This is an archive of past discussions with User:Stepho-wrs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for correcting my error at Tesla Motors.
Thank you for the "complain" -> "complaint" fix, correcting my error, at Tesla Motors. I kick myself for not being more attentive whilst engaging in late-night Wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Graham. No problem with the extra category on my user page. As for the dot vs comma in numbers, I guess the dot in S.Africa is from the Dutch/Afrikaans heritage. Anyway, I made the pickup article conform to the WP policy (WP:Numbers#Delimiting (grouping of digits) that says all English WP pages use commas as thousands separators - even pages or sections talking about countries that use other conventions. Stepho talk15:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice page
This page takes a while to load, but oh my it is worth it. Just in case you hadn't seen it before. As for anchors, I also don't like the way it looks but there is one advantage: when editing a section one can see the anchors then and there, instead of having to access the previous section. I am not certain, but I think that it's the best solution. Toodles, Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, saw it a few weeks ago and agree that's it's full of good info.
There is enough online of stout 2200 4Y to provide evidence that the YK110L - MRH finished 2/2000 via online parts catalogues replaced by the stout II (hilux)
http://toyotamarket.ru/gr/681220/
I hope this is enough citation needed as I know via facebook people that own them... and I have no idea how to do things on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whysmee (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The EPC data is real but the Russian website is an illegal copy of it, so wikipedia can't link to it. We will need to think about how to include your info.
Toyota's 75th birthday website says it ended in 1989, not 2000. There is more corroborating evidence for a 2000 end date, so I'll just assume that the 75th website is talking about the Japanese market only, where the YK110 was never sold. Stepho talk14:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that Japanese Stout sales ended in 1986. Maybe whatever Toyota employee who wrote March 1989 as the ending date simply didn't think to look for the YK-series? I think one can link to an illegal copy as a source. And whysmee, remember to sign with the four squigglies. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I found your Toyota engine template very elegant (better than the car one) and cannot understand why it was rejected. Bah, humbug, etc. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
info box conversion templates
Hi Stepho, do you remember this long-winded explanation? I don't know if my prob was so low-level you didn't understand it but your explanation left me more puzzled than ever. It seemed to be a very public place to make a fool of myself so I said thanks and went away. But now it comes up again.
Can you see my problem on line 18 here? (Or maybe 17 or maybe 19 how am I expected to know?) How do I fix it? Please remember I am not a computerist like most WP editors. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No worry about making a fool of yourself - I do that all the time :)
The first word after the number is the units that you already have. The next word is the units that you want. So, {{convert|3054|cc|cuin|abbr=on|0}} converts cc to cuin, giving 3,054 cc (186 cu in). In the example you linked to, you gave it the number for the cc measurement (3054) but said it was cuin. So the template obediently converted 3054 cuin to 50,046 cc.
The simple answer to change cuin to cc. *HOORAY!!!!!*
And if you want to show them in the opposite order then add but this is too complex and accordingly dangerously dangerous |disp=flip, so {{convert|3054|cc|cuin|abbr=on|0|disp=flip}} gives 186 cu in (3,054 cc) Stepho talk10:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that (as highlighted above) is nearer my level of comprehension of these things — will go and try it in a minute. Why I wrote to the (list arm project page?) as I did was to ask (seeing all vehicles in the British English world reported their cubic capacity in cubic centimetres) why was that not the way the example (for British English . . . . ) was set out! And I'm still puzzling about that. Computerists claim to be entirely rational . . . . . Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
PS You do understand I just used what was put there for me and (as you have just pointed out) is wrong —— it is missing something, you must check. cheers, Eddaido (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a guy chopped up that page about a month ago and it needs some serious cleaning up. The problem with us techies is that we love options and love mentioning every single one of them - myself included.
As for cc vs cuin, 50 years ago practically all English speaking countries used imperial measurements. Now practically everyone under the age of 30 only knows metric. But the US and the older generation still hang on to imperial. So British magazines for older folk (especially about historical cars) [No Way!! Eddaido (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)] and US magazines continue to use imperial. But metric is the better way to go (especially for the new generation), so we take imperial measurements from the magazines[my italics! Eddaido (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)], use the template to convert to metric and through the magic of computers we also get to choose which is displayed first - imperial first for Yanks and metric first for the civilised world :) Stepho talk12:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out, I do remember when that page suddenly underwent substantial modification. However I have to pick you up on this one point, I was alive and well before they started WWII so I can tell you with genuine authority that the sizes of engines in the British English world were always in metric — forgedabout GM-Holden putting a 186 badge on the back of your car that only meant something to an Aussie teenager looking for mobile support for his twin overhead foxtails and was a political statement in itself. British English speaking world, metric sizes for engines, no other way. But I do now see how the muddle began. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Brits used metric engine sizes in WWII? That's a new one to me but since I was only born in 1966 I'll take your word for that. But I just pulled my grandfather's 1936 repair manual for British cars off my shelf, opened it to a random page and it does indeed talk of the Riley 1+1⁄2 litre engine with mm bore and stroke but imperial measurements for everything else.
Curiously, the Holden Kingswood family car had imperial badges while the youth orientated Torana with the same engines had metric badges. Marketing! Stepho talk22:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Brits always used metric engine sizes. But you will know a Kingswood was (so far as I know) unique to Aus, a Torana was an old Viva with extensions and a Brit.Viva with fat tyres etcTorana with small rubber on narrow wheels and 4 (small) cylinders Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep, HB Torana was really a HB Viva (white car). The next generation LC Torana (red car) took the HC Viva but then added a 6 cylinder engine (161-202 cuin, 2250-3300 cc). A prototype V8 version (308 cuin, 5.0 L) was made and very nearly made it into production. The Torana GTR-X prototype used an Italian style body made from fibreglass with a 3300cc engine. Again, the ultra conservative bean counters cancelled it at the last minute. But the next gen was all Australian with 4, 6 and (finally) V8 engines in a bigger boxy body. Stepho talk21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Toyota
You said that the article will or may bloat out in listing current models in all countries. Well what if I said that the list will only include Toyota's most important markets only? Also you said that it most likely won't update, well the listing of vehicles of each for Chevrolet gets updated every year, and it hasn't bloated out. Seqqis (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries, i've took my sandbox article to a different layout. Thanks for reverting the "Crossover" wording from C3 Picasso also ツ Jenova20(email)09:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, 'compact crossover SUV' needed to be put out of its misery as fast as possible.
I've tweaked the Euro NCAP template and its documentation a bit. Hopefully the reference_url parameter will make things a bit simpler. Stepho talk11:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That's good news. It stumps me almost every time i get to a new car and have to add one =P
And Crossover, Liftback etc are terms that need to be killed off before they make body styles even more complex. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)14:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Land Cruiser family
You've said that the FJ cruiser is not a Land Cruiser, however its a updated redesign of the Land Cruiser 40 series therefore a Land Cruiser. Also I've added the Land Cruiser family after looking at the Prius Family section, so it really wasn't necessary to revert this . Seqqis (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I felt like a heel for removing your hard work but felt even stronger that the article is better without it. The Urban Cruiser shares absolutely nothing with the Land Cruiser except having 'Cruiser' in the name and the Toyota badge. Likewise, the FJ Cruiser is not part of the Land Cruiser family. It takes it's inspiration, styling cues and marketing cues from the old FJ40 Landcruiser but is a quite separate line of vehicles - just like the T100, Tundra and 4Runner are separate from the Land Cruiser line. In fact, the FJ Cruiser shares many of the underpinnings of the 4Runner and T100 lines.
Most of the remaining vehicles you listed are just listing out the 70 series (already covered in their own section) and the Prado (also covered in its own section). So the vehicles you listed were either not Land Cruisers or duplicating information already present. You didn't mention it explicitly but you only listed the current members (minus the 200 series). Does that mean older vehicles are not part of the Land Cruiser family (WP:recentism argues against this) or that all of them will eventually be listed in that section (doubling the size of the article for no benefit)?
Regarding the Prius family: that section appears on a page talking mostly about the Prius, without duplicating another section. Also, the other Prius family members are effectively mild variations on each other (plugin-hybrid, wagon, hatchback) in the same way that the Corolla has various body styles on the same platform, quite unlike the Urban Cruiser, FJ Cruiser and Land Cruiser. But, as always, I don't mind if you present your views on the Land Cruiser talk page. Cheers. Stepho talk13:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Toyota Camry Solara 1st Generation
I understand that not all regions use the same years, but clearly a questionable error was made when you added it as a 2000-2004 model in the infobox, when clearly 1998 is given as a production start year and 2004 production end. I initially wasn't sure if it was vandalism or persistent incognito editing.Carmaker1 (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I was mostly concerned with the end date and didn't pay much attention to the start date. There's no reference for either 1998 or 1999, so I'm not going to make much fuss about it. But thanks for letting me know. Stepho talk13:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Toyota Land Cruiser 70 series
The Land Cruiser 70 series wagon is and has always had the body style of a suv, not the body style of a station wagon. A while ago, I've edited the article stating that in 2012, Toyota released a 4-door version of the Land Cruiser 70 Pickup in Australia and plans to release the 4 door version internationally. There's YouTube videos, photos of the 4-door version, and it's on the Australian and New Zealand Toyota websites. Also as the pictures on the article shows, a 3-door suv version is or was produced.
Seqqis (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Depends a bit on how you define SUV. The common themes seem to be a body similar to a station wagon, drives liek a passenger car but sits higher. Your argument about SUV body vs station wagon body is thus irrelevant (there is no significant difference). A 70 series Land Cruiser by no means drives like a passenger car - it has always been a workhorse designed for serious work instead of yuppies driving their kids to school.
On a more positive note, I wasn't questioning the 2/4-door wagon/SUV body styles, only the 2/4-door pickup body style and 2/4-door troopie body style. I think I've seen a 4-door pickup (with a short tray) but I've only seen 2-door troopies. Since the troopie has longitudinal bench seats in the rea, I'm a bit lost about how they'd fit in a 4-door body. Plenty of 4-door wagons though. By the way, I live in Western Australia, where we have a very large number of 70 series Land Cruisers used in the mining industry.
Hey Stepho, hope all is well with you. I'm having trouble here as i can't figure out how to reuse the reference in the table without creating an error message. And also because the alignment is set to "left" but is clearly still on the right...As the architect of the template do you know how to fix this? Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20(email)10:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
There's been a problem with references but your example helped me to figure it out. Spaces and underscores in reference_name give trouble, so I removed them. Also, you had both align=left and align=right, so I took out align=right (although I've just seen an example on my doc page with both, so I'll fix my error there too). Stepho talk11:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've got to the stage where I think I've done about as much as I can on my own with the rewrite of the Triumph TR7 Sprint page. This might have been, as the brummies say, "polishing a turd", but I think I've established the separate notability of the TR7 Spint, at least in the UK.
Since you proposed waiting till it was ready, in the discussions in the merger proposal, I wondered if you'd offer any advice on it, the process of overwriting the page that exists, and on the merger proposal in general: there have been no postings since my last on the 16th March, and that was after a two week wait following the last 'in favour' comment to see if there was any disagreement with or extensions to the details in that.
Did the Canadian project change its mind? The format "CAD 123.45" was part of the project style guide and remains in force until the project reaches a new consensus. To my knowledge, the project has not changed its consensus and if it did then it should have updated its style guide. Feel free to raise the issue at the Canadian project and I will follow the consensus. Actually, what I should do is to make sure{{currency}} matches the project style guide and then make {{CAD}} call 'currency' to do the real job.
That way, users can call the template of their choice and be safe in the knowledge that the project style guide will be followed in all cases.
Also be aware that {{NOK}} originally gave 'NOK' instead of 'kr' to keep it unambiguous with Danish and Swedish kroners. 'kr' does look much nicer but if the links are disabled then there is potential for ambiguity - which is not good for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, 'nice' and 'correct' don't always align with each other :( Cheers. Stepho talk06:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That was what I thought when I first started working on these templates but that was before I knew about the Canadian project's style guide. Look at the history of CAD around March/April 2010 for my chaage to CA$ and its correction back to CAD. I firmly believe that matters to do with Canada should follow the Canadian project's style guide - and similar for other countries. Note also that {{AUD}} has 'A$' because it follows the Australian project guide lines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions#Currency), instead of 'AU$', 'AUD' or the dreaded 'AUD$'. Stepho talk08:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it is clear that the Canadian project's guidelines should change so they are in line with other currency styles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You're certainly free to take it up with the Canadian project. I'll make sure the template follows whatever Canadian style guide says, whether it stays the same or gets changed. But I don't fancy you chances of convincing an entire country. Stepho talk22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Date format
I noticed in the edit summary for this edit you express a preference for the yyyy-mm-dd date format. That would have been a poor choice for that article. It already has one citation for a work printed before the Gregorian calendar was instituted, and with such an old topic, there is a potential for more pre-Gregorian dates. (The one old work cited only required a year, so the article could use the yyyy-mm-dd format for the time being.) Jc3s5h (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have said that it's a general preference that I use for most articles where I get to choose the format. ISO 8601 says it's only valid for Gregorian dates (unless there is agreement between the parties). But ISO 8601 codifies only a partciluar usage of yyyy-mm-dd and that format is also used outside of ISO 8601 - eg Swedish dates. Swedish people are quite valid to use 0333-12-31 as a date in the 4th century AD - they just can't call it ISO 8601 without further specifying if it is Gregorian or Julian. But dd-mmm-yyyy also has the same problem in needing to specify Julian or Gregorian for some dates. In the end I simply made that single reference match the rest and left it at that. Cheers. Stepho talk23:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Template error
Hi Stepho. Since you are an expert on templates, this is to call your attention that the template Convert mi to km is displaying across the board in the article Plug-in hybrid this message: {{#swtich:{{{disp}}}|number|output number only=|}}. Vandalism? A change in the parameters? Your help will be appreciated.--Mariordo (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems alright to me. Sometimes as they are halfway changing a template (or some of its helper templates) it can do some strange things. Have another look and see if the problem has disappeared. Stepho talk05:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I just looked at the template history and they made a change with {{#swtich:{{{disp}}}|number|output number only=|}} and then reverted it. So the problem has already been fixed. Stepho talk06:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Secondly the archives should be displayed with the URL because many Wikipedians don't look at the talk page, and may mistakenly believe no such archive exists - in case the site owner puts up robots.txt, blocking the site's Internet Archive pages, webcitation is our last line of defense. It's all about being proactive (planning for the future) and not reactive
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Both of them gave 404 errors when I tried first them. Now the first one works. I'm not strongly against archive URLs. However, I am strongly against the form in which they were given. The short 9 digit form is cryptic and hides where it is leading to. It could lead to a perfectly good site, a virus site, a spam site, a porn site or anything else and the user won't know until he has visited it. The long form (as explained at {{WebCite}}) gives the user a much better chance to see and verify the original URL and date when the cursor is held over the link before the link is actually followed. Even better if you use 'archiveurl' and 'archivedate' inside the {{cite web}} template. Stepho talk16:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi Stepho,
I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Automobiles talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bugatti Veyron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
265.7|mph|km/h|abbr=on|1|disp=flip}} the Hennessey was {convert|2.1|mph|km/h|abbr=on|1|disp=flip}} slower than the Veyron but Hennessey dismissed Bugatti’s official record saying that the Veyron
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lone Star Toys may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hi Peter, That's mostly because I'm only interested in the older RWD platforms (ie Celica, Cornw, Corona and Corolla) up to the mid 1980's. If I ever pulled my finger out and brought the pages into modern times (ie FWD times) then the Echo/Yaris/Vitz/etc would be on the embryonic Publica/Starlet page (the P platform). But the time I was spending keeping my pages up-to-date sort of got transferred to Wikipedia. Stepho talk04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
C3 Picasso (yes...again)
I'm crap with engine specs Stepho and i was trying to create a table of them like on a lot of auto articles. The problem is the terms are a bit different to those i recognise and understand (Displacement??? torque???).
I've managed almost one which i'll post up here for you to see:
I've managed the start but all my stuff is in miles because, well, it's European. Are you able to do this fairly easily and in miles rather than kilometres?
Sources i've been using are: C3 Picasso,Parkers,Citroen,Perry's. I'm just not able to do this too easily and i've spend 3.5 hours on it so far. I know you can work your magic on it like with the Euro NCAP tables if you have the time. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)14:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Not 100% sure of what you want but I think the follow examples might work (look at the code as well as the output).
145 km/h (90 mph)
100 mph (160 km/h)
90 mph
90
100 N⋅m (74 lbf⋅ft)
100 cc (6.1 cu in)
100 cc (6 cu in)
100 cc (6.1 cu in)
100 cc (6.10 cu in)
1,601 cc (97.7 cu in)
1,600 cc (98 cu in)
1,600 cc (98 cu in)
1,600 cc (97.6 cu in)
1,600 cc (97.64 cu in)
100 cu in (1,600 cc)
100 kW (130 bhp)
100 bhp (75 kW)
Beware that convert does auto rounding. If you give it a large number with 2 zeroes at the end than it will try to make the output also have 2 zeroes. Use |0| to force rounding to no decimal digits, |1| for 1 digit after the decimal point, etc. Stepho talk23:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Cool, I mean could you fill in the missing entries in the table i posted up so i can see what i need to do for the other 4 engines i need to add to it. That's if you don't mind. The conversion figures are a big help too though.
Next question though...does it matter if i list inches first with millimetres in brackets? No-one measures wheel trims in millimetres or advertises like that so i'd like to preserve the readability. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)12:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to answer. Generally, the article should consistently put mm first (or inches first for American or older British articles). But in the special case of wheel rim sizes I'd just put inches only, without mm at all. Stepho talk22:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that response. I already converted the figure but i'm glad you agree on the need for a realistic figure first there. Thanks again ツ Jenova20(email)00:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Stepho i can't work out the 0–100 km/h,s...the first i have is the 1.4 VTi engine and it gets from 0-62mph in 12.2 seconds...but how do i use that? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)13:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the question but maybe this helps.
0–100 km/h (0–62 mph) in 12 seconds
0–97 km/h (0–60 mph) in 12 seconds
If you have a mix of references (some giving 0-100kmh, some giving 0-60mph) then there is no possible formula to convert them (can't assume constant acceleration) but they are close enough to just equate them (ie we can live with the 3% error). Stepho talk14:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a note on rounding - one can also use "sigfig=3" (or whatever number) to round to a certain number of significant figures, rather than a certain number of decimals. For me it's usually useful when calculating torque, viz:
What's archaic about abbreviating cm3 (ie cubic centimetre) as cc? It's certainly common in books/manuals/brochures. But at least it isn't based on the size of somebody's foot like our common enemy uses :) Stepho talk04:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It is true what you say, certainly and especially in older manuals. The current trend appears to be to give the engine size in litres, at least in Canada. So 1,600 cc = 1.6 L (97.6 cu in). Australia, G. B. and N. Z. appear to be getting on with metrication. When I was in London I personally noted that a carpet or tile merchant on Pearly Way in Croydon was selling his wares my the m2. This is not yet true in Canada. There are even small stores that still insist selling cloth by the yard rather than by the metre! Meat is supposed to be retailed per kg, but some still insist in selling it by the pound, weighed on scales that are calibrated in lb only! I "fixed the clock" of one of such meat market chains by reporting them to the competent authorities and not too long after that the pounds only scales came to be replaced. There is also a large lumber retailer, I have to recheck which one, that posts as sign in French "Here we only measure in imperial"!!. I sill have to "fix their clock". Peter HornUser talk20:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The only real difference between cc and litres (not the spelling) is the accuracy. Most of the cars in Australia are specified in litres when talking in broad terms (ie the 1.3 L engined Yaris vs the 1.5 L engined Prius vs the 5.8 L V8 Holden) but are specified in cc in the brochure/manual specifications section. Both are metric and we choose according to the precision wanted. Very few things in Australia are specified in imperial (car wheel rims being the only example that comes to mind). Even meat and lumber are now sold in metric. I was born in the year we went metric (1966). I was taught metric in school but was surrounded by adults who talked in feet and inches, so I'm a bit of hybrid - I have to remember to talk in cm when talking to the younger members of staff :) Stepho talk23:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) We're taught Metric and Imperial at school in England, with most, except greengrocers, preferring to deal only in Metric. I've always assumed it was because the EU has attempted to force change on us that we've kept both systems in use in certain places. I remember a while back that some market traders and grocers refused to bow to their demands and caused a kerfuffle (and eventually won). Every car over here though tends to be 1.4 this or 1.6 that just as Peter says ツ Jenova20(email)11:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Model Years
According to the Photo of the Toyota Sequoia that I've chosen, it is both the model and calander year for Canada. Seqqis (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I prefer to avoid using dates in captions unless strictly needed. Dates can easily be confused between model years and calendar years, so if the exact year is important but can be misinterpreted by a whole year then it isn't really doing its job. It can safely be assumed that a photo in a '2008-present' section is in fact a photo of a 2008-present vehicle. Similarly, photos can be marked as pre-facelift or post-facelift. Rarely do the readers need to know if it is a 2007, 2008 or 2009 vehicle. In the case of your recent photo, stating that the photo was taken at the 2011 Montreal International Auto Show is all the date information it needs and totally avoids the conflict between calendar year and model year. Stepho talk22:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Tesla
You wrote: "Thank you for the reference you added at Tesla Motors. Could you also remember to format them the same way as other references in the article - in this case by using .. cite news .. "
Thanks, Stepho ... you caught my shoddy work before I got back to fixing it ... I was looking for info @ the Tesla page and saw it incomplete, so ... bad of me. --Johnconorryan (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
My edit should be reinstated. The US dollar, Euro and Pound Sterling rarely need to be linked, unlike the rest of the currencies. These former should be unlinked by default, but I have no objections to linking for the others. A parameter to control linking would be welcome, but the starting point (default) ought to be where US dollar, Euro and Pound Sterling and maybe the Japanese yen are unlinked, and anybody wanting links can switch these on. Thanks. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?23:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I will work towards adding a link=yes/no parameter. However, I believe that all the currencies should have the same default. The editor placing it can make a judgment call about whether it should be turned on or off. It also makes the template much, much simpler to have them all using the same default. Stepho talk05:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Template documentation
Regarding your recent revert of my edits at Template:Official websites, I disagree with the fact that a template documentation is meant to show what happens when that template is used incorrectly. The second example is unnecessary also because it is up to the contributor to use either a compact version of it or the one that spreads on multiple lines. Since the result is the same, it is unnecessary to give two identical examples. The code for these examples is not shown as well, but even so, two examples with identical results are not necessary. Also, you reverted other useful edits as well which shouldn't be reverted, such as the section header, the removal of the unnecessary additional line break and the common description for the see also links directing to other templates. For these latter edits please consider checking other template documentations, in order to see that the style is commonly used. As for the non-breaking space, I agree it is not the proper solution, but in the current form the space is not displayed either. I don't think we should get into an edit war and I kindly ask you to consider my arguments. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, although in your changes the '7' got dropped. I restored it for you. Thanks for letting me know what's happening. Stepho talk06:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hyperloop revision
I agree with your revision of the Hyperloop article. "serial entrepreneur" is unnecessary. However, I'd argue that it wasn't an incorrect statement by the IP editor. Musk cofounded Paypal, SpaceX, and Tesla, and conceptualized SolarCity. Even ignoring SolarCity (while he's chairman of the board he's not too involved in the day to day operations), just how many currently existing companies does one person have to start before they're considered "serial"? — Gopher65talk00:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't the correctness that I was worried about, only the unnecessary verbiage. Saying 'serial entrepreneur' is a bit like saying 'successful gold medal athlete' - if he won a gold medal then he's already considered successful, so the adjective is unnecessary. Likewise, a successful entrepreneur rarely stops at one business. If they did then they're unlikely to be called an entrepreneur. So the 'serial' adjective is not required and just makes the sentence longer for no reason. Stepho talk03:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hyperloop may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Musk revealed the details of the system] on August 12, 2013 via a PDF posted to the Tesla and SpaceX blogs.<ref name="AlphaSpaceX"/><ref
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Talk:Hyperloop. Message added 18:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
MOS:DATEUNIFY says reference dates should all be in a consistent format and WP:STRONGNAT says reference dates can be yyyy-mm-dd even if the article is in a different format. New references should match the already existing reference, so I matched them. Although I get a bit grumpy in the edit summary when editors don't follow a rather obvious pattern :) Stepho talk13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, some of those bots don't differentiate between dates in the article text and dates in the references. I often have to revert them. Stepho talk09:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Not a Toyota
I know it's not a Toyota and if you think this is a colossal cheek too far then (1) I see what you mean and (2) feel free to read no further. BUT nothing ventured nothing gained....
Do you by any chance know what this is? I've had a guess, but I'm not at all sure I got it right. It was first registered in the UK about ten years after manufacture which is quite a common thing with Japanese desirable cars - the ones that don't end up in Australia anyhow - because we all drive on the left and sit on the right. But I don't think I ever saw one of these before and I'm not sure, checking out what I can find about it in wikipedia, whether it was ever sold anywhere in Europe or North America.
Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Talk:Hyperloop. Message added 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Regarding this edit: please read WP:LEAD. The lead section is supposed to be a fully summary of the article's key points: details may be left to the article body, but must be at least brought up in the lead. Instead, the present lead (two sentences) does only the barest minimum to provide context, and in fact the material that it does cover should probably have a section to itself in the article. Hence the cleanup tag. The article is still quite a distance from GA status and tags help to get the more straightforward bits of the required work to get articles there done more quickly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chris,
I agree that tags are good. However, in this case, I'm at a loss to see what more it needs. The existing lead covers the topic but leaves the detail for later. But if you can make a specific suggestion as to what more it needs then I'd be happy to reconsider my position. Stepho talk22:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Aligning all text in a table
Hey Stepho, i just finished the table of engines at Citroën C4 Picasso#Engines. Unfortunately, now i've collapsed it some of the rowspans have conflicted and the text in some columns is not in the centre any more. Do you know how to fix this without adding a tonne of code to each cell? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Tables get complex real quick - it took many previews to figure out what was needed. I removed all the individual centring and made each row default to align="center". Stepho talk22:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey Stepho-wrs, i'm having a little alignment problem with the NCAP tables at Citroen C4 Picasso. Can you take a look? I'm also having the old issue with the references too...they don't look right. Hopefully you can work your usual magic for me. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)11:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't explain why the alignment didn't work. I can only say that alignment is only really meant to put a single Euro NCAP result on the left or right of the page - it wasn't really designed to put multiple results across the page. Instead, I used a table and put each result into its own cell.
The references have trouble when spaces are part of the name - use names without spaces. After 2006, use |reference_code=520 (where 520 is the code taken from the URL http://www.euroncap.com/files/520_datasheet.pdf and the template will generally do the rest for you. For multiple results you also have to add |reference_name=EuroNCAP2013 (using unique name/years for each result) due to a bug that I am having trouble fixing. Stepho talk14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Mighty Stepho has trouble fixing bugs in tables?? Who are you and how did you hijack Stepho's account? =P
Yeah, I get a bit grumbly when I have to repair the same thing in article after article and I do apologise for my tone. But ask yourself, is it really that hard to see what everyone else is doing and try to match it? Afterall, you've already admitted that you know about MOS:DATEFORMAT and just below it is MOS:DATEUNIFY which says 'Publication dates in article references should all have the same format.' Stepho talk23:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
1. The short scale is used by virtually every English-speaking people and is accepted across the entire Wikimedia project. Even the Toyota article itself uses billion as 109 without ambiguity.
2. The template was not serving a purpose, to my knowledge. I didn't see it mentioned at MOS:CURRENCY so it did not seem necessary. If you want to reinstate the template, that's fine. I don't think it changes the text at all. However, "$1000 million" causes needless confusion, in my opinion. Is there any official Wikipedia policy on short and long scale? American Eagle (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You are right that officially, all primarily English speaking countries use the short scale. However, some countries are still in a transition period. In my country (Australia), the change was only made recently and those of us born in the 1960s or 1970s have to stop and think about which scale is being used - or even worse, not think about and get the wrong scale. Readers from much of Europe (most of which uses the long scale) also have to stop and think twice. Since most people can understand what 900 million means, it takes only the smallest leap of intelligence to figure out what 1000 million means, even if it is the first time the reader has seen it in that form. I find this more preferable than leaving it ambiguous. Stepho talk21:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about it, but you're going to have a difficult time trying to convince all of Wikipedia to adapt to your method. I believe it's standard practice on this wiki to use the short scale, but I cannot find it on the MoS. Just so you know, "$1000 million" is confusing for 99% of English readers, in the same way you'd be initially puzzled by "$1000 thousand." American Eagle (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the policies and found WP:NUM#Large numbers. Unfortunately for me, WP has decided that the short scale is official. This worries me because it is ambiguous and I really hate ambiguity. But I'm not keen to start a battle I'm likely to lose.
Out of curiosity, do the 99% of English readers that have difficulty with "1000 million" come from multiple countries or was it a straw poll among American acquaintances? I ask only because when people say 'everyone' it often really means 'everyone in my local culture'.
My revisions were correct: wartime aero engines had mechanically driven dynamic compressors that absorbed a lot of engine power. It is the drive type, not compressor type, that primarily determines engine losses.
You say "Paragraph is about positive displacement superchargers, as opposed to Roots type superchargers" which is incorrect (Roots are blowers) and the section is about superchargers vs turbochargers.
My apologies. I mistakenly thought those paragraphs were comparing different types of mechanically driven superchargers. Stepho talk22:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
His IP address is from Japan and his talk page has Japanese characters. Judging from his behavior, he is a Japanese teenager. He doesn't seem to being doing outright, deliberate vandalism but doesn't seem to recognize when he screws things up. Part of growing up is learning not to damage public property. He's been given lots of warnings and I know he reads his talk page, so I'm okay with blocking him for a month or two. Stepho talk10:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pickup truck may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
2011/05/31/chrysler-rolls-out-ram-runner-truck-kit |title=Chrysler Rolls Out Ram Runner Truck Kit] |first=Jonathan |last=Welsh |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=2011-05-31 |accessdate=2012-10-07}}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to General Motors EV1 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
hours (18.7 kWh) at 312 volts, and increased the EV1's range to {{convert|100|mi|km|abbr=out|0}}). Soon after the rollout of the second generation cars, the originally intended [[nickel metal
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kliper may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
approved the national space program for 2006 to 2015 with a budget of {{currency|305 billion|RUB}} (about {{currency|11 billion|USD}} - the whole budget for the 10-year period will be {{currency|425
The actual overall width of wide body Liftback is 1745 mm, US brochure shows 68.7 in. So if the conversion is 1740 mm then it's wrong.
The normal body width 1690 - 1705 mm, I think the bigger number is with side moldings which most of them have.
talk07:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the problem. {{convert}} was being allowed to chooses it's own level of rounding and in this case it choose to round in lots of 10mm. But we can force it to the level of rounding that we prefer.
{{convert|68.7|in|mm|abbr=on}} → 68.7 in (1,740 mm) - tool chooses
{{convert|68.7|in|mm|abbr=on|-1}} → 68.7 in (1,740 mm) - force 10's
{{convert|68.7|in|mm|abbr=on|0}} → 68.7 in (1,745 mm) - force 1's
{{convert|68.7|in|mm|abbr=on|0|disp=5}} → 68.7 in (1,745 mm)* - rounds to 5's instead of 1's.
{{convert|68.7|in|mm|abbr=on|0|disp=flip}} → 1,745 mm (68.7 in) - force to 1's, mm first
{{convert|68.7|in|mm|abbr=on|1}} → 68.7 in (1,745.0 mm) - force 0.1's
Convert is better when the input value is the same as the value in the reference - it makes it easier to verify and also prevents double rounding (which is when you take inches from the reference, manually convert to mm, enter that value into the template and then let the template do a second conversion back to inches, which causes some interesting round off errors). We can force the level of rounding (see above examples) and we can also flip the display order by using |disp=flip. Stepho talk00:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
One more useful one: "sigfig" is particularly good for double conversions, viz:
Great for torque conversions, but also good when using cc, L, and cuin in a single conversion. Didn't know about the "round to 5", that's good to know. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Tutnum
I would have thought you had waaay more than 12,500 edits. Are you counting your edits from other projects, Commons etcetera? Anyhow, they're also 12,500 useful edits so cheers! Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, average of only 5 edits per day over the last 7.5 years. I rarely stray outside of the main space and even there I mostly stay in Toyota articles or flinging mud in the automobile project. But at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits I see that Trekphiler is the 808th top editor, Mariordo is 2928, OSX is 3096, you are 3651 and I just scrap in at 4893. Stepho talk23:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Stepho. Congrats on your Tutnum. I married young, so my children are all grown ups, thus, I usually can manage to do more than 5 edits per day, particularly on weekends. I would like to know your opinion, before opening a formal discussion about this picture as a candidate for the lead of the electric car article. It is the closest I have found to your criteria, even though the angle and composition is not the best, but at least it shows the two of the three top selling highway-capable electric cars in the world.--Mariordo (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the suggested photo (except for being dark and the nose of the Leaf being cut off) and with the changing marketplace it is also more relevant than the existing lead image. Sorry for stalking. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries about stalking - I'll just put thicker curtains on my bathroom windows :)
I'm starting to feel like the Club of Rome - doom and gloom with every word I speak. I'm not keen on 4507] - power cord looks like a clothesline messily thrown across the car, bright blue train and second car are distracting and they can't be easily cropped, cars are kind of dark and nondescript. 4275 is much better. 3974 isn't too bad, if a little grey. 2261 is interesting but cryptic on first glance. 2233 is good, if slightly out of focus. Of course, mine is only one (noisy) opinion. Stepho talk07:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been watching you conversation for the past couple of days but don't really have much of an opinion myself. I'll also be away from computers for the next couple of days. Stepho talk07:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently what you said contradicts with what's in the article of the second generation Century:
" This current model is powered by a 280 PS (206 kW; 276 hp) 5.0 L 1GZ-FE V12, initially with a 4-speed automatic, and then a 6-speed "intelligent" transmission. "---Now wiki (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. The current model is definitely only 6-speed but I will double check what was in earlier models. Cheers. Stepho talk02:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I am very glad I took a major breather, before even possibly believing you questionably accused me of vandalism (unlike my edits w/o sources). I have been following your wise advice you gave me to the letter, regarding model and calendar years in the Toyota/Lexus articles and will also work harder on finding better sources for my contributions. I felt a bit uneasy about the section headings for the Mustang and I now know to leave them a certain way for U.S. market only articles. I also have stressed the use of certain propositions that do not imply a model year as a real time date of introduction, but have been questionably challenged. It is very peculiar that I focus on timelines for cars, but one simply hopes to dispel unfounded accusations towards automakers regarding copying and providing insight into history. Not that you have to even acknowledge it, but I apologize for those terrible uncivil edit summaries from me during last year and prior. I would've said that sooner, but didn't believe I had a foot to stand on after my earlier conduct in 2011-12. Carmaker1 (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries about our past disagreements - too tell the truth, I keep forgetting who I've had differences with. I just like to get on the job of improving WP, whether it requires me to educate somebody or for somebody to educate me. At one time I wanted to abolish model years altogether (still do) but the yanks cried so much I had to back off a bit. Stepho talk02:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, thanks for sorting things out for me. Unfortunately, it seems like Toyota deletes their press releases after 5 years so I can't confirm the actual production numbers, the forum was the best I could find stating the Press Release. Now I'm kind of interested maybe I'll email Toyota North America and see if they'll disclose it. I've heard that some Toyota dealers were not aware the car existed (I've have problems getting wrong parts at the dealer in the past as parts come up for the S). From my knowledge it is the 3rd least produced sport compact in North America behind the Acura Integra Type-R and Mazdaspeed Protege. Other information about the Corolla XRS, comes from my knowledge and engineering background of owning the car which I tried to back up with the magazine articles.
1- Write in Google: investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=TM&dataset=incomeStatement&period=A¤cy=USDollar.
2- Click in Toyota Motor Corp-Spon ADR. Thanks. Cgx8253.
Thanks for the URL. I checked the currency numbers and the USD amounts published by Bloomberg agreed with the yen amounts published by Toyota (very roughly, 100 yen = 1 USD), so I left the yen amounts there in order to avoid currency exchange issues. However, I did update the number of employees to agree with Toyota's March 2013 figure. Stepho talk09:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
TE36V
Just found a new photo by the excellent TTTNIS, which I already incorporated at Toyota Corolla (E30), but when I tried to find the 1400 Van model code on your site I noticed it was missing from the charts! The Horror! This page has more codes for you. Toodles, Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Dag-nab-it - you're right! My sources show 8 variants of the 1400 30 series van - every combo of 2/3-door, deluxe/high-deluxe and auto/manual. Guess I must have been tired the day I typed them in. Thanks for the heads up. Stepho talk08:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I figured you'd like to be made aware. I also adjusted the intro date of the E70 in its article, it was March 1979 for Japan with August '79 marking the beginning of export (production?). G'nite, Mr.choppers | ✎ 08:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, think you were right concerning the volkswagen T2 on that page. I made a mistake in the type and T designations. Will not intervene any further :-) , thanks Jobbew (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to leave the opinions off. They detract from the TD by calling it too American and detract from the TF by sounding snobbish. If you leave them in then they need to be explicitly reference by a few very reliable sources (e.g. not just a throw away comment in some opinion column in a magazine) and also explain why it was thought to be too American (width? smaller pressed steel wheels? LHD?) and how the TF then difference from this. In my opinion, these differences (and supporting references) belong in the MG T-type article, not in the MG Cars article. Stepho talk03:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Forcing Convert to Lua early
There has been talk, today, to circumvent the 30-day RfC and immediately switch Template:Convert to use the Lua version (with known bugs), as an update on 11 December 2013 (to reformat over 2 weeks). The documentation has not been fully updated, and there has not been a systemwide announcement, so I am just warning people individually (after anger about VisualEditor installed without enough warning). Several people have tested the Lua Convert to ensure general usability, and we fixed about 600 pages with incompatible Convert options. Meanwhile, I have fixed {Convert} (or Convert/old) for precision in ranges:
After roll-out, any edit to Lua Module:Convert, to fix bugs or improve precision, will re-trigger the systemwide reformatting of all 554,000 pages, again and again. -Wikid7720:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
what you say seems to make sense: that it's worth taking the time to get it right first time, but those assembled at the talk page have considered the pros and cons. They voted in favour massively and you the sole dissenter.. I know little about the subject, but you seem to imply a heavy compilation penalty if there are any bugs that need to be fixed, but could u quantify how heavy a real burden is recalculating half a million pages? are we talking hours or weeks? -- Ohc ¡digame!12:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you might have the wrong guy. I've been watching the Convert Lua discussion from the sidelines but haven't contributed. I do embedded programming rather than server-side. Stepho talk13:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you have reverted a couple of IPs in that range on Lexus RX. FYI it's a long term IP-hopping vandal in Santiago, Chile, doing it. As well as doing the same thing, i.e. introducing deliberate factual errors, on many other articles. So if it happens again please issue a proper user warning for unsourced edits to him/her on his/her talkpage, and check if he/she has also vandalised other articles. Just so the vandal knows that someone is keeping an eye on what's happening here. Thomas.Wtalk to me14:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I notice him vandalising a few other pages in a similar style with similar IP addresses. He's probably doing it from internet cafes. Luckily he made a few mistakes, making it easy to spot. Thanks for reverting the Starship articles he vandalised. Stepho talk15:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
G-Book implementation
As with most technology developed by Japanese manufacturers, G-Book is first introduced in Japan with variations being introduced internationally. In North America, a G-Book variation is called Entune, with other similar approaches used or to be introduced internationally in the near future.(Regushee (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC))
True, but you said all of the 2004-present HiAce models have G-book. Does that mean every country and all from 2004. Or is it only some countries from 2004 and other countries from a few years later? Or possibly Japan had it later than 2004 (ie not at model intro time) and other countries had it even later? And us poor Aussies still don't have it at all today - a Bluetooth, MP3/CD player is standard but satnav is an extra accessory (http://www.toyota.com.au/hiace/accessories) and true telemetrics are not available at all. Also, how closely related are G-Book and Entune? Is Entune a minor variation on G-Book or is it merely a close relatively suing similar technology? Stepho talk00:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the HiAce was sold in Australia, based on the information in the article. G-Book is Toyota's telematics platform, and with most Japanese developed technology, they modify it based on international conditions and infrastructure. Meaning, if Australia doesn't have G-Book or something like it, it's reasonable to assume they're working on something and it's on the way. G-Book is an option, but based on the platform, the more vehicles have it, the better information that is gathered and retransmitted to subscribers. (Regushee (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC))
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bugatti Veyron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Fixed by another editor. Stepho talk 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:Headinganchor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)