Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:47, 22 June 2006

Headline text

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! It's nice to have another contributor to the automobile articles! Just a few comments - are the dates you're putting in model years or calendar years? We've normally listed the former. Also, your images need a copyright tag - I suggest {{Fairuse}} for the corporate images. --SFoskett 20:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

An offer

Hey- I have an offer for you. I've gone through and completed a major article index for Collectible Automobile magazine for the past 20+ years (give or take an issue or two). If you'd like a copy I can email it. Stude62 20:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool! Go ahead and mail it to me. --ApolloBoy 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you set up for email through Misplaced Pages? Stude62 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am now. --ApolloBoy 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:1996-2000-Chrysler-TownandCountry-96101251990608.jpg

I see from the history page that you have tagged this image as promotional when the source link ( http://images.consumerguide.com/autoreview/400x266/1996-2000-Chrysler-TownandCountry- )is invalid. Can you please justify? --Nivus 10:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Bavaria already justified it on your talk page. --ApolloBoy 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Edsel

The edits are fine. I would prefer that the dark green was replaced by the darkred though. I've just had a really natsy encounter on Misplaced Pages with a self appointed policing type over the removal of the logos from the templates, and at this point, I simply can't see any spending any energy is caring about much anymore. Stude62 21:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Vector Supercars

Hi, I was wondering if you can contribute to my peer review of the Vector Supercars article. --User:Karrmann

TMH images

I've seen the images. Love the one penned in with garbage cans. I think an RFC needs to happen. You can't talk to him/her/it, so I don't know what good it would do.

You do a Request for comment on the images, though and get other people's input. But if you decide to go with the RfC, I'll back you. Stude62 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the time has arrived, but...

Hey,

I think the time has arrived for placing an RfC on Take Me Higher. In order for us to do this, you need to make an attempt to contact him as I did. This means extending an opportunity to try and get the problem resolved (in this case, the images) and state that you are doing this to avert an RfC. If he doesn't respond, or the issue continues, then we can move forward, but I really want to make a good faith effort of contacting him and give him every opportunity to respond.

I think we can write this together - if I do the content and email it to you and then you proof and edit it. What do you think? Stude62 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Opel Zafira

Thank you for your interest in the Opel Zafira article. I appreciate your correcting my terrible English, but there are a few issues that I believe you might reconsider:

1. what is wrong with calling a minivan a minivan rather than an MPV?
2. the GM2700/3000 reference was there for a reason - it is a temporary solution to say it is "a version of the T-body", there are obvious differences between the original T-body and the GM2700/3000, I have linked GM2700/3000 to the T-body for the time being, until I get hold of somebody @ GM who can provide me with more detailed information
3. what in the world is wrong about saying which Astra lent engines to the Zafira? There are significant differences between the engine lineup of the Astra A and B.
4. the OPC is not merely a turbocharged Zafira, there is a 2.0 turbo Zafira on its own, the OPC's engine is uprated and the whole vehicle is "factory-tuned" to be more of a performance vehicle (think Mercedes' AMG). I agree that my expression was far from perfect, perhaps you might think of a better description of what an OPC is.
5. although many dictionaries cite "supercede" as an alternate (and acceptable) form, "supersede" is by far the more common.
6. the "aka" lines were placed within generation infoboxes because, as you might have noticed, they referred precisely to the given generation (e.g. Traviq was only Zafira A, the same applies to Holden and Chevrolets). I did my best for the infoboxes to be well-aligned with the text in most common resultions (esp. fullscreen 1024x768), and with your altering of the infoboxes the whole layout went bananas.

Hi there! First off, I replaced "minivan" with "MPV" because the latter term is used in Europe, and since the Zafira is a European car, I used that term instead. Second, the GM2700/GM3000 platform is the T-body itself, and since the T-body term is more commonly used, I used that instead. Third, it should be obvious from which generation of the Astra the Zafira borrowed engines from. Fourth, thank you for clearing that up. BTW, your English doesn't seem bad at all. Anyway, thanks for bringing that to my attention. --ApolloBoy 01:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I happen to be coming from Europe, and I can tell you that the term "MPV" is used in the UK, but very rarely in the rest of Europe. Many more people in Europe use English than just the British. Even GM Europe's site calls the Zafira "a van" . It's not that important for me, but that would be like somebody wrote of the Bedford as a truck - technically, one might argue that it's a "lorry", but everybody knows what it's all about (and terms like "truck" and "minivan" are in general more widely used and thus are more presumably clear to users in general). What-EVER ;)

The T-body thing - we could use a reference for that - I've never come across a direct proof that there are no differences between the T-body and GM2700/3000. As concerns the engines, I'll update this section anyway, but I don't think this is so obvious - mentioning that didn't hurt, did it?

I understand that you don't insist on having the aka lines in the main box, so I'll move them back when I get down to engines (and a better description of the OPC).

Thx --Bravada 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sintra

Once again, thanks for your edits, cleanup and correcting my puny English, but:

• The Sintra has 5 doors. I don't know whether you've seen one, but I have and it does. Some earlier minivans were referred to as "4-door" due to the fact that they didn't have a driver's side sliding door to better fulfill the definition of "truck" (for legal reasons).
• Thanks for letting Sintra remain a minivan :D
• What is wrong with calling CSVs CSVs?
• The Pontiac Montana was initially Pontiac Trans Sport (Montana). I believe it is important to emphasize which Montana is being referred to.
• I believe it is important to mention the Chevrolet Trans Sport in the article too. Why is less information better than more?

Again, the "5th door" of a minivan is not counted like a hatchback; the "5th door" is part of the minivan layout, and that's why I put 4 doors instead of 5. I don't know what a "CSV" is, so you'll have to tell me what it is. And what is the Chevrolet Trans Sport? I've never heard of it. --ApolloBoy 06:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Sintra is out of production now, but I can refer to you to Zafira and Meriva pages @ gmeurope.com: , . Do also check the other links I provided for wagons.

"Uneven" door numbers in describing bodystyles are commonly used to denote bodystyles with a "rear door", or a tailgate, as opposed to vehicles where the trunk is accessed through a smaller opening (sedan, 2-dr coupe etc.)

I am quite suprised that with all your automotive knowledge you don't know what CSVs are. I have to refer you to the GM U platform page then.

Regards, Bravada Talk to me! 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. Oh, and for Chevrolet Trans Sport, check out Pontiac_Trans_Sport#1997-1998. If haven't heard of something it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. BTW, the organization of GM minivan articles is absolutely awful - something has to be done about it.

Thanks in advance for substantial answers. If you feel you don't want to insist on some of these issues, just leave them unanswered, and I will revert these edits the next time I get down to Sintra.

Aska

Again, thanks for your time spent on trying to salvage this article - I agree that it is really poor, I have written it in the middle of the night just because what was there previously was even more lousy.

Nevertheless, I still think there was some logic in some things I did:

1. I don't think that the rebadges merit their own "big" sections with infoboxes, but if you believe so, then voila - I only want to keep them in line with each other. I have made a lousy attempt at that, trying something that would work both in 800x600 and 1024x768 (two most frequently used configurations, I believe.
2. The J-car was a programme that resulted in a common platform and several cars. In the specific place, I find it much more appropriate (sensible) to refer to the programme, not the platform.
3. If you least all Accord-related models so meticulously, why won't you list all J-cars, which are even closer related to the Aska? I think this would make the infoboxes unnecessairly long - this is what the J-car article is for.
4. As concerns the Legacy and Accord "generations", these are mere rebadges and I don't think there should be much more info put into the infobox than a direction to appropriate main articles.

Thanks for considering those - Bravada Talk to me! 03:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Now I am almost sure you edit your pages in 800x600 or similar - the current version you did looks very good in it. But I use 1024x768 fullscreen and it looks awful - the infoboxes are misaligned, with the Legacy box starting at the end of Accord section! This is why I made the pic separate and was so keen on cutting down the "related" list.

As concerns the "related" list, I don't think it's a good idea not to give all related models, it can cause some confusion if some less knowledgeable user views it (and these are the ones we write it for, right?). Therefore, I believe that directing people to pages like the J-car page or main model page in case of rebadges is a better idea when room is too scarce to copy the entire list (and in general I believe data redundancy should be eliminated.

BTW, the smaller Isuzu SUV was MU (Mysterious Utility), the MU Wizard was just a version. I know WP has an article entitled the wrong way, and I think it should be sorted out, which is why I believe we shouldn't link to the wrong article directly. Perhaps a redirect might help?

Thanks for condsidering those again :D -- Bravada Talk to me! 09:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. What was your source for Florian Aska? Japanese Misplaced Pages?

Automobile image quality standards

I welcome your input on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images. --SFoskett 18:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And the WikiMedal goes to...

Feel free to move it to your user page, I didn't want to place it there to interfere with your desired layout. You surely do deserve it, and I hope you will continue with your precious work even after receiving this :D Bravada Talk to me! 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. BTW, is there any way we can have better control over templates and images floating in articles? I see that you are probably using a lower screen resolution than I do (1024x768 fullscreen), and I gather that what looks good on my screen looks terrible on your, and vice versa.

RfC has begun

The RfC on Take Me Higher was begun by Karmann today. I have asked him to sign it, considering that he started it. Could you hop on over and take a look at the content of my addition (but please, do not alter it) and if you agree with I have said, you may sign in the appropriate area. You may also include any issues that you have with his contributions. But I have to emphasize that I want this RfC to be one that both shares the problem with the community, but takes the high road in aspects. Stude62 17:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

5-door wagons

See or (right bottom corner of the page) for starters.

One image per infobox

And why is that? What's wrong with more images? They represented the three body styles available to better showcase the model. Bravada Talk to me! 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding more images to the infobox tends to make the infobox look bigger than it really is, IMO. There's a discussion about it on the auto project talk page. --ApolloBoy 01:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly? I can't find it in the archives... I gather that pics display parallel rather than horizontally under each other in your browser, right? Perhaps br's might help? Bravada Talk to me! 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion I'm referring to. --ApolloBoy 04:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There Yugo ;) - I gather that you are using 800x600, so I know why you probably didn't perceive what I did as a good layout, but I hate it when infoboxes become misaligned with text sections, causing confusion. The present one (Mk IF) section is far from perfect, but should display alrgiht in both 800x600 and 1024x768. Bravada Talk to me! 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

With all due respect, PLEASE start to use the edit summary box so people have an idea of what changes you're making to articles. Thanks! ⇒ B.Rossow _contr ], ], ] @ 20:33 (UTC)

Chrysler question

Figured you might know this AB: was Chrysler the first production car with disk brakes? If so what year & what model? Don't see anything on detailed history at ChryslerHeritage.com.24.127.115.13 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, in response to your question, the Crosley Hotshot was actually the first American car with disc brakes, not Chrysler. --ApolloBoy 22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the 1949 Crosley was a production car, so that would make it the first car in the world with disc brakes, predating even the racing Jaguar models. 24.127.115.13 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Engine displacement units

"L" isn't and hasn't ever been an abbreviation for the liter/litre. The correct abbreviation is a lowercase "l", which is not desirable to use in this context due to visual ambiguity with the digit 1 (e.g., 4.5l "four point five litres" looks like 4.51 ("four point fifty-one"). The attempt to disambiguate by spacing the abbreviation from the quantity, e.g. 4.5 l, creates visual awkwardness. Probably the best solution if one must use an abbreviation is the use of a cursive lowercase l, but this has so far not widely been adopted outside of the realm of scientific research papers, and presents difficulties in creating the character onscreen. Hence my use of the spelled-out unit. As for how to spell the unit, "litre" is the internationally-accepted spelling and is the official name of the unit within SI Metrics. "Liter" is an Americanism and while that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, international convention prefers "litre". If there is a Wiki engine displacement callout convention that calls for "L" or demands "liter", it needs to be the topic of discussion and possible revision. Scheinwerfermann 03:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you should read this, which states that the "L" is an official alternative. Plus, I have never seen any automotive authority use a lower-case "l"; "L" is always used. It's also used in just about every automotive article on here, so I that's why I changed your "litre"s to "L"s. --ApolloBoy 04:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thanks for the link. Scheinwerfermann 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder...

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Toyota Supra article

i noticed you placed a cleanup tag on the Toyota Supra article. i put a lot of work into the first two generations (and the introduction), and a cleanup to me seems like "hey you did a bad job". so it probably is irrelevant but are you meaning for it for the entire article or just the latter generations? also are you placing it on there for no references or just grammar, etc?

another thing was you changed the abbreviation MK to Mk. i'm sure that is the correct way of abbreviating it, but amongst supra owners (myself included) everyone pretty much puts the capitalized MK. if you notice on every single fansite for the toyota supra it is almost always capitalized. now i am not sure if it was an official thing from toyota or not, but it just sort of irks me reading it with lowercased when i know everyone uses uppercase to signify "Mark" regards, ren0 05:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"See the main cleanup page for my listing of the article." does not make sense to me. what do you mean? ren0 08:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Shadow/Sundance

Sorry to bother you but why did u move that article back to the Dodge Shadow? The Sundance is its own car and I beleive it deserves to be in the title. Bavaria 11:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the page because your title didn't follow Misplaced Pages convention. See this for more on what I mean. If you're so insistent on having the Sundance recognized, you could try copying the info from the Shadow page onto the Sundance page, which is a redirect. You will have to edit or reword the info so that it isn't a blatant copy, though. --ApolloBoy 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sable

Feel free to edit the Mercury Sable article. I am all done. Karrmann 03:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits

Apolloboy, it serves no valid purpose to make petty, pointless edits (e.g. changing "taillamps" to "taillights", adding a superfluous "that" to a sentence not requiring it, changing a correct term to an incorrect one, and so forth). It smacks of immaturity and ego; makes you look as if you're just anxious to have your edit be the last one on any given article. Please knock it off.Scheinwerfermann 04:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

AMC Matador =

Please leave in link from Matador to 300 and Charger. The LH cars were based on an AMC project, and the success of those cars led to relaunching charger / 300. It is not incorrect information. wiarthurhu

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1989LeBaron.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1989LeBaron.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. TheProject 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for Image:1979LeBaron.jpg and Image:1984LeBaron.jpg, both of which have been removed from their article as a violation of Misplaced Pages's fair use criteria. Thanks. TheProject 06:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Project

I just thought you would like to know that TheProject has deleted images both you and I have uploded and put on the Chrysler LeBaron article. All the images were properly tagged and I see no reason why The Projest removed them. Are you as confused too? Bavaria 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just saw what he did. I find it funny how he thinks some of the images aren't promotional when it's very obvious by looking at them that they are.--ApolloBoy 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, not everybody is as knowledgeable about automobiles as you are; I'm not in the least a car buff, nor do I even drive. Anyways, I'm not going to dispute the fair use of the images, as I think you've explained it quite well already and I'll take you at your word that the images are indeed promotional. However, the images still need sources showing the items in a promotional context. I would be very much obliged if you could find said sources (and as I stated on my talk page, said sources don't necessarily have to be online -- stating that the image can be found in a magazine advertisement, for example, is more than satisfactory), as I have no wish to put the images under threat of deletion yet again with a {{image source}} tag. Hope that clears things up, and I regret the miscommunication that occurred. TheProject 05:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for writing the information in (I didn't actually know when the pictures were taken and who took them, for example). Hopefully in the future, these images will be replaced by free images -- although there's currently a huge backlog at Category:Fair use image replacement request, so I won't make that request now. Thanks again. TheProject 05:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up "I4"

I was browsing through Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links tonight, and came across the list of disambiguation pages needing tidied. Fourth on the list, with 338 links, was I4. That rang a bell, and sure enough, when I dug back through my edit history, I found that you'd created an ] link in the infobox for the Mitsubishi Model A, and I presume you've done so in other articles too.

EDIT: Yup, you have. See Renault Clio, Hyundai Grandeur, etc. I'm sure you'll have a better idea than me of all the articles affected.

Anyway, just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware you were contributing to the DAP count. Someone's left a comment that "it might be better to have Straight-4 redirect to I4 with an I4 (disambiguation) page for those rare cases when anything else is meant", which might be the best solution in the long term, but until there's consensus it might be best to hang back on that particular cleanup. -- DeLarge 23:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Final year of AA-body Saratoga

1995 it is. Source of info: actual-vehicle VINs from 1994 and 1995 European-market Saratogas. Running these VINs through DC's build record database reveals them to have been built as Saratogas, not converted from US-market AA-cars. It appears Chrysler International largely stopped advertising the Saratoga after 1993, which is a little bizarre given that they were still making the cars, but isn't too far out of line with US practice: The Spirit and Acclaim were promoted in '89, '90 and '91, and somewhat in '92, but almost not at all in '93, '94 or '95. Scheinwerfermann 01:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for claifiying that. That kind of confused me... --ApolloBoy 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

You beat me by 5 seconds to the removal of that bad Oldsmobile Achieva photo :-) But what can we do about this? I find his behaviour as bad as any vandal's, especially because his awful pics waste megabytes of server space. DonIncognito 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we should continue with Take Me Higher's original RfC, and take into account TMH's new name and what's he done so far. I wouldn't exactly call Bull-Doser's/Take Me Higher's behavior vandalism, but it seems close at times.--ApolloBoy 00:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

BX non-hatchback model

Hiya, what I meant by "Europeanising" was British-centric, you're right, but that's because it's an English-language article, not any other European language. Somewhere deep in the Manual of Style, there's a suggestion that one use British English in contexts where the article talks about a thing from or in a place where British English is predominant, and one use American English where the thing is from or in a place where American English holds sway.

But anyway, I hope you like my compromise of using the term that Citroën themselves use, "Break". – Kieran T 01:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The English call theirs "estate cars" because if you have an estate, you're likely to make use of the large cargo area. The Americans call theirs "station wagons" because, erm, the cargo area is covered sort of like a conestoga wagon was, and you have to make frequent trips to petrol stations if you drive one. The Germans call theirs "kombi" because they're a sort of combination between a passenger car and a commercial vehicle. And the French call them "break" because France has particularly strong truth-in-advertising laws! ;-) Scheinwerfermann 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean "gas stations", not "petrol stations". ;) --ApolloBoy 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again :) There's something unresolved here because several times you have returned to European car articles and replacing "saloon" with "sedan" and "estate" with "station wagon". Here's the thing: Misplaced Pages doesn't come in British English and American English versions, and so both languages are in use. And of course there are no rules ;) BUT it's a convention that an article about a product from one country will use the language of that country. Easy with Britain and the United States. When it comes to a non English-speaking country like Italy, for example, I don't think one could prove which version of English is spoken more than the other (unless you have sales figures for all language courses and admissions figures for foreign students at universities!) but since Italy is in the political entity of Europe, and British English is one of the official languages in European government terms, and also since Italian cars in general are likely to sell better in Europe than in the United States (because of transportation costs), then I'd say it's pretty reasonable to go with the European spelling. So I'd ask you to please at least state your opinion on this here. Based on your edit summaries which tend to just say "fixing" I really can't see your point of view, and I'd genuinely like to. – Kieran T 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I took a while to reply, I was at my great-aunt's birthday party, so I wasn't around for about 6 hours. Anyway, I totally see your point now, and I'll go ahead and change things from AE to BE, if you insist. --ApolloBoy 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hope she had a great birthday ;-) – Kieran T 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What is "nonsense"?

Every time I clean up the matador page and set up the lineage of the AMC midsize to current Chrysler, sombody deletes it . I started the page, and I grew up observing the evolution of these cars, I thought the Matador was notable car when it was still a new car. Removing valid information is vandalism, so grow up.

I keep removing your information because most of it is false. I really do not see how the Matador can be traced back to the LH-cars or the LX-cars as you keep insisting, because the Matador never had a true replacement, and the LH-cars certainly cannot be considered successors, as you claim. The LH-cars were developed by Chrysler beginning in 1989, and Chrysler used components from the Eagle Premier because a new engineer came in to the LH project and decided to use the Premier's suspension design. Other than that and the basic layout, the LH really has nothing in common with the Premier. I am not committing vandalism, so please don't accuse me of something that I actually work hard to prevent. Also, it is considered polite to sign your posts using 4 tildes (like this: ~~~~) --ApolloBoy 06:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to respect the work of others. Nothing in the article is factually false. The Charger and 300 are actually more close related to the Matador than any chrysler car, just as the latest platform has more in common with the Mercedes E-series than the LH cars. It is annoying to have other people appoint themselves experts and remove the work of others, so just knock it off. This is an article about AMC intermediates, and following the line of descendants is perfectly valid, and it leads nowhere but the current large Chrysler cars. It is extremely significant that that AMC purchase led to the LH cars. --Wiarthurhu 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have told you before, I cannot see how the LX-cars and LH-cars can be traced back to the Matador. The Matador never had a true successor, and your observations about this whole issue sound like original research, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. And BTW, thanks for signing your posts.

Posting here as it is more or less relevant to the topic

ApolloBoy, don't let a minor issue like that affect your morale too much. There will always be stubborn people who believe Misplaced Pages is a soapbox for them to preach their views on the world. We are in fact all a bit like that, as we believe our views are right. No matter how stark contrast there can be between the initial positions of two Wikipedians, a lot of them can be convinced that what they perceive as universal truth might in fact be POV, provided that it is done by means of civil, toned-down (and time-consuming and sometimes even tedious) debate.
You are certainly right in your intentions, it's just that Wiarthuru perhaps needs more time to understand how and why WP works. Let us help him with that. In the meatime, keep the good work on the myriads of other great WP articles you created and helped develop! I am happy to see you back here, as it would be a great loss if you left WP!

Please don't encourage the boy. Calling logic "vandalism" and "nonsense" is less of what we need.--Wiarthurhu 23:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ford TH!NK

I see you tagged my newly created article on the Ford TH!NK. I created it becuase it was under Ford Vehicles and red. Almost no info on these since Ford stopped talking about them to start with fuel cells. We are not going to have some fancy article with pics and stats since this car was never produced and ford does not care about them any longer. What do you suggest?

I know you don't want a fancy article, but I tagged it because your article has poor formatting and the pictures need to be thumbnailed and sized to 250 pixels, which is the norm for most automobile articles here. --ApolloBoy 07:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Door consistency

If we're going to be consistent on Misplaced Pages when it comes to cars, we have to come up with some standard for doors. If we render 2-door coupe, but 3-door hatchback, then we have to say 3-door wagon and 5-door wagon and 5-door SUV. This is the approach Car & Driver and GlobalAutoIndex take. This is because the "extra" door is no less integral to the hatchback design than it is to the wagon or SUV, and in all cases that door accesses the rear of the cabin. The other option is to use 4-door sedan, 4-door hatchback, and 4-door wagon (Motor Trend, Automobile Magazine, Edmunds.com, ConsumerGuide, Consumer Reports, and Carsinamerica.net all use this format). This is preferable, since it distinguishes that doors are for people, liftgates and hatches are for luggage. Therefore, the only time "odd" numbers of doors would be used would be on old extended-cab pickup trucks and mini/maxivans. The second option is more concrete than the first, but either one is better than 5-door hatchback but 4-door wagon, which is both inconsistent and illogical. Sacxpert 22:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This should probably go on a project or article talk page, so I hope ApolloBoy doesn't mind me chipping in here. Just to say that I've always been bugged by this, but all the press I've seen (in Britain) have always gone with 2 & 4 doors for saloons/sedans and estates/wagons, and 3 & 5 doors for hatchbacks. It was a marketing ploy by the early hatchback makers, I seem to remember, to make us think we were getting something extra that "old-fashioned" bodystyles didn't have. – Kieran T 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kieran, thanks for the heads-up, I put this post up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles Sacxpert 09:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Lancer

Hi. I noticed you tagged the Mitsubishi Lancer article for cleanup. I would like to work on it. Could you please let me know what needs to be done? Bok269 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lancer article is fine. I don't really remember why I added it, but oh well... --ApolloBoy 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Honda Accord Vandalism ?

Curious as to why a change in the break point between compact and midsize constitutes vandalism. I didn't know there was an official year when this occured. Maybe the car rental companies determined this??--131.107.0.81 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the user who changed it added in wrong info and did so to other pages. --ApolloBoy 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Matador Premier wars

The LH cars succeeded the K cars. They were completely different. The LX cars are completely different from the LH with name changes. The 2006 Charger is a succesor to the 1968 Charger. They are completely different. The 2006 Malibu has absolutely nothing in common with a 1964 Malibu other than a nameplate. The Freestar is almost identical to a Windstar, but is a nameplate change. AMC has had a large car nameplate ever since the Nash Ambassador. The Premier was the next large car nameplate. Regardless of what you think of the Matador, the LX cars have an AMC heritage, now you tell which car came before the premier? Now will you go and bother somebody else's page?

The AMC heritage goes from the Ambassador and Hudson hornet through the Matador to the Chrysler LX. The only link that is missing is the succesor box that you insist on erasing because you don't agree to definition of the term. You certainly don't have any problem with the Malibu undergoing an entire platform size from the 70s to 80s and keeping the same name, or the Rebel name changing and keeping the same car, or Valiant to Volare to Reliant. If the Premier wasn't the succesor, what was? If the Matador wasn't the previous model, what was? Where is the Misplaced Pages rule defining what is and is not a succesor? Whatever you define it to be? --Wiarthurhu 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)