at the same place. Stepho talk 06:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please look at my article and see if it can go into the article space? /info/en/?search=User:Qunty/sandbox2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qunty ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again though! ~ User:Qunty 01:35 PM, 9 January 2014(EST)
![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
image:John Young Sangster.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Care to review this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Spec here. I think it's petrol, but am unsure. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone know a good source? I'm using Helpfindmea.co.uk but it has some missing. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 12:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I just merged Opel Movano into Renault Master and turned the blank page into a redirect. It's the same vehicle and i could fit all the article content on a grain of rice, so I didn't consider it controversial enough for a discussion. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 11:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I've started a vote on the separation of the Automotive alternators section to a new article, and how it would be separated. There seem to be a number of things that require work with this article, but I have put just this to vote for now, with other issues to be addressed at a later date.
Please see Separation of automotive alternators to new article for the discussion and vote. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you guys give your opinions on the preferred infobox image for the Kia Sorento here? I prefer the left one for the given reasons but @ Fetx2002: does not. I'd rather bring it here than allow it to escalate into an edit war. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverted image change back to OSX's. @ Fetx2002: isn't getting it... ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 14:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The scope of Diesel exhaust is under discussion, see talk:Diesel exhaust -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 05:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please add a timeline table for the engines. Like the ones they have for the cars.
Engine size down the left side and the years across the top and the engine name/code in the middle showing the years avalible.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.164.23 ( talk) 04:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This. I don't like the wording (in a table of all places) since it implies vehicles are "born", rather than produced, built, created, etc. Am i to leave this, revert, or do we have any prior consensus on this? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 16:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Get rid of the "born", if it means anything in this context, it's slang, but to me it looks like someone has inserted it unintentionally using one of those tools that encourage edits for style and layout without adding content. That said, I'm not sure the inclusion of (-2012) or (2012-) serves any useful purpose in this table anyway, what does it mean? Mighty Antar ( talk) 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone thought of adapting our automobile infoboxes to have sections/dividers, much like the Frenchpedia has? They are more pleasing to the eye with how everything is divided into sections: performance, engines, dimensions, etc. What we have is just a block of text with section placement differing from article to article. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As none of the editors who have commented on the issue of adding headings to the infobox has expressed any opposition to the idea, I have now been bold and added them in. I have chosen the same background colour for the headings as the one used in Infobox tram network and Infobox tram route, but that colour can be changed if desired. (We could even use the same colours for the background and text as fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile if that is believed to be a better combination.) I have also moved the parameters around a little; the "designer" parameter now displays in the "overview" section, and the "chronology" parameters have been moved to the end of the infobox, as per fr:Modèle:Infobox Automobile. Bahnfrend ( talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hurrah! The system works! My faith in humanity is restored! Thanks guys ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 19:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with changing the header style from outside to inside the infobox. I don't think there is a reason for such a major change, considering that most contributors have got used to the style used so far. It is also contrary to how the most widespread infoboxes on Wikipedia are structured, particularly to those which are closely related to the Automobiles project, such as infobox company, and it was also not in the initial original request. I understand that the edit was done with good faith per the bold policy, but I think the improvements should not be done unpleasing other editors. I have recently been editing the infoboxes of the automobile artciles, in order to bring them to a common style, but I was very disappointed when I found out this modification. I prefer we keep the style used so far, which was with the title of the page outside the infobox. It is also easier to read since it does not add a colored background to the title. I do not disagree though with the category headers, yet I think that the related field should remain at the bottom of the infobox, as it is not a primary information that one would look for when reading the article about a specific vehicle and also because sometimes it spans over multiple lines (when several models share the same platform). In such cases information of lower importance occupies a large portion of the upper side of the infobox, before the information of essential importance, and in my opinion that is not appropriate. BaboneCar ( talk) 13:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I marginally prefer the outside name layout per consistency and I don't see an objective reason to change it. Regards. Urbanoc ( talk) 12:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This says 1610/1625, but is that 1610mm without the aerial and 1625mm including it? I don't want to assume. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Tho it's a bit OT for this project, I wondered if there's a specification template for vehicles? In particular, something that would be useful for this, capable of including everything from turning circle to gradient performance. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a novice editor trying to drat an article about the JCNA, but it appears he could really use some help with sourcing, WP:Notability, etc. If anyone is into Jags and likes being helpful, it'd be great if you could drop him a line offering assistance. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 16:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
After finding yet another cite for it, I'm now so thoroughly confused about the actual wheelbase(s) of the Packard Eight, I'm not sure any of the numbers are right. Can somebody who actually knows something about Packards, or with a reliable, well-organized source, take a look? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone got time to look? A table appears to have got tangled and i'm currently too busy to look into it. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The naming of the article Automobile ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Automobile -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 21:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Is a mess. Maybe someone knowledgeable (not only about old Bentleys but also about WP policies and guidelines) could spearhead some much-needed improvements? Writegeist ( talk) 04:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The original VW Santana B2 had stopped its production. However, VW Santana Vista 1.6L / 1.8L is still in production only for taxi fleets. See http://blog.autohome.com.cn/article/11370.html. Santana 3000 / Vista 1.8L & 2.0L shares specifications, so please fix the first row of the table "Shanghai VW Santana Specifications". Get 2007 Santana 1.8L specifications from http://www.autohome.com.cn/149/297/options.html. Get 2008 Santana Vista 1.8L specificationshttp://www.autohome.com.cn/207/options.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.115.237 ( talk) 15:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It was suggested to me by a Wikipedia editor that the Automotive Industry Action Group page might be improved by review by members of WikiProject Automobiles, especially those who might have industry insight into frank reviews of the effectiveness of the group. I'm having a hard time sourcing articles that aren't directly or indirectly from the organization. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in writing a stub (or a DYK) about this weird contraption I photographed a while ago? I am not seeing that much on Google, but it seems notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Ferrari 158, an editor has questioned whether a 180° V12 is in fact the same thing as a flat-12. Some quick Googling suggests that they are different, but I don't completely understand the explanations provided, so I was wondering if someone here might be able to explain the difference at Talk:Ferrari 158. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 31#Template:Infobox electric vehicle. OSX ( talk • contributions) 12:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The article BMW Concept Cars has a lot of photographs from Commons that were copied from a web site that does not state the sources of their photos. At least one of the photos is attributed to Pininfarina where there is no record of the site using such a licence from Pininfarina nor of the site having Pininfarina's permission to use the photo. Worst of all, a copy of the photo is in a book I have, and the book's photo credits do not include Pininfarina.
Is this a grand theft of auto pictures, or am I overrreacting?
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 05:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Stands accused by me of (now years of) persistent following stalking or dogging.
Here is the evidence, a week without the recourse that might otherwise be expected for these straightforward reverts:
Eddaido ( talk) 09:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That alone says it all but you can certainly embroider it with obsessed stalker and follower,
WP:Hound and
WP:DE. Maybe I should mention Svengali
Thanks for the above chat about edits and things. Its a long time since I've read anything Samblob has written beyond its first few words (if that) so I can't comment further.
And, please don't mistake me, I do want to belabour the point about Dogging - it is the whole purpose for my writing here.
Wait on, there is something else—readers should consider the possibility that if they think Samblob has changed a statement and corrected it that might just mean they know as little about it as Samblob does. Eddaido ( talk) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
Eddaido sent me scanned copies of the newspaper articles in question and I have put them on my website at http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brilliant/ I will probably delete them when this is over.
To me it's a bit 50/50. The lawyer definitely had a brilliant career and Google finds plenty to gush about him, including this trial where Hooley was set free and the other man sent to prison. I think it fair to say that Isaacs presented a very good case in court. Whether 'brilliant' is the right word to use here is more subjective. Possibly we could say that Isaacs (as Hooley's lawyer) was instrumental in having Hooley set free while Lawson (representing himself) was sentenced to a year of hard labour ( http://books.google.com.au/books?ei=bS-CUqjqFMfjkAWQwoDgCA&id=6KIKAQAAMAAJ&dq=hooley+lawson+hard+labour+isaacs&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hooley+lawson+%22hard+labour%22). And of course the supporting references of the newspaper articles and "The First Marquess of Reading" book should be added. Stepho talk 13:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Some assistance recquired. This vehicle, which is a very limited run and low notability, keeps getting recreated instead of being a redirect. Sourcing establishes the vehicles statistics, but not its notability and it's a double intersection of vehicle generation (EL series) and vehicle specification (GT). There was a discussion at Talk:Ford Falcon GT#EL GT but the editor is now ignoring it. Your advice? -- Falcadore ( talk) 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
While I do not normally put forward ideas of starting new organizations for fear of having to be involved in the creation of them, I have noticed the Special Interest Groups in WikiProject Motorcycling and I think it might be a good idea to have one in WikiProject Automobiles for British automobiles. To paraphrase the
one for British motorcycles, it would aim "to ensure that the coverage of the history of British motorcyclingautomobiles on Wikipedia is as accurate and comprehensive as possible."
There are many articles on British automobiles and automobile manufacturers and they vary widely in content, quality, and compliance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Would it be helpful to have a task force of editors to assess and improve existing articles and create new ones where necessary?
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This project really could use a few truly dedicated obsessives. What might be the best way to try to attract them? sincerely, Eddaido ( talk) 06:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This heading should be deleted. It is here to mock and harass SamBlob. Either drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, or take it to WP:ANI.
With regard to content, both SamBlob and Eddaido need to listen to and heed the opinions of others who have joined the disputes, and accept that they might not get their way. But clearly it is Eddaido who is using sarcasm, mockery, and personal attacks, and that must stop. Now somebody delete this thread and let us never speak of this again. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
From our Mercedes Benz SL article i found these two pictures:
Is anyone able to confirm that these are Saloon/Sedans or Coupes? And if they are both convertibles (One clearly is). There is no mention of the available body styles in the infobox or article. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Roadster (automobile) says "A roadster is an open (without a fixed roof or side weather protection) two-seat car with emphasis on sporty handling" (my emphasis). Convertible says "A convertible is a type of automobile of various automobile body styles that can convert from open-air mode to a provisional enclosed (roofed) mode." Assuming the car is of a sporty nature (ie not an open top boulevard cruiser), this seems to imply that a convertible is a subset of roadster. So if a sporty car can sometimes have no roof or sometimes have a soft top or sometimes have a removable hard top, then it is both a roaster and a convertible. Stepho talk 05:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Mustang ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Mustang horse -- 65.94.78.70 ( talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinion about this recently created article: Range extender (vehicle). Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 17:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Many of our vehicle articles have all the references in yyyy-mm-dd format. But a recent policy change at MOS:BADDATEFORMAT says that year+month dates (ie without a specified day of the month) are no longer allowed in the yyyy-mm format (claiming a conflict with year ranges in the 2013-14 format). This requires a reference date such as 2013-04 to be changed to April 2013. But this conflicts with MOS:DATEUNIFY, which requires all reference dates to be in the same format and thus forcing all other reference dates in the article to no longer use the yyyy-mm-dd format. If you hate the yyyy-mm-dd format and want a chance to boot it out then add your view at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format?. Or if you love the yyyy-mm-dd format and want to keep it, then add your view at the same place. Stepho talk 06:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please look at my article and see if it can go into the article space? /info/en/?search=User:Qunty/sandbox2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qunty ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again though! ~ User:Qunty 01:35 PM, 9 January 2014(EST)