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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
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]
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 talk23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[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]
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]
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 talk22:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[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]
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 talk10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[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]
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 talk10:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Template talk:Convert. Message added 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I was curious, so I looked up some info from my own archives.
A Nov 1992 Japanese brochure lists the MR2 height as 1235 mm. Note: Nov 1992 matches the US 1993 model year.
An undated Australian brochure for the SW20 intro (assuming mid 1989) lists it as 1240 mm.
An undated Australian brochure for a mid-generation SW20 update lists it as 1235 mm and specifically says it got suspension updates with more negative camber front and rear to drop it 5 mm.
Metric conversions are: 1,235 mm (48.6 in) and 1,240 mm (48.8 in)
The YouTube video from 1990 says 1240 mm, so that also checks out. Beware that YouTube videos by random contributors are often seen as unreliable. But videos like this that are actually proper, professional productions (eg, old TV programs) are fine.
Beware that the Mark Dorman page refers to Wikipedia. We need to be careful that he hasn't sourced height information from WP because that becomes WP acting as its own reference. See WP:CIRC.
Sorry that I was harsh on you but WP lives and dies by its references. Anything without a reference must be considered as being unreliable. And the references must be in a place that can be checked in years to come, so they are usually done inline in the text and put inside <ref>...</ref> tags and {{cite web}}. See examples inside the MR2 article. References in edit summaries in 2024 will be practically impossible to see in 2030, which is why we put them inline in the text.
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.
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 talk23:43, 8 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 talk02:31, 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 talk05:15, 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 talk21:23, 22 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]
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.
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 talk05:15, 7 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 talk22:45, 23 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 talk02:30, 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]
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:
"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 …"
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.
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).
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]
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.
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 talk09:32, 24 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.
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.
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 talk00:11, 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?
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. - ZLEAT\C19:38, 29 September 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 talk06:27, 1 October 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.
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.
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 talk12:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1982–1985 LiteAce van with biskut kacang hub cap (YM21; facelift)
1982–1985 LiteAce van with biskut kacang hub cap (YM21; facelift)_van_(2011-04-02)_01.jpg)
_van_(2011-04-02)_02.jpg)
HiAce pickup with biskut kacang hubcaps_(pickup)_(front),_Kuala_Lumpur.jpg)
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)
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)