Talk:Alfa Romeo 166

Alfa Romeo 169 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 January 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Alfa Romeo 166. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alfa Romeo 166 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

After an absence of more than a decade, Fiat's Alfa Romeo brand is returning to the U.S. market. In a conference call May 3rd, Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne confirmed that he has plans in place to begin distributing Alfa Romeo models in the U.S. through Maserati's dealer network, possibly as soon as late 2007.

Engines table

Closing - All explained below - Closing as consensus to not include the table coding. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I've removed "{| class="wikitable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" font-size:90%;"" from the engine table as other than the font size there doesn't appear to be any different between including cellspacing/cellpadding and not - The former layout seems more decorative than anything,
Inregards to font size I don't see why it needs to be small and again seems more decorative than anything, If there's consensus somewhere that "all tables need to include cellpadding/cellspacing and 90% font size" then I'll happily revert, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to remove, no any reason -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my reply Typ932 - I have since added more, Please be aware "No need to remove, no any reason" is not a valid reason to revert. –Davey2010^Talk 13:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Crap" isnt any reason to edit, there is absolute nothing wrong that you have to edit it -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider all of the decorative stuff in tables as "table crap" ...., Again what is your objection to my edits ? ..... You still haven't told me.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you everything earlier. -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have only told me "style edit" and "No need to remove, no any reason" .... - The first reason was essentially my reason for removing whilst the second wasn't helpful.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop that reverting? there is absolute no reason you to revert and edit war the article all the time. Everything is already explained to you several times. Leave the article alone, this is just ridiculous, you did have no reason to start editing that table at 1st place, nothing wrong there, everything is made upon wikipedia rules - -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And not very clever moan about twinkle if use it yourself in edit warring this page -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932, Here are the following reasons you've used from edit summaries: "il wil tell you", "Style edit" and "No need to edit it was all good using",

And here ere are the following reasons you have used on this talkpage: "No need to remove, no any reason ", ""Crap" isnt any reason to edit, there is absolute nothing wrong that you have to edit it " and "I have already told you everything earlier.",

So I fail to see how "Everything is already explained to you several times" when you haven't actually explained anything to me,

10 days on and you still haven't explained what your reasons are for reverting (You've stated style edit in one which was already explained to you here),

So you can either tell me what your problem is or you can leave the article alone and edit another one, Your choice. –Davey2010^Talk 12:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932 so can you kindly tell me what your objection is here please?. –Davey2010^Talk 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Typ932 still hasn't explained what their objections are (they're been on EN[1] I'm closing this as consensus to remove the table coding, If Typ932 has a problem with this then they'd need to return to this very talkpage and seek consensus for including the table coding. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Table coding

I have told many times my objections. This reverter Davey2010 hasnt tell his objections (I know whats is Chaheel Riens´s objection and that has nothing to do with article itself) why this table has to be like this, as there is no rule that it should look like this. There is no consensus it should be like this. 1 or 2 editors cant make consensus. Wikipedia is free to anyone to edit is. This is just wrong conclusion. I dont need to find consensus, its others job to tell why this page has to look like this. No good reason is explained so far. Crap isnt good valid reason , if you look some other car model articles aswell you will notice we have many different table styles, usually they are matched with general layout of certain page, this is simple to understand and as there is no strick rule this is free to edit . -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If table code has formatting possibility, I think its free to format (and it its according to the rules). If this would not be allowed , we wouldnt have these options, to alter its look at all. If someone has problem with this they should take this table thing to upper lever deciders and try them to ask to stop that formatting option fully from wikitables . -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indeed I did tell you to come back here .... so the unclose will stand however as far as discussing it goes it's not happening, You've have 3-4 days to discuss it but instead you chose to cause havoc elsewhere[2][3], I've already explained my objections so I'm not going to be repeating myself again and again. Move on, Please don't ping me again. –Davey2010^Talk 17:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss you have had week time to try explain why we cant edit tables freely and why you started this edit warring the problem is you not me, as table formatting isnt forbidden in wikipedia, its your problem to try that. You havent told any valid reason instead you started edit war. And dont make consensus decisions by yourself, 1 people isnt any concensus. I have also explained my reasons several times and not going to repeat them every day. so stop those lies -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my reasoning at the start of the discussion (Please re-read Talk:Alfa_Romeo_166#Engines_table)

Consensus works between 2 people > You chose to ignore this discussion and as such the onus is now on you to get consensus for the inclusion of the coding (Had you not ignored this discussion then onus would've certainly been on me)

Also your reply is pretty much a repeat of everything I've said above.

No one's lying my friend (Again take the time to re-read everything posted).

Again I would suggest you move on, I'm sure your time could be better spent on improving 1 of the 5 million articles we have here. –Davey2010^Talk 18:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not understand anything said to you, and you should use your time better here than starting edit wars and reverting articles which has nothing wrong or against rules, you just waste everyones time here. pretty pointless editing by you, Ill suggest you move on and admit you are the person wrong here. -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've just repeated everything I've just said ... I have no desire to further continue this shitshow so I'll let you have the last word and I'll go back to improving 1 of the 5 million articles we have, Cheerio. –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ill repeat you because you behave like you would be some kind of overlord here, and embrrassing people, your attitude isnt the nicest one , you ping people and when soomeone else pings, its hes fault etc etc etc. You should really think what you write and change your attitude. Its easy, you get what you order and finally you dont improve anything here, with that kind of edits what was your last edit in this article with ed, basically pointless edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfa_Romeo_166&diff=cur&oldid=prev -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what my objection is, if it's not the article itself? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only see butchered English and bickering and moaning about something worthless out here. Nothing more, nothing less. U¹ _quattro TALK 17:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the tables benefit from having somewhat smaller text than the main body, it helps clarify the separation between table and text. But I guess WP has successfully ran off yet another editor. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production time

There are no sources in the article saying that production started in 1996. The car was released in 1998, not 1996. ComradeUranium (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Production of 166 started in 1996, but because of the introduction of 156 (also produced from 1996, introduced in 1997) the 166 was introduced in 1998. Manufacturer's data: Alfa 147, 156, 159, 166, GT production dates. YBSOne (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is your own personal website. The article needs reliable, objective and neutral sources. ComradeUranium (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't You verify the data yourself, at the manufacturer? See also the very same issue at the Alfa 159 article with all sorts of weird sources added previously, but in the end my information was correct. YBSOne (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest found VIN clearly states that production started in 1996. This information can be additionally confirmed by manufacturer. Centro Documentazione Alfa Romeo or Archivio Storico Fiat, or simply with Fiat ePer. Date of introduction is not the sme as start of production. In case of 166 it was delayed because of the introduction of 156.
VIN: ZAR93600000000003
MVS: 136.452.0.0 – 2.0 V6 TB CF2
Vehicle: 5
Prod. date: 31/10/1996 YBSOne (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]