This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stepho-wrs.
Stepho's talk page
Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me.
To messages left on my talk page, I respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses.
Local time is UTC+8 in Western Australia (we get sunrise 8 hours before the UK and 12-16 hours ahead of North America). Please have that in mind if leaving time-sensitive comments.
All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large.
Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything.
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Mariordo's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.
Hello, Stepho-wrs. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.
I have noticed a string of highly problematic edits by user Carmaker1:[1]. As with Volvo V70, Nissan Murano, Audi 100 and Honda Odyssey (North America), he inserts the names of car designers based on missing, misleading or spurious references. In the Volvo V70 article, he inserted the name of a dubious designer into an article in such a way as to leave a direct and referenced quote by the actual designer attributed to his newly introduced spurious designer. And from what I can tell, he's pretty much blazing a trail through lots and lots of articles. His responses are... well... not helpful, to say the least. I notice that you ran into some similar issues with him recently. Is this something you could help with?842U (talk)
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Idaltu's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.
You reverted my change of "nearly all English speaking nations except the USA and the Philippines" to "nearly all English speaking nations but not the USA and the Philippines". In the first version the "nearly" implies that there are additional exceptions beyond the USA and Philippines. The second version implies that USA and Philippines are exceptions that make it "nearly all" rather than "all"; they might be the only exceptions or there might be additional ones. I am not sure that the first version has the meaning intended (What would be the additional exceptions?), so the second version is safer. I don't think that the second version is any less grammatical or harder to understand, so I am surprised that you saw fit to revert! Will you reconsider? It's a small point, I realise!
If the text had been "all countries except the USA and Philippines", there would not be an issue to discuss: it is the "nearly" that makes the difference. JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, I got distracted by other stuff and forgot to respond. I believe the original version is better. But it's only a small thing so I'm not going to make a fuss about it. Stepho talk 21:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the constructive and generous attitude. Good that we can agree to disagree over this very marginal matter. JMCHutchinson (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for additions and alterations, and suggestions. Do you think the article is ready for submitting to publication? - NealeWellington (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soon. I haven't worked my way through formatting all the references yet.
I'd also like to remove the Alibaba reference until we find another reference that explicitly ties them together. At the moment, the most we can say is that they look very similar to each other. Stepho talk 05:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that unless Quantum come out and say who the obtain their car bodies from we won't ever know. Anyway, there is our comments on the talk page and these should point others in a direction to look. I agree there should be no reference to Alibaba in the article. I'll keep digging around to see if I can find anything else, but I think we are almost at the end. Thanks. NealeWellington (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MuhammadOkky1234 is adding nationalities to multiple articles, not just automobile makes. And doing so repeatedly after being warned to stop. DarkAudit (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Was just giving him the benefit of the doubt for youthful exuberance before labelling him as malicious. If he continues then he's had ample warning. Stepho talk 04:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. I sorta read that as, "Oi, don't pick on the new kid!" too. DarkAudit (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about that. I had multiple tabs open trying to sort out that preceding edit, and I must've clicked "edit" on an older revision instead of the current one. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries - done similar myself enough times :) Stepho talk 00:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number 25 was derived from long discussion on the talk page, not copied from FIA[edit]
Where did you come up with number 25 if the number is not copied from FIA rules from 1969, and that was for Group 4 cars.
Group 1 : series-preduction touring cars (5,000)
Group 2 : touring cars (1,000)
Group 3: grand touring cars (500)
Group 4 : sports cars (25)
Group 1 : series-production touring cars (5,000)
Group 2: touring cars (1,000)
Group 3: series-production grand touring cars (1,000)
Group 4: grand touring cars (400)
Group 5: special production cars deriving from Groups 1 to 4
Group 1 : series-production touring cars (5,000)
Group 2: touring cars (1,000)
Group 3: series-production grand touring cars (1,000) Group 4: grand touring cars (400)
Group 5: special production cars deriving from Groups 1 to 4
That 25 is obsolete number, production number should be at least 400 for example 500 Bugatti Chirons were produced, not including other variants like Chiron Sport, Chiron Super Sport, Chiron Noire, Chiron Pur Sport, Chiron Profilée, etc.). 141.138.24.111 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how to do it. Also, I don't know what should the number be? From FIA, 400 cars produced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.24.111 (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I think that 25 is a good number and that we do not have to blindly copy FIA's number but if you think the number is wrong then go to talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration, click on "Add topic" (top right) and make your case. Stepho talk 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "dispute" is one between just two editors who are obsessed by the topic, NRS and TCG (who has been banned but pops back up repeatedly as an IP). NRS is on the edge of a block (see their talk page). Compromise and proportion are alien concepts. My advice is not to get involved: I did and regretted it, but not any more. The RFC closed in January should have put an end to further discussion and I should have seen it lot earlier. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Way to go, kiddo! Gonna slap a warning on my talk page for reverting your edit? You reverted my edit, quoting WP:BRD. So where is the "D" part of that claim you make? You know, that bit that spells it out: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." But you win... Close, but co Cigar! I can't be bothered to argue with experienced editors who should know better. There's too much vandalism around this joint that needs more immediate attention for me to waste my time. BTW, it may have slipped your attention, but my revert was a good faith revert. Gone with the wind... --Technopat (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what you're talking about. Maxeto0910 made a bold claim that I had suspicions about, so I did a revert and listed my reasons in the edit summary. I have also added a topic on the discussion page. If you follow my history you will see that I can be passionate about pursuing the truth but I am not vindictive to the editor. I also try to be civil. I have suspicions about an American bias in American references (found to be true many times) but if the discussion supports the original claims then I will happily remove my objections. Are there any other names you'd like to call me? Stepho talk 11:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Stepho - I am not entirely clear on Toyota's earliest history, but wasn't their first car sold as the Toyoda AA? Did they change the name and badging in August 1937? Not necessarily saying Toyota AA should be renamed, but I imagine the first prototype should be Toyoda A1 and Toyoda AA should at least receive mention. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have to do some research but some quick checks reveal that the name change Toyoda -> Toyota happened in Sept 1936 and that Model AA was released sometime in 1936. It's possible that the AA was always a Toyota AA but also possible that it was a Toyoda for a few months. The A1 was never released (just 3 prototypes for factory testing that lead into the AA production model). But it's not hard to add redirects for the Toyoda names. I'd shy away from renaming the article because it would confuse more than it clarify. But depending on what research brings up, we could mention the company name change in the text. Stepho talk 22:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just looked at Toyota's own timeline and they refer to the AA/AB and GA as Toyoda products in 1936: September 14-16: Exhibition held commemorating the completion of Japan-made Toyoda cars for the general public. Model AA, AB phaeton, GA truck, and other vehicles announced (Tokyo Prefecture Commercial and Industrial Promotion Hall). Then, in August and September 1937 Toyota Motor Co., Ltd established - Risaburo Toyoda and Kiichiro Toyoda appointed company president and vice president, respectively, [and on] September 29 Toyoda Automatic Loom Works' automotive manufacturing operations handed over to Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've only done some cursory looking but it looks like they always referred to it as the Model AA, never as the Toyota AA or Toyoda AA.
In "A history of the first 50 years" on page 65 it says:
Feb 1936 - design work of AA begins, based on A1.
Jul 1936 - they ran the competition for the new company logo.
14 Sep 1936 - Toyoda Automatic Loom Works sponsored an exhibit in Tokyo to show the AA, AB cars, the GA truck and DA bus.
Oct 1936 - renamed the Model AA as the "Kokusan Toyota Goh" ("the domestically produced Toyota") and always used the new name after that.
28 Aug 1937 - Toyota Motor Co. Ltd. established as a new company (page 66-67).
The exact date of starting sales/advertising of the AA is not mentioned, so there maybe a short time between start of sales/advertising and the rename where it was called the Toyoda AA. Feb-Oct 1936 at most. Stepho talk 02:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well - it doesn't look like there is any reason to even add an aka without any clear support from references. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Stepho-wrs, I recently added a chunk of information on the toyota starlet page under P90 section, a lot of it regarding the UK models. This information was gathered by a few of us collectively due to our interest in the subject, and has taken us a long time to gather this information for ourselves. I thought I would be a good idea to share that information, particularly with how little information about the SR model we have here in the UK.
I am new to editing wiki pages, and you said in your reason for the bulk revert was there were no reliable sources to back this up. Our information was gathered through many dealer brochures and accessories brochures, information from toyota's own website (history of the toyota starlet), UK vehicle registry information, and TTE's website that can be accessed via the way back machine archive. All of this information I can provide via links & image's, however, being new I don't know how to do this.
If you could please let me know how I can go about proving these reliable sources to have this information restored, I would appreciate it. Thank you Trevstar34 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mostly it is digging up the sources that you used to come to your conclusions. These have to be publicly published sources, such as books, brochures (although this counts as a primary source and may be treated as biased towards Toyota), magazines, websites of well known companies (not fan sites) or any other source that is likely to have vetted by professional editors. See WP:RS. This allows us to double check you work instead of simply taking your word for it. I have been in your position of gathering and presenting data. Sometimes I have made mistakes. Or incomplete sources made my presented data slightly wrong. Wikipedia lives and dies by reliable sources. Stepho talk 22:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a reminder of why I just took a 3 year break editing. Nyth63 01:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a minor disagreement. I'm happy to discuss on the Model T talk page and come to some agreement over the best grammar to use. Please read MOS:NOTE first. Stepho talk 02:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just seen your revised changes and I have no problem with them. Cheers! Stepho talk 02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it is a bit archaic in vernacular use: I used it because it is the absolute generic name for the fuel which is used in government documentation. For example this report on gov.uk, which includes the line
Total petrol excise duty receipts which are calculated by summing together excise duty receipts from several different motor spirits, over 95% of which is unleaded petrol.
It does use "petrol" as well. "Motor spirit" is used to distinguish petrol manufactured for use in land vehicles from that used in aero engines ("aviation spirit"), which are both called "petrol" in vernacular parlance but for tax reasons are considered very different products, hence HM Revenue & Customs' continued use. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, motor spirit is technically more correct. But only older British/Commonwealth readers would understand it. Younger British/Commonwealth readers would not understand it. Americans have enough trouble with "petrol" - they would be totally lost, perhaps thinking that motor spirit means drinking gin while driving. Stepho talk 00:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, you were right, I was wrong. Its fine.
Or maybe they would think "motor spirit" means a ghostly car! 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All good. Try a YouTube search for "Toyota HiLux - An Unbreakable Connection" :) Stepho talk 08:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed the 3.4 to a 3.5 due to the V35A engine nomenclature. 3.5 (3445cc) is correct, but look at the engine code nomenclature, if you write 3.4 it means the correct engine code is V34A. FelixGinting (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3445 cc rounds to 3.4 L, not 3.5 L. The name of the engine is not always a true indication of its capacity. Toyota gave it a name that implies it is 3.5 L and markets it as a 3.5 L but it is in fact a 3.4 L. Marketing and facts do not always agree and Wikipedia always aligns with facts. However, if you disagree with me then please feel free to raise the question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. Stepho talk 07:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that you reverted an edit I made on the Tesla Inc. article and wanted to ask you about it. I changed "2019-present" to "Since 2019" and you commented in the reversion that MOS:TOPRESENT is for textual paragraphs, not applicable for infoboxes. . ."
The tables and infoboxes language in the MOS says that "pres." can be used when space is limited (with the example "1982-pres."). But the essence of MOS:TOPRESENT is to remove ambiguity. That plus MOS:DATED combined essentially say that terms like now, currently, present, etc. should not be used unless they also include a reference to the time it was written. The part about infoblocks and tables seems to be an exception when space is limited (probably because there isn't room to include additional wording for when). I do not see anything that specifically ties MOS:TOPRESENT to only textual paragraphs and do not see anything about headings.
I don't agree with your reversion unless there is more that you can provide in reference. Please let me know your thoughts on this as I see a lot of "-present" out there .
MOS:TOPRESENT applies to text paragraphs. It allows other parts to differ. In this case, we have a number of related section headings that say:
Founding (2003–2004)
Roadster (2005–2009)
IPO, Model S, and Model X (2010–2015)
SolarCity and Model 3 (2016–2018)
Global expansion and Model Y (2019–present)
The format of each is perfectly matched. To change the last one to "Global expansion and Model Y (since 2019)" breaks the pattern and jars the reader for no good reason.
Thanks. I'm more interested in MOS:TOPRESENT generally than with this article specifically, so this thread doesn't really belong on the talk page for this article. But you're welcome to post it there, if you find that appropriate.
I see what you are saying about the pattern being broken, but I don't understand what that means from a Wikipedia orthographic standpoint. So, some natural questions are:
1. Where in the MOS, or elsewhere, is there specific guidance on not breaking the pattern in a list or "jarring the reader" the way you are describing, and how does that apply specifically w/r/t MOS:TOPRESENT, especially if contradictory? In other words, does not breaking a pattern across headings, which I agree can be good from a readership standpoint, override MOS:TOPRESENT?
2. Where in the MOS does it say that MOS:TOPRESENT (or MOS:DATED or others) only applies to text paragraphs, and, as you've said here, allows other parts in the article (e.g., headings) to differ, beyond what it says about infoblocks and tables? I have already asked you this question.
3. I really hate to have to ask this one this way, but is what you are saying just your opinion or a preference?
@Stepho-wrs, you have reverted an edit that was based on, and specifically referenced, MOS:TOPRESENT, and you have not yet offered a conclusive explanation with your rationale, one that is grounded in specific language from the MOS. I understand that there are overlaps, gaps, and edge cases, that, at times, have to be taken into consideration, which you may be touching on, but you have not done that, up to this point, in an objective manner (i.e., with citation).
I have seen your reverted edit on Automated lane keeping systems/Automated Lane Keeping Systems due to assumed vague (and unverifiable[sic]) references.
I agree, this means that it would be possible to add URLs and more details.
Please, find hereunder few pieces of information to help you in that sense:
Section
Concept
Limitation
Verifiability / Proposed URL to search
Introduction
ALKS as (the/a) first step toward Automated Driving Systems (ADS)
I may agree the sentence might be limited to a UNECE/European view/context and may not need to be in the Lead
As such sentence is suggested by both Dutch and British authorities, might be googled with site:gov.uk and site:rdl.nl. Might be site:sec.gov would have some sentence on the "first binding international regulation on “Level 3” vehicle automation".
History
Mercedes is the first car manufacturer to implement such system in Germany, Europe.
Pure verifiable fact, without any kind of ambiguity
Let's search for level 3, Germany, Mercedes.
History
The company aims to target American ... market
Pure verifiable fact, without any kind of ambiguity
Let's search for level 3, Nevada, (or California), Mercedes.
History
The company aims to target (...) Chinese markets.
Might need additional verification
Regulation
the US, the UK and Japan are considering ALKS legalization
Don't know neither if legalization is the right word nor if it matches the US case, as the US may work differently than Europe, Japan and Korea
For the UK, information may be available on Internet
For Japan, might be site:sec.gov would have some sentence on the January 2021, MLIT adoption of UN R157, which regulates automated lane keep systems (ALKS).
What I mean is that it is the responsibility of the editor adding the fact to also provide a reference to directly back up that fact and that reference should go directly to the supporting evidence. Eg, when we use a book for a reference we also supply the page number. When we use a journal then we provide the volume/issue numbers or the issue date, along with the page number and article title. Or we provide a URL that goes directly to a web page that supports your fact. Instead, you have given me the bare minimum of clues and expect me to do hours of research to see if your facts are right or wrong. Double checking your facts via references should be the work of minutes, not hours. Obviously you know where you got your facts from. I ask that you tell us where you got them from, with enough details that we can check them in a simple manner without having to do hours of research ourselves. See WP:VERIFIABLE. Stepho talk 14:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I give a source of information, and if one only rely on a single source of information I give, and if this source is ill-written, or poorly reflecting reality, or reflect a local view, I wonder which kind of verification the process provides.
In such a case it might have been an error to add such pieces of information, as it would be a good thing that information is confirmed by other sources. This is because with those new things, the media do not always use the exact right words and confusion may occur. I will let native speakers write it.
I've saw on YouTube that Toyota Crown was imported to the Philippines
Do you think that price is Php 5.6 mil, a Flagship VIP Sedan 64.226.63.144 (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not understand your question. Be aware that Wikipedia does not list prices - see WP:NOTPRICE. Stepho talk 07:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Toyota dealerships has been nominated for discussion[edit]
Category:Toyota dealerships has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery *it has begun... 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Australia topicon[edit]
Randolph WAS purchased by William Durant in 1909. He sold it back to the original owners in 1911.
Yellow Cab was bought by GM in 1925
Yellow Coach was purchased by GM in 1923.
Both Yellow companies were part of the GM Coach Division (GMC) Kyeniy (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, a mistake on my part. I saw the defunct brands you listed in the "current" section (they belong in the "former" section) and did a revert. I didn't notice the many other good changes you made. I will undo my revert but you do need to shift the defunct brands out of the current section. Stepho talk 23:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will delete those marques under the Chevy brand. Kyeniy (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for restoring my edits.
I recently was finally able to purchase the Beaulieu Encyclopedia of Automobiles, Vol 1 &2.
I've been making a spreadsheet for over a decade with every car company I can find that has ever existed. My car book collection is so vast that it's broken the shelf on the bookcase, so I can't retrieve son on the lower shelf. (To me, that's still a proud problem to have) I'm fascinated by who was bought by who, what reminiscences still pop up every now and then. (When Jeep came out with the "Overland" trim, the whole history of Jeep/Willys/American Bantam, flooded back. Kyeniy (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stepho-wrs, I have started a discussion at AN/I regarding Antares600's disruptive editing. The thread is here if you have any input. --Sable232 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the short list of editors that you have pointed this out to, you could easily be accused of canvassing. I suggest you make the same post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. Stepho talk 00:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only went through their past couple pages of contributions looking for editors they've recently reverted, but I'll do that as well, thanks. --Sable232 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find that there's a lot of confusion in the non-enthusiast public about how to define a "higher" vs "lower" gear, because it's customary to refer to first or second gear as "low" gear, while fourth or fifth is "high" gear; however, a "low" gear in this context has a higher numeric ratio and a higher engine RPM at a given speed. This causes a muddle when trying to decide whether to say that a gear ratio was "raised" or "lowered". I don't know about where you live, but it's common for enthusiasts in the U.S. to refer to a higher numeric gear ratio as a "shorter" gear and a lower numeric ratio as a "taller" or "longer" gear to make communications clear; however, I think this qualifies as WP:JARGON that would make little sense to the uninitiated, and I'm not sure it's universal throughout the English-speaking world either. Carguychris (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, we have the same problem in Australia. Properly a diff ratio should be like 1:4.3 or 1/4.3 but most magazines just put 4.3 and leave it to the reader to know what taller/shorter/higher/lower means. Australian magazines use the terminology from both the UK and US, so we get all the combinations. Stepho talk 23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Stepho; I was dismayed to see that your page is down. Banpei's mirror is missing a number of things, including the Celica brochures. I was looking to see which colors Toyota used on the 1979 Celica in Australia - perhaps you can help, or perhaps even send the brochure scans to Banpei so that they could update? Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 22:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like User:Left guide has it in for you - not only are they gutting all Toyota articles you worked upon, but they also did a bunch of edits to Wayne Stephenson - ha. They have over 10,000 edits in four months, most of them utterly meaningless. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The singular image that remained, chosen by the individual in question, that represented the global Toyota Camry (XV30).The BMW 1 Series (F40) page uses Vauxford’s UK taken picture, even though the UK market isn’t mentioned in the article It is somewhat irritating. The Camry (XV30) page was significantly worsened by Left guide until I spent hours looking for sources, most of which were pretty poor quality, that were for some reason absent before (OSX didn’t add sources on a lot of his edits for some reason). Left guide substantially removed the important markets, retaining only the Chinese and South East Asian markets. Additionally, he changed the lead photo, and after all of the removing, the page showcased one single image representing the global Camry, and that is the image on the left. After he removed all of the markets, he changed the lead picture. His edit summary was “swapping out image selection that was based on WP:OR (which is forbidden by policy), since there have been no sources in this article that verify the existence of an Australian version of this vehicle”. This is not a consistent rationale. Many, many automotive Wikipedia articles, such as the BMW 1 Series (F40), do not mention the countries where the cars are sold, yet they use lead pictures taken in those respective countries. If anybody would like to see the revision before that, here it is. Main point is, please don’t make the page look bad, or remove the important things without searching, because the XV30 was practically ruined when Left guide removed all of those markets and changed the lead pic. I apologise if my explanation was unclear.
It appears that his focus is not solely directed at Stepho. When I edited the Toyota RAV4 page, which had not been modified for two weeks, about six hours after my edit, he came, looked at any unsourced content, and removed it. 750h+ (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I've notice that he seems to be following my edits. In general, his edits have been good. And he pays attention to the corrections I've made to his edits (mostly formatting). He is a bit, shall we say, enthusiastic about deleting unreferenced material. Hard to criticise him when this stuff has been there for years with references, even though the info is probably true. Stepho talk 22:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Holden Commodore has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with adding ((clear)) is that it makes articles look messy and amateurish rather than professional and encyclopaedic. Which, to my mind, is far more important than matching up endless images with text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, my opinion is the exact opposite. Have things lined up and each image within its section looks far more professional. Having images creeping into the wrong section or creeping halfway across section titles makes it look amateurish and makes it far harder to relate to each image. Also, without the ((clear))'s, the article suffers even more from WP:SANDWICH. Stepho talk 10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each to their own. If you think huge patches of whitespace in the article look good then so be it (not so much a problem on phones, but certainly a problem on monitors). I'm not getting into a edit war over it. But personally, I loathe them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's okay, we each have our own opinions. Personally, I loathe random things that don't line up nicely. As you said, each to their own. Stepho talk 10:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:WikiProject Australia topicon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
