←

Stepho's talk page Hullo. Please 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. Babel:   *en, cn-1, ja-1 Reference date format If you think I wrongly reverted your scripted changes to the reference date format then please read the RFC at Talk:Tesla Model S#RfC about date format in references first to see why. If you still have an issue about it then please to leave me a new message. Messages

Archives

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

What on Earth are "biskut kacang hubcaps" ? 2001:E68:5432:E2EC:986D:D67F:709A:B1B (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann'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 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.

The last body style will be released on June 6 in USA and 7 in Japan 49.145.227.209 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia lives and dies by its references, as per WP:FACT and WP:RS. Can you supply these references please.  Stepho  talk  22:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My contributions are a result of my mechanic's curiosity, and I research from articles why something was added or introduced, also known as "root cause" and where it led to. With Toyota, who built their engineering reputation on what is called "The Five Whys" it is pervasive in everything they've done, and are currently doing, including why they are the international "gold standard" for hybrid technology.

Beginning in the late 1970s, the tech race was on. Every five years, they changed each platform, and installed the tech in each class of car, from the Crown all the way to the Starlet. I research on Japanese Wikipedia and add it to the English side. If my formatting isn't "proper", it's not meant to annoy.

Sorry, Regushee Regushee (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I was a bit grumpy. I do appreciate the information you bring in. The occasional mistake (eg Corona hardtop) doesn't really bother me - I make occasional mistakes too. I'm just a bit OCD about formatting.  Stepho  talk  23:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting to this article: Toyota Auris. I notice that removing nbsp (non-breaking space) is not necessary. Infobox automobile is legitimately inserted nbsp (non-breaking space), but hasn't been added yet. I'm sorry for the response. Thanks! HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 23:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The purpose of the nbsp is not make sure that the number (1.33) and the unit (L) are not separated by a line break. However, when they are at the beginning of a line they will never be separated. Therefore, the nbsp serves no purpose and makes the wiki mark-up harder to read. So, in this case it is best to use a simple space. In other circumstances, the nbsp is needed but not here.  Stepho  talk  02:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The two decimals of 1.33 shouldn't insert the nbsp (non-breaking space), but the one decimal like 1.3 is allowed to insert the nbsp (non-breaking space). HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 02:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the number of decimals change anything? All the engine capacities are at the start of new lines, therefore the number and the unit will never be separated by a line break.  Stepho  talk  05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I will not insert nbsp (non-breaking space) again. Thanks! HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 06:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nbsp is not needed for the start of each new line in an infobox or table but nbsp is still good in many other places. Thank you for your contribution.  Stepho  talk  21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this kitten will make your moments as Wikipedian more happy :)

SoshingekiGoji (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with removing many of these, I think that the Carina/Caldina hatnote makes some sense, especially because they look near identical - the Caldina is actually the exact same car as the Carina E Estate. Also, the katakana is even more similar - Karudina v Karina. Would you mind if I restored that one?  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that.  Stepho  talk  20:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As I've been translating from this website for the Chaser, Carina ED, Corona EXiV and soon to be Cresta, I found someone uploaded the link to the Crown, and found "the mother lode" for the Crown.

https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/vehicle_lineage/car/id60004580/index.html Regushee (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very useful.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found on the same Toyota website every Mark II brochure too.

https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/vehicle_lineage/car/id60012868A/index.html Regushee (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, every model on that site has 1 brochure per generation - usually for the Japanese market. Of course, there were far more brochures printed than those ones (eg https://web.archive.org/web/20230710220854/http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brochures/Cressida/ ) but the 75 years site tries to give a representation of each model generation.  Stepho  talk  22:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Crown Eight, and now we can add a reference to this section.

https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/vehicle_lineage/car/id60005913/index.html (Regushee (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

On the back of each Cresta and Chaser brochure, they listed which Toyota dealership they were sold at. Vista store sold the Cresta and Auto Store sold the Chaser. This now makes sense because why would Toyota sell these two at the same location? Then later, Vista and Auto Store were combined as NETZ. The Aristo was exclusive to Auto Store. (Regushee (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, I'd seen the dealer logos at the back of the JDM brochures but never stopped to think about their significance for exclusive models. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  05:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Graywalls. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, SSC Tuatara, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see WP:SPS, WP:YT. It's not appropriate to include contents on the basis of having been on YouTube. Graywalls (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but I will answer on the article talk page.  Stepho  talk  07:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if there are any rules/guidelines for what counts as getting templates and categories. On the Seres (automobiles) page, I added a U.S. template and two categories since the article states that the company's headquarters is based in the U.S. However, a user named "Infinty 0" reverted my edits. When I asked them on their talk page to explain what they mean by "Not a U.S. based manufacturer" and I game my example. They basically said the company is just R&D and never made a car in the U.S. and the article is about Seres and not SF Motors. Even though the article mentions (formally SF Motors). Therefore, they don't think it gets the template and categories I've added. 2600:6C5D:5CF0:8420:A408:4F:34ED:2438 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline would be WP:TIES. The company must have strong ties to the US and not have strong ties to any other country. I'm not familiar with the company but a quick read of the introduction says it is Chinese, not American. Therefore US templates and categories are not appropriate. SF Motors Inc. is the US subsidiary, but it is merely a redirect that points back to the same article. However, you can put SF Motors into a US category by putting the redirect into a category. Just edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SF_Motors_Inc.&redirect=no (found by clicking on SF Motors Inc., then clicking on the "(Redirected from SF Motors Inc.)" near the top of the page.  Stepho  talk  22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like a weird rule that a company needs strong ties. But alright, I guess I'll leave it alone then, thanks. 2600:6C5D:5CF0:8420:A408:4F:34ED:2438 (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rule was made because some US editors would change an article to be US dates, spelling and categories. Then some Brits would change it to British. Then the US editors would change it yet again. And so on, with both sides getting angrier and angrier. WP:TIES, WP:DATETIES, WP:RETAIN, WP:DATERET and similar were implemented to cut back on the edit warring. It has been mostly successful and no better method has been found.  Stepho  talk  02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I’ve copied something on a page because it was hard and I tried editing something on the type 2 page but it was hard and I won’t try to copy again, thanks for the advice you gave me, even though I’m not trying to vandalise the page, I’m trying to fix mistakes on wiki pages, because I have knowledge on vehicles and trying to fix things correctly not wrongly. Liam200351 (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Wikipedia can be hard to work out all the rules and even us old hands get it wrong sometimes. Your enthusiasm is welcome. Perhaps try doing the link as Clayton, Victoria.  Stepho  talk  10:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a good idea to look an article through and give a thought to what it is about. Some words can also have a wider meaning in some places or contexts than the one the article is about – for example this word in the American sense of any railway waggon or coach.

It's always difficult to provide evidence something doesn't exist, but here are some online dictionaries from which the meaning "tram" is absent:

English Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/railcar

"1. (rail transport) A self-propelled railway vehicle for passengers, similar to a bus. …

2.(rail transport) A powered single railway vehicle designed for passenger transport, with a driver's cab in both ends; Not to be confused with motor coach/motorcar, which is a powered railway vehicle capable to haul a train. …

3. (Only in Canada and US) Any unpowered railway vehicle …"

Oxford English Dictionary (online, the free part)

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=railcar

"a. U.S. a railway carriage or wagon; = car, n.¹ 3a; b. a railway vehicle which combines the functions of a locomotive and a passenger carriage in a…"

linking to a page that shows there is no third meaning behind a paywall:

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/railcar_n?tab=factsheet#26950855100

"There are two meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun railcar. See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence."

Even though the term has a much wider meaning in the USA, Merriam-Webster does not include "streetcar" in it:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/railcar

"1 a railroad car

2 a self-propelled railroad car"

Dictionary.com

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/railcar

"noun

• a passenger-carrying railway vehicle consisting of a single coach with its own power unit"

Cheers, 90.142.52.139 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is better done at Talk:Railcar so that others can also contribute.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've posted a slightly edited version there. 90.142.52.139 (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the information about the Ogura supercharger TX15P to the Mark X page. While there is no "physical" evidence that Ogura Clutch manufactured this model for Toyota, the only information we have as the general public - is that the model number itself is the one imprinted on the supercharger for such vehicles.

I own one of these vehicles - that is why I made the edit. https://ibb.co/1f7bm8V

We are not going to find physical proof that Ogura Clutch did this because this is a B2B commercial piece of private technical information that was never, and probably will never be released to the general public.

How do you propose this information be "verified with references" then? Or is such anecdotal information going to be disallowed simply because there isn't any publicly-available information ever present? 116.86.187.243 (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Wikipedia requires facts to be verifiable (see WP:V. From the references you have supplied, I can verify that Ogura made a supercharger called the TX15P and that you have one. From this, I do not know if that supercharger was on your car (it is photographed not on the car). If it was on the car, I do not know if it was original to the car or added later. To give an example, I have an MX73 Cressida that originally had a 5M-GE engine, then a 6M-GE engine and now a 7M-GE engine. I could take a photo of the 7M-GE engines in the car but this is not proof that the MX7# series had a 7M-GE engine (FYI, South Africa had the MX75 with the 7M-GE engine but my country of Australia did not). So, unfortunately, that means that the information you inserted could not be verified and anecdotal information must be disallowed. This is because when Wikipedia started it was almost all anecdotal information and the reliability of it was awful. People inserted all sorts of half truths, misconceptions, myths, rumours and sometimes deliberate lies as though they were facts.

To progress, we need better references. These could be:

• magazine articles or books that explicitly mention the TX15P supercharger (or at least say that it has an Ogura supercharger).
• factory repair manuals that mention the TX15P (or at least the Ogura name for the supercharger). I have lots of factory repair manuals for older cars that I bought from places like Ebay or downloaded.
• sales brochures that mention the TX15P (or at least the Ogura name for the supercharger).
• press releases that mention the TX15P (or at least the Ogura name for the supercharger).

Anything along those lines from a reliable source (ie, not web forums) would be good.  Stepho  talk  06:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the text it is not immediately obvious to the reader that a rating is obsolete or when it was obsoleted. Many people quote "5 stars" without caring about when the rating was given. I take as obsolete Euro NCAP ratings everything they dump in the "Pre" category. For Latin NCAP and Global NCAP, the protocols are used for a long time, so they suddenly become obsolete when a new version comes. ASEAN NCAP is very opaque, I understand it lies between (Euro NCAP, ANCAP) and Latin NCAP but I have no details. For the current ratings, it is attempted to clarify that they are actually obsolete by Global NCAP stating "based on Latin NCAP 2016" amd for Latin NCAP, "similar to Euro NCAP 2014". People are even more unaware of these facts, and the trade publications keep pumping Bharat and Global NCAP ratings as "safest cars in India" when it is possible that many luxury imports are made to European standards (some non-luxury Euro, Korean, or Japanese exports to Latam are subpar and unmasked by Latin NCAP). Trigenibinion (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion in a single place at User_talk:Trigenibinion#What_does_obsolete_protocol_mean?.  Stepho  talk  00:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The info that I added to Wikipedia not only for the Carina ED, but also Celica and other cars are from the brochures / catalogs. I do have some JDM Toyota catalogs of the 1990s. I know there is / was a Russian website who scanned some JDM catalogs, but didn't remember the address.

Why do you need references for all the info ?

I just browsed your banpei website, and found RWD Celica model codes list which I think from Toyota parts catalogs like I have for the 5th gen Celica. user:celica21gtfour

Hi Jose,

Sorry for the late reply, I got a bit distracted by other things.

All claims need as reference, as per WP:FACT.

Using brochures is fine, as long as you put that in a reference and also take care to not violate WP:PRIMARY. I use brochures for basic facts like dimensions, model codes, number of doors, etc. But I never use brochures for engine power, emissions and fuel consumption figures because manufactures are well-known for outright lying in some of these.

I typically use a cite like {{cite book |title=Celica 4 Door Camry |url=http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brochures/Carina/Camry-Japan-RA55/ |publisher=Toyota |location=Japan |language=Japanese |date=March 1981 |archgive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230713090945/http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brochures/Carina/Camry-Japan-RA55/ |archive-date=2023-07-13}}

Thanks for pointing out the banpei site to me. I'm flattered that they think my site (which my ISP had terminated) is worth preserving.  Stepho  talk  09:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please name your favourite (fav) aircraft and fav airline? BuddyHeigh (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a soft spot for the 777. Probably because it was new when I started flying a lot. Also, a Cathay Pacific training pilot taught me how to barrel roll it on their full-motion flight sim in Hong Kong. Also like the Comet, 707, B-17 and SR-71. Purely subjective of course.

Always liked Malaysian Airlines - flew them a lot 1992-2010.  Stepho  talk  23:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must have seen all-time fav aircraft being the Boeing 747. Since I was a child, I had fascination in the aircraft. I first flew in it with TWA in 1987. After that, I flew in it at least 5-6 times. And the most recent one was in 2022, when I rode with Lufthansa, and their blend of classic seating and modernized seating made it my fav airline. BuddyHeigh (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um sorry it wasn't TWA the first airline I rode with the B747, before that I rode on an Air India 747 in 1986. May God bless the Indian 747s in the boneyard. BuddyHeigh (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate the engineering in the 747 but somehow I always wound up on older models with outdated and worn interiors. Just a personal thing I guess.

Never got to go with Air India. I hear good things about them but they don't do the routes I tend to travel.  Stepho  talk  23:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the Maharaja grand interiors inside the jumbo. Additionally, I got a spot for t-tails like the Boeing 717 and McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Series. For regional flyers, I'll go for the Cessna 208B Caravan. From good ol' Boeing, I have the spot for the 747, 767 and 777. Fokkers like Friend and Fellowship also hold a place. From Airbus, the A300, 320-200s,330neo and the 380 are my favourites.The British Concorde is unforgettable. Lockheeds like L-1011 TriStars and L-188 Electras are in my list. I also like McDonnell Douglas' DC-9, DC-10-30, MD-11, MD-80 Series and MD-90 Series. I also have a like for Russo-Soviet aircraft like Ilyushin Il-62 and Il-96, Tupelov Tu-134, Tu-154, Tu-204 and Tu-214 and Yakovlev Yak-42, Yak-82 and MC-21. BuddyHeigh (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a note re: production end date. Technically the article is incorrect citing December 1993, though understandable. Chassis(assembly line) production did indeed end in December 1993 but 964 models continued to be produced by Porsche at Werk 1, location of the Porsche Exclusive Manufaktur and Sonderwunsch program (aka Special Request or Special Wish department) through April, 1994 with at least one car not completed until September, 1994. There are multiple sources for this information including Porsche itself, PCA, and articles such as this one by MotorTrend: https://www.motortrend.com/features/epcp-1010-1994-porsche-964-speedster/ So technically the heading should have "1994" not "1993" similar to the heading for the 964 Turbo, which already correctly says "1994" as some of those cars were completed by Sonderwunsch in calendar year 1994 as well. Glenriddle1016 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed my mind. Can I ask that you update the 964 article infobox too, with appropriate references. It's the inconsistency that bothers me.  Stepho  talk  00:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stepho, Your carefulness in updating pages is appreciated.

In reviewing the Mecanum Wheel Wiki page, I note your comment: "00:38, 10 July 2022‎ Stepho-wrs ... Uranus might well be the first mecanum wheel robot but you need to provide a reference that says it is the first." The reference is number [6] Podnar, Gregg W. (1985). "The URANUS Mobile Robot" (PDF) This is the Mobile Robot Lab report from 1985. While we do not use the words "first", our lab received the first Mecanum wheels as used for research provided from Ilon (who was not allowing any outside use).

A graduate student in our lab, Patrick Muir, earned his PhD in part from his seminal work (widely cited by others) on modeling and controlling mobile robot vehicles including Mecanum wheeled robots using the URANUS mobile robot as the example. [Patrick Muir, PhD Thesis, Tech. Report, CMU-RI-TR-88-20, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, August, 1988]

There are earlier omni-directional mobile robots, but none using Mecanum wheels. May I suggest, that the first Robotics Institute in the world, founded by Carnegie Mellon University, and its Mobile Robot Lab, in which many early mobile robots were developed, was first to build and report on an omni-directional robot built with Mecanum wheels. In the four decades since I designed URANUS, I have never found any earlier report of such a robot.

The captioned photo of URANUS that I added to the Wiki page is gone. Later applications of Mecanum-style wheels are depicted (including one from a 2019-2020 student project). Would you say that a photo of the first (or the earliest documented example) of a Mecanum wheeled robot is appropriate for this Wiki page?

Thank you. Gregg Gwpcmu (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article injector. Are you under the impression that injectors in car engines have that construction? A much closer construction is described in the fuel injection article, completely different from the construction described in the injector article. Turbojet (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, not everyone uses model years, but they are decidedly not only American. Germans use them, Swedes use them, Latin Americans, the French. You barely ever see them in Italy, UK, or Japan. All the cars released in Frankfurt in September and in Paris in October are called by the succeeding year, see Bellu for instance. Volvo has their annual ändringstillfälle (ÄT) in August/September and refer to their cars as model year xx. Peugeot is the same; their model year followed the Paris Show dates every year. For European manufacturers this time of year aligns with the mandated summer holidays, when they take advantage of the downtime to change the tooling.

I know it started an Americanism, but it is not that confusing, as long as the wording is made clear when appropriate. Even FSO used it, describing their cars as "MR73" for modely roku 1973. The European Car of The Year award is released in 2024 for the 2025 model year. Here is an example from german WP:

Im Sommer 1966 (Modelljahr 1967) kam der hubraumgleiche, aber stärkere 911 S hinzu. Der höher verdichtete Motor dieser sportlicheren Version leistete 118 kW (160 PS) und sie war umfangreicher ausgestattet als das einfache Modell. Zeitgleich wurde zusätzlich zum Coupé das Targa ergänzt.

Das 911-Basismodell mit 130-PS-Motor bekam im Modelljahr 1968 die Bezeichnung 911 L (Luxus); gleichzeitig war als vergleichsweise günstiges Modell der 911 T (Touring) mit 110-PS-Sechszylinder-Boxermotor und Vierganggetriebe (sonst 5-Gang) erhältlich. Der 911 L mit Vergasermotor wurde ab Modelljahr 1969 vom 911 E mit 103 kW (140 PS) Leistung und mechanischer Saugrohreinspritzung ersetzt, die Porsche auch im ab dann 125 kW (170 PS) starken 911 S verwendete. Durch Vergrößerungen des Hubraums stieg die Motorleistung der einzelnen Modelle in den Folgejahren weiter. Außer in der Motorleistung unterschieden sich die Modelle T, E und S auch in der Ausstattung.

I am not asking that we give much more emphasis to model years (I prefer hard dates) or for you to change any of your editing habits, but I think you underestimate how widespread the "model year" thinking is.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our old friend came back today to promote his petition. I've reported the IP to SPI, but given the fact that no one got to the last SPI before it was stale, I am not hopeful that anything will come of it. There must be something more we can do, and it's likely things will only get worse when Toyota does not bring back the V6 Camry for the 2026 model year. I'm open to any options that will prevent further disruption. I'll also ping Carguychris since he started the original discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

333 votes? I am beginning to think he's trolling us. No one can be that delusional.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, delusional is an easy state to get into (I'm not going to point too much on that one). In any case, he is merely repeating his previous statements, so there is nothing to do except occasionally respond with "no change since last time".  Stepho  talk  06:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's back! - ZLEA _T\^C 03:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him. Or put another way - "don't feed the trolls" 😉  Stepho  talk  04:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to see this, Again. This is still about the Toyota Camry. There's now 395 Signatures. You must convince everyone that my petition is now cruft & do not call it spam again. I was trying to promote my petition online but Wikipedia. That's what I'm doing now. Wikipedia should change & allow Change.org Petition Links in the future. ^[1] 2600:8801:9B0B:AA00:ADAE:11B1:C583:69F (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "You must convince everyone that my petition is now cruft"

Agreed!  Stepho  talk  12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I told you many times, My petition isn't cruft. I have to get more signatures. & Wikipedia's admins should allow Change.org Petition Links in the future. Toyota should put the V6 back in the Camry for 2026. 2600:8801:9B0B:AA00:E911:64B5:58C5:7BF4 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't invite me to the party this time? No matter, I've already reported these two new IPs to SPI. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

395 signatures over 12 months from a population of 335 million is a trivial number - it has obviously not excited enough people. Wikipedia reports on notable facts - see WP:NOTABLE. It is not a soapbox platform for what you want to happen - see WP:SOAPBOX. It does not make predictions on the future - see WP:CRYSTALBALL. When you have larger numbers and can get some serious reporting by major magazines or major car enthusiast web sites, that's when we can include it on Wikipedia.

If you feel you are being treated unfairly then you can make your case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles (to be fair, the majority of editors there already watch the Camry talk page, so you may not find much love there) or you can escalate it to WP:VILLAGEPUMP.  Stepho  talk  23:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party's Over, @Stepho-wrs. There's 438 Signatures now. I've already won. @Stepho-wrs, @ZLEA & @Carguychris already know they've lost this war on the V6 Dump that I'm reversing. You think that it's spam, You three? Look again, There's others besides CarBuzz. ^[2][3][4][5] 2600:8801:9B0B:AA00:D909:1569:DC99:574A (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

438 signatures in 14 months - truly an Earth shattering display of mediocrity from a population of 335 million.

Ref 1,2: "It's doubtful that Toyota will bring the V6 back to the Camry."

Ref 3: "there is unfortunately no place for the V6 Camry in the future. As with all sudden changes, there will be backlash at first -hence the petition- but it is likely to be short-lived."

Ref 4: you just repeated the URL for ref 5.

Ref 5: "That's why the petition is unlikely to get a positive response."

Thank you for proving my point !  Stepho  talk  21:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have unfinshed business, @Stepho-wrs. 216.70.189.155 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electric motorcycles and scooters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electric scooter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KWh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification.  Stepho  talk  01:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this a bit more specifically? It looks like a double redirect to me, that I thought we were supposed to avoid. Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Block (crater) is a single redirect to Surveyor (crater) - it is not a double redirect. The idea is that the article links to the actual topic (ie, block crater) rather than its current location (Surveyor crater). If block crater ever gets its own article, then all the links to it via block (crater) will automatically be correct. Which is much easier than manually finding all the links to [[Surveyor (crater) and manually changing some of them.  Stepho  talk  12:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know Christmas ended more than 7hrs ago in Perth, though. Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. And of course, best Christmas wishes to you too.  Stepho  talk  00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re your revert. I don't think the stability of redirects for short acronyms is a serious concern. It is easy to find where they're used and make adjustments if a redirect needs to be retargeted. ~Kvng (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my experience is the opposite. If somebody changes a redirect because they think it matches their field better then articles using it in the old sense will not be notified. Only by regularly clicking on these links will you find out if they have been changed. That's a level of maintenance that should not be required.  Stepho  talk  23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for the response. I'll keep it in mind. ~Kvng (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert again without answer,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thermodynamic_system&diff=prev&oldid=1270716621

Morality surely opposes the Waste, NedBoomerson (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring time waster bullshit.  Stepho  talk  00:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thermodynamic_system&diff=prev&oldid=1272035663

free the captives, Wikipedia!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thermodynamic_system&diff=prev&oldid=1271257032

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thermodynamic_system&diff=prev&oldid=1270716621

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thermodynamic_system&diff=prev&oldid=1270557908

NedBoomerson (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time wasting bullshit  Stepho  talk  23:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Maglc (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's just something I'm OCD about. All good.  Stepho  talk  01:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank you again for your help, and guidance on the MOSGeomess as I am calling it. I just hope I didn't cause too much of a headache, stress or a problems with it. Happy editing, and take care. :) Brotherbenz (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - glad to help.  Stepho  talk  09:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of deletionism, this guy wants to delete all of the content about the Simca Vedette's Brazilian production in an effort to retain GA status. This is a new one to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a border line case. Only 2 references for the entire section is a bit weak. Although they are very good references and do cover the subject well. Perhaps tagging more facts with those references would help. And of course finding more new references.  Stepho  talk  21:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my main issue is that they wanted to hide the entire section to make the article "Good" - erasing half of the Vedette's history would make the article incomplete, and thus in no way a "Good Article."  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to organize the Commons photos of the Toyota QuickDelivery as they are currently all in one folder. But as per the Japanese page, the generations are split in a different manner than we have. The naming is also confusing - there's a QD100 and QD200 but these names don't help much. The chassis codes are all over the place, U280 seems good for the third (final) generation but the facelift second gen is listed as BU60VH in .ja, whereas goo-net calls it LH82K or LH152K (but that's only post-1999). Calling them 1st, 2nd, and third gen is problematic until we all agree on which is what.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the QuickDelivery. But it seems that QD100 and QD200 are kind of like the Ford F-150 and F-250. Ie, a class for size/capacity rather than a generation. The QD200 is rated at 2 tones with a heavy-duty B diesel engine while the QD100 is rated at about 1+1⁄4 ton with a light-duty L diesel engine.  Stepho  talk  08:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent edit to Toyota Celica and just made some follow-up edits to the Celica Camry and Celica Supra sections of that article. In the process, I noticed two things: first, the Toyota Carina article states that the Celica Camry replaced the Carina in some markets, but it was badged as a Carina. This might be useful information in the Celica article, but there is no citation, and I'm concerned about its "truthiness" given your statement about grey-market Celica Camrys in NZ and citogenesis generally. Second, there is a bunch of information about the Celica Camry in both the Carina article and the Toyota Camry overview article, but not all of it is the same. Suggest paring back one article or the other to reduce the overlap and the possibility of contradictions. I'd help tackle it but I know basically nothing about these cars. Carguychris (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Carina's relationship to sister models is a bit messed up on Wikipedia.

The Celica and Carina were originally designed as variations of the same car. They shared the same floorpan and the mechanicals were interchangeable.

The Celica Camry was just a minor variation on the A40 Carina 4-door sedan - mostly around the rear lights and bumpers. I have some Celica Camry front panels on my TA45 Carina and they fit fine. But the Celica Camry only lasted the one generation.

The Celica Camry was only sold new in Japan. But Japan's 10 year license laws caused most cars to be uneconomical to keep after 10 years, even though they were perfectly fine mechanically. So many were sold second hand on the grey market to New Zealand, Russia and occasionally to Australia. Thats how I got my TA45 Carina and also why I bought some second hand parts from Russia.  Stepho  talk  22:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: The Celica and Carina were originally designed as variations of the same car. That's one of the things that's confusing about the Carina article. The lead says as much, but the section about the A40/A50 seemingly contradicts this: "...the Celica Camry shared few components with [the A40/A50 Celica]." ...many [Celica Camrys] were sold second hand on the grey market to New Zealand, Russia and occasionally to Australia. Interesting. I'm in the U.S., and there's been a surge of grey-market Japanese imports recently, but they have to be 25 years old to be registered for road use in most states. Most of the interest focuses on more modern enthusiast-oriented Toyotas, such as Soarers and Chasers. Celicas sold in huge numbers here in the 20th century, but the Carina and Celica Camry were never sold in North America to my knowledge, and I've never heard of anyone importing one. Carguychris (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TA12 Carina was sold new in the US (1972 and 73 model years from memory) but sales were disappointing. It was too small, too low powered and too expensive (high import duties) to excite the American car buyer, so even when grey imports got to 25 years, the typical American buyer wasn't interested in the importing them. Also Japan being RHD made it less desirable in the US. Europe had LHD Carinas but not the coupes or twincam models, so that didn't help either.

Whereas Russia likes smaller cars with smaller engines, so was happy with this type of car on the secondhand market from Europe. Europe liked the 4-door sedan and wagon as a mid-size family car, so the Carina sold quite well in Europe in the more boring models. But Europe had much better sport cars, so the coupes and twincam models were not offered in Europe.

New Zealand is RHD (same as Japan) and has very liberal import laws, so they got a lot of interesting secondhand cars of all type from Japan.

Mechanically, the Carina, Celica and Celica Camry are the same car. I've swapped parts between my Celica and Carina (suspension, brakes, front crossmember, engines, steering, gearbox). They are like the Ford Mustang and Falcon - deliberately designed to share as many parts as possible. They were even made on the same production line. The Carina and Celica Camry were even closer, more like the Ford Mustang and the Mercury Cougar - same car with minor cosmetic differences.  Stepho  talk  22:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NASA are the ones who perpetrated the hoax in the first place. Of course they will support someone who is prepared to perpetuate it Phantomsnake (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a discussion of Phantomsnake’s edit-warring with you at ANI ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know.  Stepho  talk  14:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop production on March 3, 2025 49.145.239.130 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:FACT and WP:RS, we need a reference to support that claim. Otherwise I have no idea if you made that up as a malicious lie, made it up as an accidental mistake, whether it stopped for N.America only (sadly, end of sales in the US of a car is so often reported as end of sales worldwide when sales actually continued in other markets) or whether it is the actual truth. Only references can verify it.  Stepho  talk  05:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's baaack! I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. Carguychris (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm just reverting and otherwise ignoring him. He's got nothing new to add.  Stepho  talk  23:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]