User talk:Malcolma

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

A Shot In the Dark - Movies with Minis in them

I saw you added 'A Shot in the Dark' to the list of movies with minis in them - good catch! I'd forgotten about that one. One of the members of my local Mini club read it and said:

 "BTW, did you know the Mini Peter Sellers drove belonged to director Blake 
  Edwards?  The car still exists and was the subject of a feature article
  in MiniWorld (or Mini Magazine?) some years ago.   Apparently driving 
  the Mini in the film was what got Sellers hooked on Minis in his 
  personal life."

Are you sure about the detail you added about the car belonging to Sellers or could your memory be off a bit?

It's possible you are both right - and this guy is thinking of an earlier Pink Panther movie...but I kinda think he's right. I didn't want to RV you because you may have more solid evidence. SteveBaker 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - well the car is a Radford Mini De'Ville...but the story is *way* confusing:

 http://members.aol.com/cotsmm/cots3_7.html

 "Few cars achieved as much fame in the 60's as Peter Sellers
  wicker painted Mini Cooper used in the Pink Panther film
  "A Shot in the Dark". Sellers commissioned this car from
  the Radford company in 1964, specifying every conceivable
  extra and built to a standard usually reserved for Rolls
  Royce motor cars. Sellers used the car as his personal
  transport for a number of years then he sent it to film
  director Blake Edwards as a gift."

OK - so the car was owned by Sellers when the filming was going on - but then given to Edwards later? That doesn't sound like Edwards was the one who hooked Sellers on Minis?

...but then this web site:

http://www.radfordmini.free-online.co.uk/films.htm

 "The film sees Sellers play the bungling Inspector Jacques Clouseau
  and driving A Radford Mini de Ville with wicker-work sides. There
  are quite a few good shots of the car although it seems that three
  differant cars were used all being L.H.D.

  The Radford Mini de Ville that was used for the majority
  of the filming still exists. it was shipped back from America
  in 1994 and now resides in the 'Car of the Stars Museum' Cumbria,
  England."

So now there are three cars? One of which was Seller's personal car with all the extras? Seems kinda unlikely. Urgh! I hate facts! SteveBaker 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify all of the above, I imported this car to the UK from California in 1993 and thoroughly researched it's history at that time before carrying out a restoration to original specification. Peter Sellers had been hooked on coachbuilt Mini conversions a couple of years before the film was shot. He suggested to director Blake Edwards that Clouseau should have one in the film and the production company ordered a left drive French specification Mini Cooper from Radford. This car was used for the majority of the British studio scenes.

A second unit went on location to France to shoot a short sequence, containing a naked Clouseau and Maria (employing doubles), showing the Mini driving from the nudist camp to the traffic jam in Paris, using a similar looking Mini 850 in black with wicker side panels. However, from memory, it did not feature the fog/spot lamps, sunroof or roof aerial which the Radford sported. I believe that this car was one of a special batch ordered by a Paris dealer from BMC. The traffic jam in the Paris square was filmed in the UK and utilised the first car again.

The scenes with dialogue inside the car and filmed through the Mini's windscreen appear to involve the use of a third car, as the just visible rear seat is a totally different pattern to the first car and this could well be Peter's own Radford. Being a right drive car I assume the film was reversed to rectify this anomaly and the occupants' hair styles do seem slightly altered to dilute the mirroring effect.

When shooting finished, the company was quickly wound up and Blake Edwards shipped the first car to Los Angeles and used it for a few months before passing it to director Billy Wilder who, with Blake, was working for the Mirisch Corporation. Over the next three years, various members of the Mirisch family had use of the car before finally being part-exchanged for a Jaguar at Hollywood Sportscars. The new buyer owned it until just before I acquired it. In a letter in my possession, Blake Edwards recalls crossing a street in LA some years later, seeing the Radford and flagging down the driver saying " Hey, that's my car from "Shot in the Dark"!. The owner remembered this occasion too.

As correctly stated the car was bought from me by the "Cars of the Stars" Museum but their website misdescribes the car as being one of Peter Seller's Radfords. Its use in the film was inspired by him and he certainly drove it but it was whisked away to the US as soon as the film was completed.

The film car appears to have been a rush job conversion by Radford as the donor car was finished in Fiesta Yellow and the black repaint covered only the external panels. In the final scene when Herbert Lom is seen planting a bomb under the bonnet (hood), this is apparent as the inner wings are clearly visible in pale yellow. I am sure Peter's cars would have been detailed to a better standard and to a higher specification.

John Adair 21/04/2006

Morris Minor 1928

Nice to see your article on the 1928 Morris Minor. It looks good. I see from your user page that you're interested in old cars. Do you know anything about Hotchkiss? Adrian Robson 12:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're doing well with Hotchkiss! There are some nice pictures of an early car here http://www.dragoneclassics.com/CarPages/1912_hotchkiss_55_h.htm . The engine is marked "Moteur Type AD". Some months ago, I tried to get the owner to allow use of a picture but I don't think I ever got any reply. Adrian Robson 11:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Triumph 1800 Roadster + British Cars Task Force

Hello,

Browsing recent automotive articles I have come across your great article on the Triumph, and I thought it would be a very good candidate for being featured in Template:DYK. What is important is that it contains a really nice picture of the vehicle. A small problem is that there is a fair amount of background surrounding the car, so when resized to the tiny 100x100 DYK format, the car gets lost. As this is your photo, I did not want to do any changes to it, but perhaps you might consider uploading a cropped version for the purpose of DYK (if you'd like to keep the original one in the article)?

I would also like to ask whether you would be interested in joining the proposed British Cars Task Force - for details, see WikiProject Automobiles talk page.

Regards,

Bravada, talk - 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again!

Thanks for everything! The new pic (really nice!) has been added to the DYK nomination and I have (hopefully) fixed the TF descriptions. I hope you will find it OK to join now :D

Regards,

Bravada, talk - 10:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Triumph 1800 Roadster, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

veteran 1900 => 1905

Per the change in various places that veteran includes cars produced until 1905, could you make sure that the autos previously in Category:Brass auto stubs and which were made from 1900-1905 get sorted to {{Veteran-auto-stub}}? (I don't really have an opinion on the matter, it'd just be nice to have things consistent) (I went ahead and made all the text in the other templates and categories consistent, but there's the 181 brass articles to sort through...) --Interiot 10:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks very much! I was actually going to help once I got to my faster internet connection at home, but you've cleared them up already. Thanks. :). --Interiot 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ford SAF

Malcolma, thanks a lot for taking care of the Ford SAF article. I will be grateful if you could state what sources you were using when expanding this article. If you speak German, you might also want to take a look at this page - it provides some more information on the commercial vehicle side of the business. Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again and thanks for your work on the Ford SAF article! I have added the reference tags to the Beaulieu tags by default to all paragraphs, as well as done some copyediting stuff. As concerns references, it would be good if you could use Wikipedia:Citation templates - you can find examples in the Talbot Tagora article, which is relatively well-referenced as it underwent scrutinized reviews by "citation specialists" before it got featured. The other part of the trick are the <ref> tags, but I think you won't have problems with using those.

I am bothering you with all that as it is important to mark which parts of the article come from where. Even when you create an article from scratch and only use one source, some other people might later add another things and then if you all just list your sources at the bottom of the page (which would be marvellous anyway, as most people don't even bother), one does not know what information comes from where and therefore it is hard to check the references. I generally mark entire paragraphs when most of the information can be found in the sources I cite or when it would be hard to point to specific bits without corrupting the integrity of the text, and to some specific fragments when just one bit of info comes from another source.

As concerns my edits unrelated to referening, I have altered the style a bit to read more "encyclopedic", and also to make it in line with other articles. I would like to kindly ask you to check for factual accuracy (whether I haven't mixed something up), as well as whether the information contained in the paragraphs can really be found in the book you cited. If not, please strike the bits (use the <s>....</s> tags) that cannot be referenced from the book and we will try to find a source for that. I also still have the German article which gives more perspective on the commercial vehicle side of business - if you read German, you caqn find it here. Thanks again! Bravada, talk - 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

More Simca stuff

Hi Malcolma! I just wanted to tell you that I have started a section on talk:Simca to discuss and coordinate efforts regarding all Simca-related articles! Do take a look, and also continue to contribute your great stuff to all those articles that need them so desperately. You might also consider helping to procure free pictures for the articles that need them. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 06:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! I am writing in the hope of talking you into yet another venture. I know I owe you the German Ford thing, but somehow I can't get away from the Simca fixation. I thought it would be good to improve the Simca article itself, and even found a nice writeup on histomobile.com (see the article's reference section), but I am not that well-versed in pre-war and 40s cars, so I was wondering whether you would consider contributing another great automotive history piece. Backed by your extensive knowledge (and the Bealieu book) you would probably have a better understanding of how it all places in the general automobile history (I can barely tell early Fiat models from each other). I can pick it up from the late 1950s onwards. Thanks for considering that! Bravada, talk - 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I just saw you have created an article on the Lux-Sport! Now I am embarassed not to have started it myself :( I guess I can only make up for that by dropping a few lines myself...

Thanks! By Lux-Sport I meant the car you can find under the PZInz L-S title (quite wrong, actually, as it should be PZInż) - but now I see you have little to do with the article :D I looked at the Rover P3 - I wanted to make a DYK out of it, but I can't find a catchy factoid to build upon :( Anyway, looking forward to your Simca contributions. Bravada, talk - 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Of course there would be a redirect - when moving an article, it is automatically created. It's just that article names in general should refer to some actual beings/entities.

DYK

On 31 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trojan (automobile), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Grue  14:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire 346 transmission

Hi Malcoma, I was pleased to find the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire page on the wiki. The article brought back wonderful memories from when my father ownned two long-wheelbase limousine variants for wedding-car hire. I spent countless hours polishing and valeting them to earn pocket money, so I am familiar with almost every square inch of them, and that's a lot of square inches! The reason that I am contacting you is that I noticed that you made an edit concerning the transmission options of the 346. One of our cars had the "Wilson" pre-select gearbox whereas the other had a 4-speed manual collumn-change gearbox, an option not mentioned in the article. I shall make an edit to that effect, but as my memory is a bit sketchy regarding details, I would be grateful if you could verify my changes.

Many thanks=Red Sunset 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The wording of the paragraph relating to the limousine gave me the impression that the only transmission option available to the limousine was the "Wilson" gearbox. I had noticed the prior mention of a manual gearbox but that didn't seem to apply to the later limousine paragraph. Hope I don't appear to be nit-picking. Please revert the edit if you think best.

Red Sunset 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

== copied collective barnstar ==

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in the lightning-fast clearing of the backlog of uncategorized articles from October 2006. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mini in The Italian Job (2003)

Re: The edit summary for your revert in Mini. Actually, there was a red and white classic Mini in the 2003 remake of The Italian Job - Charlize Theron drives it in the early part of the movie and there is an implication that her evident love of the car is the inspiration for using modern MINI's to recover the gold later on. But I agree with your revert for other reasons. SteveBaker 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Morris Ten

Hi Malcolma. You are off to such a great start on the article Morris Ten that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Morris Major

Hello, Malcolm A. I gave the Morris Major a mention in the Morris Minor article a few months ago hoping someone might be prompted to give the thing an article of its own. The Morris Major was an Australian built Wolseley 1500 / Rile 1.5 sort of a car in the early 1960s with fins and a squared off front, and employing the 1622 cc engine which in Europe fetched up in the A60/Oxford and siblings. Which is roughly what I know, courtesy of a half forgotten page in the Observers' Book of Cars from round about 1961. But you looked as though you just might be the one to have the combination of knowledge and access to sources and wiki-curiosity to ... um ... do the thing properly. Well, a person can ask. Success. Charles01 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sunbeam Alpine

22/2/08 Hello Malcolm, sorry mate but your recent editions of the Sunbeam Alpine page are incorrect. You are right in saying that the Alpines were derived from the Saloon MK11A and MK111 models but Sunbeam Talbot named them as the Alpine MK1 and the Alpine MK3. Don't ask me why but that's how it was. This anomoly was previously in the text that you have taken out. The car shown is an Alpine MK1, I know because it is my actual car. It is definately NOT a MK3 as there are subtle differences to the exterior and interior, as well as the engine being different. Please check this out at the official STAR website if you wish, the link is on the same page.

Thought I'd do it this way as you're email isn't registered. But feel free to email me back if you want to discuss it further. I won't "undo" the edits, I'll let you re-edit them back. Cheers Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nqtraderman (talk • contribs) 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now Malcolm. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nqtraderman (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Triumph Renown

Good to see the Renown finally getting a page of its own - it was a glaring omission from the Triumph car pages. Are you going to expand this page to include details of the 1800 T&C saloon that the Renown developed from ? There seems little point in giving it a separate page and without it the Renown story is incomplete. RGCorris (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your reply - I don't have any particular knowledge of the 1800 T&C and don't have my reference books to hand, so wouldn't be able to add anything for a few weeks. RGCorris (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of Jaguar 1½ & 2½ litres: conflict of evidence

I’m sorry to bother you with this, Malcolm, but … you might be able to access the answer.

I’ve been rummaging in the loft , and come across the April 1960 edition of Practical Motorist which includes a little section on second hand (second hand in 1960) cars. They have an entry for the Jaguar 1½-litre. The length is given as 14 ft 5 in. ie 173 inches. They also include the statement “This was the smallest of the Jaguars made, though merely in engine size as the body dimensions were the same as on the two higher powered cars.”

I confess that’s how I remember it. I thought they all ‘looked the same’ but some had bigger engines than others. Though I freely admit that taken in isolation, how I remember stuff is a pretty dodgy source.

The wiki entry at Jaguar Mark IV gives a longer length for the 2½ litre than for the 1½ litre, however. It gives the the 2½ litre a 186 inch length whereas the 1½ litre, according to the wiki entry, is only 173 inches long. This comes from Culshaw and Horribin which is usually fairly reliable, tho he sometimes seems to be too short of space to explain what he means where things get a little complicated. That’s my feeling anyhow.

In other words, there is no conflict of evidence between the two sources I’ve looked at concerning the length of the 1½ litre. But there is an implicit conflict concerning that of the 2½ litre. A conflict exceeding 12 inches of car length.

There MAY be complications arising from changes to both cars (saloon/sedan versions) between 1935 and 1948.

I don’t think even your archive goes back to the glory days of these Jaguars, but Jaguars are the sort of car that get written about in retrospect more than some… Do you by any chance have access to anything on whether or not these two cars shared the same body (and therefore the same body dimensions) either (1) at any time or (2) regarding the way they came out after 1945.

Thank you if you will have any thoughts to share on this. Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Graham Robson in "A-Z of British Cars 1945-1980" the 1.5 had an overall length of 173 inches and the 2.5/3.5 a length of 186 inches. He states that the 2.5/3.5 shared the same cabin dimensions with the 1.5 but had more space ahead of the cabin to accommodate the longer six cylinder engines. The six cylinder cars also had a slightly wider track.

I guess that Practical motorist must have only been thinking of the passenger accomodation. Hope that helpsMalcolma (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's logical. Many thanks. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Albany (English) replica of early automobile built in 1970's

I have one, can you tell me more about it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaissance7760 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There was an Albany company based in Christchurch, Dorset from 1971 to 1981 who made a veteran replica based loosely on a 1908 Buick. It used a Morris Minor engine at first and later one from a Triumph Spitfire. Is this the car you are asking about? Malcolma (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have one that is a 1974 and believe it has the Triump parts to build it. How can I find out more about it so I can identify the parts? Do you know the brothers names mentioned on Wikipedia? Thanks for your help. Billy Renaissance7760 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added what i can to the article. I have found some more info a book on specialist cars published in 1977 but the two brothers are not named. When the book was published Albany were still very much a going concern. Just found another ref and it says the car was designed by a Brian Shepherd. Hope this helps. Malcolma (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition of the Albany has been updated. Did you do this? Is there anything else you can help me with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaissance7760 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was me who did the updates Malcolma (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

He was one of the brothers. I am copying you on what else I know. These are some of the people I have contacted and I am currently contacting the local news paper in England.

Thanks,

Billy Renaissance7760 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Albany was an English automobile, manufactured by the Albany Motor Carriage Company in Christchurch, Dorset from 1971[1]. It was designed as a classic car, in the Edwardian style, but is not a replica of any particular marque although with some resemblance to a 1908 Buick. Early models used the engine and suspension from the Morris Minor in a specially built tubular steel chassis. The engine was governed to allow a maximum speed of 40mph[1]. The car was hand built and quite expensive at £1987 before a long list of extras was added.[2] From 1974 a Triumph Spitfire 1300cc engine was used and a longer wheelbase five seat option came in 1976. The motor car was designed and produced by two brothers who also made a replica 1910 AEC open air bus that is now on display in the Beaulieu motor museum in Dorset. In 1973 about a car every two weeks was being produced [2] and exports to the United States started. However, after about 12 cars were shipped the importing company failed. The price in 1974, now with a 1500cc Triumph engine had risen to £2487. By 1977 110 cars had been built[2]. As of 1992, the open-top Albany, featuring a 1500cc Triumph Spitfire engine, was being built for export only. The company closed in 1997.

Mr Fuller,

We do remember the above company which we think operated from premises in Groveley Road, Christchurch. It is now occupied by a plumbers merchants. They made replica vintage vehicles including vans for the commercial trade and also for export. They ceased manufacture some years ago - there is some information on the company in Wikipedia - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_(automobile).

The Christchurch Local History Society might also be able to help. Their website is http://www.communigate.co.uk/dorset/clhs/

Regards and Good Luck!

Sean Hawkins

Customer Services Manager Christchurch Borough Council

Tel: 01202 495153 Fax: Email: s.hawkins@christchurch.gov.uk Web: http://www.dorsetforyou.com

---

<<Email Cost Letter.rtf>> Dear Mr Fuller,

Thank you for your recent E-mail.

I'm afraid that I can tell you very little about the Albany Motor Carriage Company other than that they were in business at 25 Grovely Road in Christchurch, Dorset from 1971 until the 1980s. The company was run by Bryan and David Shepherd but I'm afraid that I have no contact details for them.

It occurred to us that you could contact the local newspaper in that area 'The Bournemouth Echo' as they may be able to print an appeal on your behalf to contact any former employees still in living locally. The website is www.bournemouthecho.co.uk

I know little of the history of the replica bus that operates in our grounds. It is based on a Ford D Series lorry chassis and dates, I think, from 1974. It appeard in the 1970s remake of the film 'The 39 Steps' starring Robert Powell.

Our reference Library has a small amount of information about the cars. Attached is a short list of references from motoring magazines. We also have two examples of Albany sales literature:

A 1974 brochure of some six pages. A 1977 brochure of four pages together with a further three pages of specifications and dimensions.

Copies of the above may be obtained at the rates shown in the accompanying cost letter. Charges will include the enquiry fee, copying, post/packing etc. Please complete and return the attached payment slip if you would like us to proceed.

Yours sincerely.

Patrick Collins Enquiries Officer National Motor Museum Trust Beaulieu Hampshire SO42 7ZN

I have found some magazine articles about the Albany I could share with you to update the information on Wikipedia. Please let me know where to send them. There were three bothers and I have there last name. Could you copy me the articles from your sources and email them to me? bngf@peoplepc.com Thanks, Billy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.216.194 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Malcolm, I just read one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has been contributing articles since 2005 hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that such a thing existed. Malcolma (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Austin 12 (1939)

I photographed a 1946 Austin 12 at the weekend (it had 12 written on the grill) but I couldn't find more than a passing reference to it on wikipedia. However, there is an entry on the model which, in 1939, it replaced. You wrote it.

I've attempted the same for the 1939 - 1947 Austin 12 with a little bit of help from Culshaw and Horrobin, but there doesn't seem to be too much information around - at least not on the web and not in my office. So I padded it out a bit with some waffle about The War.

But if you can think of anything else to write about The Car, please feel free...

There's something on the Austin 10 entry about a designer with an Italian name who had been born either in Italy or in Argentina (presumably in the Italian speaking community) who had worked for Lancia and then came to England to work for Austin after displeasing Il Duce. If he designed the 1939 Austin 10 he must surely have designed the 1939 Austin 12 as well, because they so clearly come from the same hand. At least that's how it looks to me. The same gentleman appears to have been responsible for the way Austins looked through the 1950s up to the moment when they discovered Pininfarina. He gets lots of hits if you google him, but all that I can find about him seems to come from the same one or two sources, and it doesn't appear very consistent. I don't know enough of the background to begin to assess which bits might be true. But if there is a source for his having designed the Austin 12 that appeared in August 1939, that would be something one could add. The fellows name is Ricardo "Dick" Burzi. It would, indeed, be interesting to read an entry on the man himself if anyone had access to appropriate dependable information... OK, so now I'm getting carried away. Don't, please, let me get in the way of the day jobs!

Thanks for thinking about it and regards Charles01 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few bits and pieces but can't immediately find much. I must look for something on Dick Burzi. I think the successor car was more the A70 than the A40 but there was no true replacement in the 1500cc class. Malcolma (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much.

I think there's a more general problem trying to identify successors in the later 1940s to models introduced in the late 1930s. The earlier period - at least in England and Germany - was one of rapidly rising prosperity and cars were getting bigger and more flamboyant and in many respects better. In the 1940s the economic climate across western Europe was utterly transformed, but the makers had learned a whole lot of new stuff about bending pieces of metal, and all the Americans cars driving round in the UK and, after 1945, also in Germany, by attractively prosperous military high-ups, had given the people a completely new "language" on the subject of how cars should look. Hmmm. Charles01 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Morris Fifteen-Six: Another identification conundrum

File:Morris Fifteen-Six 2006cc April 1935.JPG

Dear Malcolm ..... Feel free to ignore this if you cannot face it. Otherwise:

I just photographed a Morris Fifteen-Six. That's what it said on the radiator and that's what I believe.

According to the UK DVLC (Tax gatherers') web site, the car I photographed was first registered April 1935 and has an engine capacity of 2006cc.

So I looked in Culshaw and Horrobin. He does not mention a Morris 15-6. But he does mention a Morris 15.9, which existed 1934-37 and had an engine displacement of 1938cc. So this entry agrees with the car I photographed in terms of fiscal horsepower (15) and in terms of build year (1935). Even though the declared engine capacity is a bit lower in C & H than that of the car I photographed according to the DVLC. However, with pre (second even) world war cars, there is frequently a discrepancy between published cc and that declared to the tax office. I don't know if this reflects careless error, or if people are reapplying factors of pi and remeasuring the cylinder diameters every time they decoke the cylinders....

I have a theory based on nothing more than a suspicious combination of circumstances and my suspicious nature that the Morris 15.9 identified by Colshaw and Horrobin might be nothing more mysterious than a misprint that the proof reader missed. Or is that too easy?

My direct question to you, please, is do you know if (or can you judge the probabilities as to whether) the car I photographed in the same as the car appearing on page 226 of C&H?

And thank you.

(An on balance pleasing) complication is that German wiki has already taken the column in the C&H table as the basis for an entry on the Morris 15.9.)

Thank you for any thoughts you may be able to muster on this. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the car you photographed was, as naturally it should have been, correctly described by its owner. Have a look at http://www.iamo.org.uk/Models/FIFTEEN-SIX.html. The fiscal hp was 14.9, the six refers to cylinders.

The DVLA engine size is a bit of a mystery as I can find no Morris engine of that capacity. There were engines of 2062 cc and Sedgwick's A-Z of Cars of the 1930s mentions a 2002cc but I think that is a misprint for 2062cc. I think the DVLA entry is also a misprint for 2062cc. C&H between them compiled their monumental work by going through brochures and magazines and not surprisingly it does contain errors. The second edition was, I think, a straight reprint and did not include corrections. I can find no other reference to a Morris 15.9 model and suspect there never was one - it could have been the title used in a magazine review. The C&H 15.9 must really be the Cowley Six (1934) and virtually identical 15.6(1935). I also doubt their end date of 1937 as the 1938 cc engine was apparently last used in 1935 and was replaced by the superior 2062cc in cars such as the Oxford 16 of 1934 on. I think the original engine of the car in the photo must also have been replaced by the newer and superior 2062 cc Morris "Q" series engine in place of the old 1938cc "L" series, hence the DVLA not quite correct entry.

Just my opinion. Malcolma (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Food for thoughts. Very many thanks for sharing yours which certainly make sense to me. Interestingly, the car identified on the webpage to which you directed me has exactly the same wheel base as the "15.9" Morris identified in the second column on C&H's Page 226. Some of the suspension and wheel details appear to tie in curiously closely, too.

Proof reading tables of figures is the most extraordinarily difficult job. These days I think they either don't bother or else pay quasi-literate robots to do it - often rather badly. But I do remember having in the past been set to proof-read tables of prices without verifiable patterns or sub-totals. Very easy to miss something and I would be amazed if C&H tables were entirely error free. Yours background note on the book (catalogue) is interesting.

The DVLC data I have probably - if only in the last two years - spent more time looking at than you. I think - especially with unusual cars (and by definition old cars such as these are unusual) they will have very little incentive to verify what car owners tell them concerning engine sizes, and no sufficiently (for them) easy way to do so. So if an engine size for an old car appears to be wrong in the data that they let us look at, it usually is. (Also enjoyable are the cc figures they often quote for old timer American cars where they love to take the cubic inch figure - presumably per the hand book and/or the owner who was probably often a US soldier or airman from one of the airbases in the east of England who had never been required to shake hands with a centimeter or a kilometer - and quote the cu in value as a cubic centimeter figure. So you get a large Cadillac apparently trundling round the countryside with an engine apparently intended for a slightly upmarket lawn mower.)

Anyway. Hmmmmm. Ad thank you again. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added the photo to the Morris Cowley article. Malcolma (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Charles01 (talk)

Hello, Malcolma & Charles01, I have answered your question on my user talk page today. Sorry for the delay, I was abroad. By the way: many thanks for the photos! I also corrected the according article in the German wikipedia. Do you agree with this solution? Best regards --MartinHansV (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Humber Snipe

Thanks for adding so quickly to the entry I started on this car. I still find these 1930s Humbers/Hillmans rather confusing, but some of it is beginning to slot into place for me. In other words, I was just about ready to attempt a start on the entry, thanks to our industrious colleague on German wiki and to the relative clarity of C&H on Humbers: but I'm not too confident that I won't have inadvertently incorporated the odd howler, so it's reassuring that you've had a moment to a look and add some bits.

That was the easy bit.

Do you have any thoughts on a car - this car - that I photographed in summer 2009? As in what is it? I cannot remember why I wrote what I wrote on my own brief note on what I thought it was. And I am no longer sure that I think now exactly what I appear to have thought then. But I think the car must have had Humber written on the grill. Otherwise I'm afraid I'd not necessarily have known. Totally unurgent, but if you do have any thoughts to share, I'd be interested.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The DVLA thinks it is a 1939 4 litre so I would guess it is a Super Snipe but they should have running boards. They might have been taken off though. There is also the 1938-1940 Snipe Imperial with the same engine but longer wheelbase. Its not an Imperial as they had two piece windscreens. Best guess - 1939 Super Snipe. Malcolma (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Malcolm. I think I was moving towards this conclusion at the time when I asked you the question. Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Jowett

Hi Malcom, re "it wasn't Briggs who wouldn't supply bodies to Jowett, it was Jowett that couldn't take them. They had no more space to store them". The Chairman's report to the shareholders backs you up on this though not in quite so many words and that was in 1952 - early 1953. All I am wanting to get across is that the terminal blow was that whatever the reason they seemed to know but were reluctant to admit around three months before it happened they would get no more bodies made for them at the ex-Briggs Doncaster plant. Maybe Briggs and subsequent owners simply were fed up with Jowett management and refused further dealings? As I remember it they did find a potential alternative supplier (Briggs Dagenham?) for the bodies but decided to cease operations and cash-up instead. Any idea who controlled Jowett at that time? Still Lazard/Clore? Jopling was managing director as well as chairman. He was appointed chief accountant at Blackburn in 1936, company secretary in wartime, then he turns up around 1950 as MD of Jowett. Jowett ends up sold to Blackburn. I'm not sure that a reference to Jopling's link to them is needed and as it stands now it is not quite accurate. Eddaido (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the Beaulieu Encyclopedia article written by Nick Georgano - "In December (1952) there were more than 1000 (cars) in stock and the factory could not keep up with the supplies of bodies from Briggs which were piling up all around Bradford, even on the town's football ground. They asked the bodybuilders to suspend deliveries for a few months and only 600 were delivered thereafter. It has been said that the end of the association between Briggs and Jowett was due to pressure from Ford but they did not acquire Briggs until February 1953 before which it was clear to Briggs that they could not profitably continue as Jowett's suppliers. Indeed about half their labour force was made redundant in December 1952 as a result of Jowett's request for delayed deliveries." This more or less fits with your quote of the chairman's address to the AGM allowing for the fact he would have been putting a good gloss on it. "Negotiations were proceeding" presumably meant they were talking about quantities and money.For years Ford was blamed for driving Jowett out of business but this is now known not to have been the case. Hope this helps. Malcolma (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have just this minute found your reply. My only dispute with the content of your reply is within the quote from Georgano:"It has been said that the end of the association between Briggs and Jowett was due to pressure from Ford but they did not acquire Briggs until February 1953 before which it was clear to Briggs that they could not profitably continue as Jowett's suppliers." I do not suggest the blame lay exactly with Ford, I even suggest that there was talk of supply (by Ford) from an ex-Briggs factory in/near Dagenham (a long way away) which Jowett was loath to take up - but I don't know how to document that. Without access to board minutes it seems impossible to now find the exact truth of the matter. I presume the truth would be fudged in press releases so there's no point in searching for them.

My guess is this: Briggs will not stop making delivering and demanding payment for unsaleable product. It is as if Briggs does not seem to have realized they were both together in the same low sales volume hole. This is very odd that Briggs simply went ahead and killed their fortunately prosperous customer, regulating supply is so basic. However Briggs was foreign-owned (USA), owners can be very insensitive when remote, and most of all while negotiating a perhaps long-planned sale to another remote (controlled) owner - Ford.

I'd lay the blame for continued supply on only-numbers-aware price-hungry pushy money-men aka Bankers on bonus-hunt(!) forcing Briggs to continue supply to Jowett just to make the Doncaster plant look a good investment - and demanding and getting payment. Maybe they also believed they could force prosperous Jowett to buy and operate the Doncaster plant which they would know Ford did not want to use. Maybe Jowett could not see their way to doing that. A chairman has to be fairly shattered to say what he did to his shareholders' meeting.

One would expect that by the time of the long-awaited Sales Tax reduction and when the musical chairs had finally stopped with BMC at the Doncaster plant and if they still had the Jowett presses and lines set up, it would have made sense just to go on making Jowetts (When the football ground etc had been cleared).

I guess all that must remain speculation.

Is there a ready source of figures for registration of new cars in Britain - would that settle whether or not post-budget sales soared?

It is why they (Bradford plant now BMC-owned) would not resume supply that really counts in the total-shutdown decision isn't it?

Did Lazard's (of NY and London) still control Jowett and Blackburn? Eddaido (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Am in recovery mode following receipt of a 95 minute dissertation on Javelin design inadequacies; gearbox, crankshaft & bearings compounded by unavailability (Korean War) of special metals etc; bodies not designed for production line assembly (and therefore expensive) and how kind Briggs Doncaster were to Jowett; Jowett top-management inadequacies (including lack of motor industry engineering experience). Digesting and obtaining a copy of publications by a Jonathan Wood who holds/held correspondence about body supply between Ford and Jowett. Think inter alia belongs in there somewhere but not quite sure what it means. Lazards I'm told did remain in control. Briggs sale finally triggered by death of Mr Briggs in USA. Will be back. Eddaido (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have found an expert. By my failing memory, the received wisdom for years was that Jowett had been brought down by the evil Ford empire. However, after some proper research was done this was found to be along way from the truth and what se4ems to have happened was that the company over stretched itself with a new car, engine and transmission. The production problems followed by warranty costs and loss of reputation meant an inability to sell enough cars. Cash flow seems to have stopped and capital used up b ringing on the end. Re-reading what you have written I see nothing to take issue with but I will leave the rest to the Jowett experts and I am not one. Best of luck. Malcolma (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Daimler New Fifteen

Should you find yourself with a spare 10 - 100 minutes and knowledge to share on 1930s Daimler's, I've just set up what at the moment looks to me a bit like a picture in search of a wiki-entry. IF you will find you have the appropriate combination of availabke time and Daimler directed enthusiasm, thank you. Thank you, in any case, for having thought about it! Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you much. Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks so much for helping me fix the Meadowlark Cooperative page! -the Beggar Thebeggar (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Housewatcher (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rolls Royce might be Silver Wraith

Totally unurgent, but do you, please, recognise this elegant beast? I've assumed it's a Silver Wraith from (1) the age and (2) the engine size, and (3) I think I googled-found a couple of images of the same shape called Silver Wraith, but maybe there are two many assumptions in there. And it still leaves the body unidentified.

If you will have a moment to think on this one, thank you very much. Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Either a Wraith or a Dawn but I think most of the Dawns had factory bodies so on balance it has to be a Wraith. Malcolma (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Malcolm. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bound (car)

I've just added a Merge from Bound (automobile) tag to your article. The latter was only created last month, has no links to it, and contains roughly the same information as your article (but it does have a different reference in the reference section, which is presumably where it was created from). I thought I'd better give you first refusal on performing this merge (assuming you agree with the proposal), on the grounds that you might/might-not have other mods that could be made at the same time. Otherwise, I can go-ahead and do it. TheAMmollusc (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, you might prefer to remove the word "inspiring" from the article on Cambro (cyclecar). I know it wasn't you who added that, but Randomguy1997, but I wanted you to see it first; it certainly caused me to burst out laughing, but perhaps this dry sarcasm will need to be removed, after all :-( TheAMmollusc (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done it, being the sober and responsible Wikipedia editor that I am. It did cause me to chuckle, though, last night (driving home) and this morning over breakfast. Perhaps, we should really change the word "who" into "that"; ideally, the whole sentence should be at the end, under a section title like 'Depiction in films', once the article is longer (if ever). 'Speak to you again soon, no doubt (I'm now as far as the 'C's in Defunct UK motor vehicle manufacturers, as you can see. TheAMmollusc (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected the new Bound car article. On the grounds that Automobile is an obsolete word in the UK I have kept the article using car. I agree with your deletions from the Cambro article, I doubt the film was about the same subject but who knows but I am sure it must have been truly inspiring. Malcolma (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In which case, here's another one for you :-) I have proposed that Standard (1933 automobile) (which is a stub and an orphan article) be merged into Standard Superior. If you don't have time to do it, I can do it instead, but I am sure that you would be able to add a more expert touch than I can :-) TheAMmollusc (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I found several of these, mainly American cars, a few years ago and thought I had got the lot but obviously some escaped.Malcolma (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Meanwhile, here's another set for you (if you wish): American De Dion (automobile), Georges Bouton, De Dion-Bouton.

Being French and at the beginning of the alphabet, I encountered this set at the beginning of my project, and was more warey. So, rather than proposing any merging of articles, I just created a See also section to each one, and made sure they each cross-referenced the other two. Even now, I'm not sure I would have the confidence (expertise) to do more. I know that the middle one is about the man, which a section on his work, while the others about the cars, with perhaps a section on the men. Maybe they need to be left this way... but even so, perhaps you could see something more intelligent to do with my cross-references, and remove the See Also sections. I don't know. I'll let you decide :-). (PS: I'm removing the wikilinks from our previous discussion about the Standard Superior, so that your talk page disappears from the What Links Here page of those two articles... I don't know whether Wikipedia etiquette frowns on my doing this.) TheAMmollusc (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know. The American De Dion article is a bit odd in that it is largely a resumé of the parent company in France. There was a factory in Brooklyn but it does not seem to have been a major manufacturing base. I don't know if the products were branded as American De Dion. I think I will put a note in the discussion on the American De Dion article and see what happens - probably nothing. Malcolma (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. I'm impressed, BTW, that you're the proud owner of this GBP 416.72 reference book :-) (As before, I've removed the wikilinks from my previous paragraphs, and put in the indent that I had forgotten). TheAMmollusc (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Just after the encyclopaedia went out of print they sold off the remaining copies on the cheap. It was still expensive, GBP 80 by memory, but I decided to treat myself. I don't have the coachbuilding volume however. Malcolma (talk)

In recognition of your contributions

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for your work categorizing articles and helping to clear the backlog at Category:Uncategorized pages. Quite literally, countless thousands of people benefit from the work you do. I wanted to take this moment to let you know that you do make a difference, and that I appreciate what you're doing. Senator2029 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pope-Tribune

Hi Malcolm. Can I ask a favour of you? I've just created an article on Pope-Tribune. It was already a redlink on two pages, and I knew of two other pages that were ripe for putting in a link to it. I have created it from the material that I read in the three external links that I have cited, and then massaged it into roughly the same shape as the article on Pope-Robinson. If you get the chance, can you have a look, and make whatever improvements you see fit. Thanks in advance, for anything that you are able to do. TheAMmollusc (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the WP protocol is on this matter, but I'll say a big thankyou, here, anyway. Thanks. Great additions... and I'm impressed by the photo. (I notice that it doesn't look like the same model as they had for the references in the external references section. Interesting.) TheAMmollusc (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong Siddeley 236 engine

Hi Malcolm. Are you sure it was correct to delete this? predecessor = Whitley. The engine was the same engine, other things were different. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what is meant by predecessor. I think that to all intents the engine in the Whitley was the same unit as in the 236 so it wasn't really an engine predecessor. The engine in its 236 form seems to have come in with the 1946 Lancaster but actually with pre war roots - I'm not sure how far back it really goes. If the entry is supposed to mean "previously used in" then the Whitley entry is correct. On the grounds that I didn't think that having Whitley in the infobox helped I deleted it. If you want to put it back I won't be upset. Malcolma (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Vauxhall Motors 1903

Thanks for adding the ref which I am unable to access. Are you sure Georgano is being quoted correctly? I believe the correct answer is 1898 (the 1895 on the back of the newspaper photo may have been generic rather than Vauxhall and anyway a note on the back of a photo of a procession in 1931 would not have been intended to be a special record for posterity would it? ). Back to Georgano (who is entirely new to me, is it reliable?) it is possible it is referring to manufacture of a particular model? I don't know but I do not think 1903 as used within the context provided is accurate. First check is: Is that what Georgano actually says and I cannot do that.

What I enjoy is the little flutes and the nose of the Prince Henry cars on that cute little vehicle! thanks, Eddaido (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have access through your local public library to The Times Digital Archive 1785-2007? Most British residents do. There is a full column about Vauxhall which you should read headed "Experts in the Light Car". Reference below. It says first Vauxhall 1898. And some of the earliest 5 h.p. single-cylinders . . . Regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Georgano is the editor of the 3 volume Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile. His name is also attached to the Vauxhall entry, he didn't write the entire book. He states clearly twice that the first car was made in 1903. Culshaw and Horrobin, not always as accurate as Georgano also give the date as 1903. Burgess-Wise in his Encycopedia also states "The first Vauxhall was made in 1903". The Vauxhall website also states "Vauxhall started making cars in 1903|"

I also have a booklet issued by Vauxhall to celebrate their 90th anniversary. It undated but presumably published in 1993. It states:

"It was in 1903 that the firm first turned its head to the horseless carriage. By that time Wilson had left the company and it was through the efforts of FW Hodges, a Wilson trained marine engineer, and JH Chambers that the first Vauxhall car turned a wheel."

I can find no reference to anything before 1903. Malcolma (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm. Thanks for this. Have you looked up the 1909 reference I supplied? With kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the reference in the Times and it certainly says a car was made in 1898. The trouble is I can find no further refs to it. I have no books specifically on early Vauxhalls so am now a bit stuck. Malcolma (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Malcolm, can you spare me a few words to explain how I can read The Times Digital Archive 1785-2007. I have a library card registration. It sounds like a terrific resource. Regards Chienlit (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I typed into Google "times digital archive xxxxx library" where xxxxx is my local library and it went to a log on page which worked with my library number. Malcolma (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Try the website of your local library. Eddaido (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you. Malcom, your xxxxx syntax worked perfectly, took me to the page that Eddaidos would have. :) Chienlit (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• ! Eddaido (above). Georgano (who is entirely new to me, is it reliable?) - See G.N. Georgano with circa 500 reference links! Regards Chienlit (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Georgano - The Complete Encyclopedia of the Motorcar says ::

Vauxhall Iron Works Ltd. 1903-1904 .... etc

This marine engineering concern's first cars were .... So perhaps any earlier references are either marine engineering or typos.

Regards Chienlit (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

P.s. Malcoma, Is Georgano still alive? Do you know where he lives? The article is deficient on these points.

He must still be about or there would have been plenty of obituaries for such a prominent expert. I think he lives in the Channel Islands but can't be sure. Malcolma (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Chienlit (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Errett Lobban Cord: His Empire, His Motor Cars By Griffith Borgeson [1] lists him as St Martins, Guernsey. Sadly [2] implies that his wife died 5 years ago. Regards. Chienlit (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Vauxhall B-Type

Hello Malcoma, I'm sure it's on your watchlist, but the waters around Vauxhall B-Type have recently muddied when Eddiado made some changes and drew attention to them. I am not a Vauxhall expert (I only bought a second hand copy of Georgano's Complete Encyclopedia two weeks ago) but I have made some updates to the article and the talk page. I think it needs another review by you. Regards. 13:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Vauxhall 20-60 Hurlingham 2-seater

Hi Malcolm, just to tell you I've changed the i.d. in this picture here. I would be pleased to discuss it further but here are two things, an ad for the car and possibly another picture of the self-same car. Please write if you want to discuss it further, best regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. I am not sure where I got the idea of it being a 30/98 from. Malcolma (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Mini-based cars

The article List of Mini-based cars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Shed-load of original research. It seems to be a list of any car that has "mini" in its name. It is not encyclopaedic and does not belong on Wikipedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Biker Biker (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Austin motor cars

Hi Malcolm, I'm still gathering info about early Vauxhalls and will use it when it seems to be enough to justify amending existing articles or adding new ones. Somehow that activity led me into the Austin Twenty and from there to List of Austin motor cars. I'm writing to you because you were the major contributor there and I imagine architect.
Would you mind if I added two more columns: Engine size and number of cylinders?
I spent a while this afternoon with an image of an Austin taxi and the size of its engine from DVLA (the size of a 1930s 2-litre Peugeot). So I was thinking if we had an easy line on the sizes and shapes of engines Austin was making it would make that kind of hunt much easier next time — this of course assuming the list of Austin vehicles was truly exhaustive, which might happen in time. What do you think about adding those new columns. (If I were completely confident I would have just gone ahead and done it). Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Prewar A16

I've received a quite long email from the owner of the NZ 1939 Austin 16, I've written back and asked if I might quote most of his message on the talk page and if he can come up with any published confirmation that they were made before and during the war. If he can do that would you be prepared to accept it was a prewar model car? (he suggests UK pre-release production was commandeered and used by the military which might account for "five years battle-testing" etc). This on your own talk page just to let you know its still a live issue. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Colesy99 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation

Category:Ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

This is just to say thank you for helping my articles. Cheers! Ashishlohorung (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fellows of the Royal Society by year

Category:Fellows of the Royal Society by year, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Volkswagen engines

Category:Volkswagen engines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hooper coachbuilders question

I saw you wrote the original article for Hooper coachbuilders. I was wondering, did the company create any cars after 1959? This Silver Spirit coupe is credited as being a Hooper car. Maybe that's a typo? Any ideas?

http://silver-shadow-crewe.tumblr.com/post/133931823185/1988-rolls-royce-silver-spirit-by-hooper-co

--RThompson82 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Revenant

Very nice to see your attentions to the old cars. Welcome back! Eddaido (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Malcolma. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of solitary animals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of solitary animals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of solitary animals until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Queen(')s Road Peckham

I have started a discussion about redirects to Queens Road Peckham railway station and the road it is named for at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Queen(')s Road Peckham. As you have had involvement with one or more of the existing redirects, your comments are invited there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

MG T-type TB —> TC

Hi Malcolm. I have a problem because I inserted some photos of Australian cars today (sold in) 1940 says the photographer but then I read this section you inserted about the changes between the TB and the TC: "The body was approximately 4 inches (100 mm) wider than the TB measured at the rear of the doors to give more cockpit space. The overall car width remained the same resulting in narrower running boards with two tread strips on them as opposed to the previous three . . . "

My problem is the Australian cars have only two chrome strakes running the length of the running board and wide bodies - yet it is said they were sold in Australia to be dated 1940. I have had previous problems with Australians who are relaxed about dates of manufacture etc. Are you able to shed any light such as some late TBs were given a wider passenger compartment. Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Its OK, found out what I needed to know from Mr Clausager hisself. You are, of course, correct! Kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Category:Years in motoring for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Category:Years in motoring is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Years in motoring until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Burning Pillar (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)