This is an archive of past discussions with User:OSX. 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.
By now it should be painfully clear that you may not continue to upload these images. Please stop doing so; continuing to upload copyrighted images without a fair use license is disruptive to the encyclopedia and may result in a block. If you'd like some pointers on how to contribute to Wikipedia, take a look at the Wikipedia:Introduction. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!06:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright status
The presence of the same image on different, unrelated websites does not mean that it is not copyrighted. Only an explicit, written statement on the page itself, or in the website's terms and conditions of use page, will be a binding declaration that the image is in the public domain or is otherwise compatible with Wikipedia.
If you can provide the addresses for all these images directly from Holden's website, we might be able to consider a fair use reason for keeping these photos. However, one condition of fair use is that the source of the photo must be credited. Kimchi.sg11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
OSX, these models are still on the road, so it should be relatively easy to create a free photograph to illustrate the articles. Our very first criterion for using an unfree copyrighted image is that it is only allowed when a free alternative can not be created. That is not the case here. The best to do is to grab a camera and go look for one. ×Meegs11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes true, but The VE Holden Commodore is yet to be released, and the images were realesed by Holden for people to use so I don't see the huge issue. I also believe that images should be of the highest quality availible and these ones obviously are. I just think it looks so un-professional if you use quick images that a user has taken as they are rarely anything special. OSX11:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
According to our article (not the necessarily the greatest source), the VE was released in July (in Australia, at least). If you can't find one on the road, you can surely find one at a dealership. One problem is that if we use the unfree images in the article, even temporarily, there will be little incentive for people to contribute free replacements. If the model were yet to be released, though, fair use would be an option, provided, as Kimchi said, that we could find the original source of the images (almost certainly from Holden itself). ×Meegs11:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are the thumbnails of the images found on the Holden website:
I hope that these are good enough proof that the images were realesed by Holden. I am sorry to say that I cannot find these in high-res, but I will continue my search.OSX12:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You're ignoring the first part of my previous message. The car has been release and is available for photographing; fair use is not an option. ×Meegs12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
GTA infoboxes
It seems you have attempted to improve the formatting of most of the infoboxes related to the Grand Theft Auto series. However, there are a few disagreements with a few of the changes made, namely, the abolishment of bullets in the infoboxes. While bolded text have been used as substitutes and the bullet-less format seems suited for fields which are short, this doesn't seem effective in organization of the infobox text. One good example is the "system requirements" field that may consist of a long list of required hardware to play the games; without bulleting, it become easy to confuse the requirements of different platforms because the bolded text can also blend in with the rest of the text. This makes readability of this field difficult and frustrating.Forget about this one. The problem can easily be fixed by ending the main text with colons.
Another objection is the removal of references to ratings. It's also crucial in several featured articles, particularly on those related to more obscure rating boards (such as the CERO in Japan and the ELSPA in the UK), to prove where these ratings are cited from.
I decide to revert some the changes under the abovementioned grounds. The resulting text may not be easy to manage in editor's eyes and may take up more article file size, but it does help a reader browse through the infobox's content with ease. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ╫
Hi
I saw that you moved Helensburgh to Helensburgh, New South Wales. I am not sure about this move. Helensburgh in Australia is a very important region to Australian history with a history of coal mines, socialism and a much higher population in the past than it has now. It seems more notable than the Scottish region that you have exchanged it with based on the Scottish article of Helensburgh as it is. Regards Jerry.
Thank for all the help with this! I have installed the programme, but am unsure as to what tool to use within it. Could you please tell me? Thank you.Ansett12:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Software piracy
Hi, I notice you shared your license key for Adobe Fireworks with another user at User talk:Ansett. Not only is this a breach of the terms of your license, its also an inappropriate thing to use Wikipedia for. This is not a forum for software piracy. Please do not do this in the future. You might like to bear in mind that your key is now publically available to tens of millions of Wikipedia readers on this site and on mirrors and copies across the web. it is quite possible that your key will get into wide circulation on piracy sites as a result. Given that leaked software keys can be traced back to their owners, this wasn't a very smart thing to have done. Gwernol16:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank for all the help with this! I have installed the programme, but am unsure as to what tool to use within it. Could you please tell me? Thank you.Ansett12:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
VE Commodore
Why did you get rid of my edits on the VE page. What was wrong with the image and putting the model line so that the Omega etc bits are in the category they should be in. They are sub models and should be described like that.
Please Respond.--58.167.197.17408:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that some of your significant edits in Grand Theft Auto articles lack edit summaries; these are now defined as essential to accompany each edit, and are needed as an easy way to describe the nature of each edits, as well as justifying any edits or changes. The lack thereof not just makes it difficult to identify the types of edits made, but also makes it difficult to accept certain edits because they lack any sort of reason for changes, and may be considered dubious. You may like to consider including them in future edits. Thanks. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶11:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC) ╫
Yes, please do stop. Others have to clean up the mess you made, copy paste moves are never a good thing. ++Lar: t/c07:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, could you do so by moving the page with the move tab rather than by copying the text, making the original a redirect, and then pasting the text into where you want it redirected?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Super kudos
Incredible. Awesome. Just plain WOW on that new article on the Holden. My God, that's a feature if there ever was one practically out of the chute. Outstanding example of quality over quantity and if you don't run it up on peer review, I will. :) BTW, I actually saw a Holden Monaro the other day. Left-hand drive. Here in California. And, no, it wasn't a GTO. I like that car better as a Monaro! First one I'd ever seen outside a picture. - Lucky 6.908:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You put the nomination on the wrong page... you should have put it on WP:GAN, not WP:GA/R. There are instructions on the first page I mentioned, telling you how to nominate an article
I didn't have much time so I quickly had to look over it if possible can you get more or better pictures of the car, it won't be long until this article will be listed as a featured article and on the front page it is great that other countries can see what Australian Cars are made of. gotta love it
Hi, I've looked over the article and it's of a pretty high standard. As mentioned, it would be good if a few more pictures could be added, but the info looks complete. Good luck with the nomination! VectorD02:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I know the title of the page might be slightly misleading, but new candidates for GA status go on the Candidates page, not the Review page. The Review page is supposed to "Review" decisions to delist articles or decisions to pass them and whatnot, not to actually give articles their first review. Homestarmy03:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments. It's good to see Holden VE Commodore reach good article status. I should also be thanking you as well for your hard work in building up the article. All the best with the VZ Commodore article. Thanks again! VectorD04:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Good Article Nominating
I am considering nominating the article Ford BA Falcon for Good Article status, so could you please check or review the article and if you can add anything to it please do. Senators02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi OSX. I'm concerned about the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holden_VE_Clay_Model.jpg since it includes a person (face partly shown) who is not directly linked to the subject material. I haven't been able to find any rules on Wikipedia supporting or frowning on such circumstances. I was wondering if you happen to know about the relevant regulations? Any info is appreciated. VectorD02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say, but I am unsure about that one. I too have just spent some time looking for a policy or rule of thumb that prevents the use of such images. My view on the matter is simple. The image shows the car in development with one of the designers detailing a clay model of the car. The person included is more or less a part of the photograph. Maybe I should ask around to see if anyone else has any thoughts on the matter. Regards OSX06:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That's ok. If no info can be found, I'll just wait and see if anyone objects or removes the image. I do see your point about designer and model, but I'm not sure if some sort of privacy regs apply or not. Anyway, we'll just wait and see what happens. Thanks for your help though. VectorD08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Pictures
Regarding the VE Commodore article, I found that you need much more pictures, maybe if you went to a Holden dealer or showroom you could get pictures it has been to long.SenatorsTalk | Contribs00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I personally would have to disagree, as too many pictures can spoil an article. The article could possibly do with an interior shot, and maybe an image of one of the sports variants - to replace one of the two images of Calais models shown. I have also nominated the article for FA-Status, if you have any other concerns, please let either User:VectorD or myself aware of such. Regards OSX00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Mabye someone can add pictures of the motor and the inside of the car, I understand that more outside shot's of the car may damage the article.SenatorsTalk | Contribs22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi OSX. Per the suggestions for FAC to make the Holden VE Commodore more interesting: Unfortunately I probably won't be doing anything like that anytime soon. I originally contributed to the article intending it as a reference guide for automotive enthusiasts rather than fun reading. At the moment I don't have the time nor energy to make any fundamental changes, however you or any other contributor can, of course, modify it as you see fit. I can make corrections or add small details as it progresses. VectorD07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the minor contributes you have done to my article and others.
Template:Infobox Automobile
Please stop making arbitrary changes to this template without prior discussion on its talk page. Clearly, there are other users who find the "ground clearance" field of value, and it it not your sole prerogative to remove this information just because you disagree with them. If you do not find it useful, there is no necessity for you to include it on articles you write.
Further, please note that as per High-risk templates#Rationale, every change made to the template affects every page affected to it; cached versions of the pages are invalidated, and each must be regenerated by the parser when they are next viewed. Edit warring on a template therefore puts a significant load on the servers, so prior discussion to gain consensus for template editing is important in order to avoid this. --DeLarge10:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
MoS
Thanks for cleaning up some MoS problems on the Windows Vista page. But I just wanted to let you know that you changed the text inside of a direct quotation making it improperly quoted. If you could just double check next time for that, that would be great. Keep up the good work! Paul Cyr01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Infobox. I see no mention of infoboxes in the WP:MOS. I deliberately use multiple spacing to allow clearer editing. I don't know if you're just using javascript to remove more than one space wherever it occurs. In that case, may I refer you to Wp:mos#Spaces after the end of a sentence, which states that "[t]here are no guidelines on whether to use one space after the end of a sentence". Therefore, you shouldn't be making such changes if they are purely a stylistic personal preference.
Changing <ref> to {{cite web}}. Even using the ref tag, the little .pdf icon indicates the file type. Therefore the change was unnecessary and as per WP:CITE, "Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page" and "Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article". Both of those quotes are in bold on that page to emphasise the importance of not simply applying your own preferential style.
Changing percent to %. Err, where on the WP:MOS does it say anything about that? If you're going to quote the style guide in the edit summary, please at least follow it. For the record, support for spelling out "percent" in prose text is detailed in the final paragraph of the Percentage article.
I'm therefore reverting to the last version by myself. If you wish to discuss this further, either the article talk page or here is fine. Regards, --DeLarge11:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I readded the Flip 2D image that you removed (now twice). I checked at both 250px and 300px. It might not fit into the side of their respective decriptions, but it does not mess with the visual styles images - in the sense that it does not alter the formatting in which they are meant to be perceived. So I reverted your edits. Can you please provide a screenhot of what you are seeing so that we can kludge a fix? --soum(0_o)06:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Ohk, I have tried a fix. Please let me know if the issue persists. Also, as for the screenshot uploaded, let me know if you want it deleted. --soum(0_o)08:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The first thing is in the VE Commodore article, in the introduction you state that the station wagon and Ute variations of the VE Commodore won't be released until later this year. This is correct but, I have gained information from a reliable source that the reason why they have delayed the launch of these models (Station wagon and Utes) is because they do not want to take the focus away form the sedan variant of the VE Commodore. You can add this information to the article if you want to.
Hello OSX, it is nice to meet you. It seems from looking at your contributions that you are a Holden fan. For me, I like both. I apologise about the mistake, and I will fix it up as soon as I can. Although, I do ask you to not so quickly talk down on the AU Falcon, and I say this in the most polite way. They may have had an unpopular design (I don't mind it myself) but after re-writing the article in length I realised that if you look past the design, they were a pretty good car compared to the EL Falcon. Thanks, and I hope to edit with you in the future. Thankyou Harrison-HB402607:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
{helpme}
In the Holden Captiva article I have created a table which incorporates vehicle data such as trim levels, engines and transmissions, etc, but I’m having trouble with how it displays on the screen. Under the Engines section, the line that separates the 3.2 L Alloytec V6 and 2.0 L Turbodiesel I4 is not evenly distributed between the two cells. It looks like the 3.2 L engine is only available on the SX model, when it is actually standard on the SX, CX, and LX. The 2.0 L engine is displayed in the table so it looks like it is only available on the CX and LX models, which is not the case either. It is optional on the SX, CX, and LX. Basically I need the line that separates the two engine variations to be centred between the two cells. Thanks in advance OSX (talk • contributions) 10:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry mate I can't figure this one out, try the Help desk to get someone to figure it out. By the way, you might consider blanking out the licence plate of the car in the photo (I'm not sure if you have to though).--Commander Keane10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a case of adding extra rows. Hope that helps! --ais523 10:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. However I've overcome the whole issue by reorganising the structure, but once again thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What fonts do you use for the ads, because I am making one for the fraternities/sororities wikiproject. Thanks! Real9615:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The font used is called "Calibri", and it is a part of the Windows Vista operating system. It may be possible to download it from somewhere, but otherwise you may have to purchase the OS to gain access to the font (that is of course assuming that you don not already own it). This is a little bit off topic, but the programme used to create the graphic is Adobe Fireworks CS3. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for creating Image:Qxz-ad42.gif. I've modified it a little to make the second frame more readable, and optimized it to reduce the file size without affecting quality; if you don't agree with these changes, feel free to revert them. One thing I should point out is that in addition to the public-domain Image:FountainSoda.jpg you also used Image:Lemon.jpg or a variant thereof. This image is not public domain, but under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5, which means the ad, as a derivative work, needs to preserve that license and can't be public domain. I've modified the description and license tag accordingly. Annoying, but unfortunately copyrights can't just be ignored – hence why the ads are all under half a dozen different licenses. Thanks – Gurch15:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, I really appreciate your edits Gurch. I don't know how I stuffed up the copyright license, but it is nice to see that you fixed it up, and it wasn't deleted. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ford Falcon
Excellent, I have recruited quite a few people to editing this article. If you would like, you and I could be the controllers of this project. What I think we should do is find some references and sources (Im on it already) so it information dosen't get deleted (as you said). Good work so far. Thanks Harrison-HB402608:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you have approximately double my edit count. In case you are wondering, the people I have recruited are User: Senators, User: Chicken7, and User: Mobile01, but I believe that you and I will be the only ones that would be working on it for most of our editing time. What I hope for is to get the page to a good article or even featured article status. Thanks Harrison-HB402608:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ford Falcon
Hi OSX, sorry I can't help as much this week until Friday (school commitments). Looking quite good, hopefully we will be able to get all of the sub-articles done and make it a featured article. Thanks Harrison-HB402609:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Statesmans and Caprices
I believe that there is a strong case for the removal of HQ to WB Statemans and HJ to WB Caprices from the “List of Holden Vehicles” as these models were Statesmans, not Holdens. I offer the following in support:
The July 1971 brochure for the HQ Statesman Custom & Statesman de Ville does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all. In fact it even refers to General Motors rather than General Motors Holden’s.
The article on Page 62 of the September 1971 issue of Modern Motor magazine begins with the words, “The first thing to get straight about the new Statesman is that it is not a Holden”
The article on Page 44 of the October 1971 issue of Modern Motor includes the following:
Road Test Data – Specifications
Manufacturer ... General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd
Make/Model ..... Statesman Custom
The July 1971 SA car registrations table on Page 30 of the November 1971 issue of South Australian Motor magazine, shows the following: .......
…..Chevrolet - 1, ......Holden - 1327, ......Statesman - 25…..
No separate figures are given for Torana, Kingswood, Monaro etc
The November 1974 brochure for the HJ Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
The October 1977 brochure for the HX Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
The same brochure refers to “500 GMH dealers throughout the country” whereas the HX Kingswood brochure refers to “500 Holden dealers.....”
The August 1980 brochure for the WB Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
The Green Book Price Guide for Sep-Oct 1984 lists Torana, Kingswood, Monaro etc under HOLDEN but lists Custom, de Ville, Caprice and SL/E under STATESMAN.
No “Holden” nameplates or badges are apparent on any of the vehicles shown in any of the above-mentioned Statesman sales brochures.
If "General Motors" didn’t promote these Statesmans as Holdens and they didn’t badge them as Holdens and they were not registered as Holdens, what makes them Holdens? Cheers, GTHO11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, and you've definitely proved your point. I have since reverted my edits, and will merge the purged contents to List of Holden Statesman/Caprice vehicles. However, before I do so, I feel that the title of the list is inaccurate. Would List of Statesman vehicles be more appropriate, since the Statesman was marketed as the Statesman de Ville, and the Caprice as the Statesman Caprice? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the purged info should be reconstructed under a List of Statesman vehicles title. To be consistent with the List of Holden Vehicles I think it's format should be
Statesman Caprice (HJ,HX,HZ,WB)
Statesman Custom (HQ)
Statesman de Ville (HQ,HJ,HX,HZ,WB)
Statesman SL/E (HZ,WB)
I think it will need to include a cross reference to the Holden Statesman and Holden Caprice entries in the List of Holden Vehicles article and that those entries will need to be cross referenced back to the new List of Statesman vehicles, otherwise I'm sure both lists will grow to include everything Statesman and everything Holden Statesman.
The changes have now been implemented, but I am not quite sure about the production years of these models. I have instead left the years as question marks, so if you could fill in what you know that would be great. Also, if I have made any mistakes in the opening prose, feel free to fix those up too. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, my original edit was obviously full of inaccuracies, since I based it off the information you had previously provided me. Everything else looks good, but I really do think we need to reference the introductory paragraph. Do you own any published material that would provide such information? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems you keep undoing my good work, which I put a fair bit of time into. I don't see the problem in specifying trim level in the main article as most of the models don't have separate pages.
Additional, your timeline is only featuring two cars, maybe you should complete it before posting it.
Where mine were complete ready to be put up.
I am starting to get a little annoyed at you from these actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigal 250 (talk • contribs)
It is besides the point how much time you spent working on the templates, as the fact is they don't belong there. "Most of the models don't have separate pages" just does not cut it as an excuse, since there is nothing stopping you from creating these articles. Just look at Volkswagen Golf, a prime example of an article that includes all sorts of unnecessary data. The bloated infoboxes, redundant timelines and image galleries do not equate to a high quality article, nor does this information make sense to those with little or no knowledge about the subject in question. If you continue editing like this, the Falcon article will be just like it.
Also, let me clarify this: an encyclopaedia is a summary - as it need not go into high detail, and should be in prose where possible. If you want to improve the article, consider sourcing and rewriting sections like those that I have been doing, it is only this that will get the article to featured article status. If writing is not your thing, you may want to consider improving the project by photographing cars. The possibilities are endless.
With the timeline, I do see your point, however Ford vehicles are not where I specialise in greatly, and I have limited knowledge about the marque on vehicles besides the two mentioned. Secondly, why should it have to be complete? Find me a policy on Wikipedia that states that you must complete an article or template before saving, as I can assure you that you will never find one. If you are unhappy with it, then expand it. I would be more than happy to help you there. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, it was my understanding that more information would only be good for the article, like a quick reference guide, all the stuff you want to know with out sifting through pages of text. All I am trying to do is add content in a way that is easily accessible. I just see features on other pages that could be used on this one, I don't sit at a desk all day checking articles, so I'm not very versed on what makes a good article. My original plan was to make a timeline featuring all cars Ford sold in Oz, but I noticed you only then had come up with the same idea. So I switched to what I ended up doing. So if you're not going to add more content to that timeline, I may just do some work on that. Thankyou for the advice, my apologies for that response, it was a little late at night. Bigal 250
No worries, I never said that I would not expand the timeline, but just I need a reference to go to the exact model year introductions. The only reason that I started the timeline was because I noticed that you had started one on your personal sandbox. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a question for you about the picture in the infobox on the Ford BA Falcon article. I took this picture and edited it on my photoshop program so the only thing you would see would be the car. The two picutres down below are the two that I want you to decide on which one is better to put on the BA Falcon article.
Personally I prefer the original version, as the manipulated image has only been roughly edited. I would not matter how well you edited the background, I just think that images of cars with completely white backgrounds look fake. Since the background of the original is relatively subtle anyway, there is really no need to make the change. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have modified your original checklist, and added and removed some things to do. With the ED section, there is not really that much more information to be added, as I struggled to find the information I did. With references you cant say provide several references for each sections. Instead you cite what needs to, not just for the sake of it. Also images are not needed for each and every model, only major ones.
Not done The entire article needs to reference each and every fact from credible sources.
Not done An image is needed for each significant model (not just minor cosmetic updates).
Not done If a section becomes to long, it should probably be split into a separate article (e.g. EA Falcon).
Not done The entire article needs to be copyedited for instances of bad prose, poor spelling and grammar, wikilinks, etc.
Not done The lead must more adequately summarise the article body.
Not done More links need to be created in the "See also" section (e.g. Ford Australia).
Not done The article should be revamped enough so it can receive a B-class or GA-class rating.
Great work. I think it eventually become FA status. Also, so we don't have to do all of the work, what happened to our recruits? Harrison-HB402600:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ford Falcon
How do you upload pics from Flickr? (e.g lisensing how to do it etc.)
It is not a complicated process once you know what to do. Firstly the image must have an applicable license (CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA only), and you must fill out the upload form correctly. I use http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php and just enter the image ID and copy paste the output code directly. To upload the actual image, you must download the highest resolution version available and rename it to something like 1997-2000_Holden_VT_Commodore_Acclaim. That is pretty much it. You cannot however upload copyrighted images, and not all Creative Commons images are acceptable on Wikipedia. If an image is copyrighted and you want to use it consider emailing the user and asking them to license their work as Attribution Creative Commons, as I find this method relatively successful. Also, if you do upload anything please upload it to the Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for you input with the Ford BA Falcon article and what needs to be fixed. Some of the problems you listed can be easily fixed with time but, you mentioned that there were some grammar problems. I am in grade 11 therefore my grammar and spelling skills may not be up to a professional wikipedia standard. This means that I need some outside help not only from you but other people as well. Can you please work more on this article and gather more people to work on it. I have been working on the Ford BA Falcon article since December 2006 last year, I will be so glad if it could be listed as a good article.SenatorsTalk | Contribs22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing to help me with the Ford BA Falcon article, I will be very happy once it reaches Good Article status. Your generosity and kindness will not be overlooked maybe an award would be necessary.SenatorsTalk | Contribs22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
template messages Ba Falcon
Because you are performing a major overhaul with the Ford BA Falcon article, can I put this template on the Ford BA Falcon article at the top.SenatorsTalk | Contribs04:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
{{Underconstruction}}
N.B - when it is on the articles page it will not say "this user talk page" it will say "project page".
I don't really see the need to, since I doubt anyone is going to make any substantial changes to the article in the next week besides me. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Banners
Hello, OSX, I was wondering if you might be so kind as to create a banner for my WikiProject. Using the image, located at, [[Image:Fowl name.png]]. I would love if you could do this for me. Please reply, via my talk page. Dreamy01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I would appreciate it if you could expand the lead and Exterior design section of the BA Falcon article, as I feel that these are too short. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Commodore
Well I like Holden but I am more of a Ford man:), but I will support it being Featured article of the Day. I am not sure where I am to vote, could you enlighten me? Thanks Harrison-HB402609:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at drive.com.au and it was showing new pics of the Orion. They say how it is not entirely new, and that it is basically a facelift of the AU-BF platform. Also, when you look at the XR6/8 picture on the homepage it just looks like a BA gone Star Wars. Does this mean that it should not be considered as a new generation rather than another facelift of the EA169 platform of September 1998 and that we should merge the Orion section into the current generation?
Its more than a facelift, but a thorough redesign. Although the car is only new from the sills up, the front and rear (I think, so don't quote me on this one) are all-new. The spy shots I have seen are only of mules/disguised production bodies. And from those pictures, I think it is a fair bet to say that the two models are significantly different enough to say that they are different generations. In the end the best thing to do is to leave it as is, and get the facts, rather than relying on pure speculation and educated guesses. So by early next year, the answer should be more than clear. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you, but I have one question for you outside of wikipedia. With the Holden VE Commodore Ute, and the new Falcon, why does Ford not make the car indistinguishable and you can see everything on the Holden? Thanks Harrison-HB402608:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There’s not, its just that one of them is a part of the article history template. When the article passes/fails GAC the result will be merged in with the history template. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Senators talk page
Hi. Go to my page and click on the link under the menu. I have started to rewrite this, so could you help my fix it and fill in the details?
Hi OSX, I just saw the BA Falcon article go to GA status. Now lets get it to Featured article status, and the AU to GA or FA status. Thanks
Ford BA Falcon thanks
Yes, finally the Ford BA Falcon article is officially recognized as a Good Article. Thank you very much for your tremendous contributions to the article, it has been a long time coming but finally it has happened. I myself have no plans to get it to featured article status, but if you want it to get to featured article status please feel free to. I have given you a special award for your great efforts, put it on you front page if you want to.
P.S. – On a completely different topic I have left you a funny song that featured on The Simpsons television show. I am going back to school after my three week break so my Wikipedia edits will go down.
Why thank you Senators, I truly appreciate your words of praise. Might I add, that it is more important to get other articles to a decent standard, rather than getting an already great article to an even better standard. So for now, I think I will give FA status a miss, since it takes a lot of patience and persistence getting quality near perfect. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that your article has now been featured on the front page, you have obviously got more visitors. But this can seriously change the whole article. Please be careful of this and make sure the article stays the same as it is now.SenatorsTalk | Contribs04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have carefully analysed the changes made to the article, and I think it is suffice to say that the article is in better shape than it previously was. From tomorrow (20 July 2007), the mainpage link will disappear and much of the attention will settle down. Since I am slightly fussy when it comes to edits to articles that I have significantly contributed to, I am likely to undo edits that don't meet certain standards. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 07:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Senators, I really do appreciate it. Is this article going to be your next little fix-up project, like HSV Senator and Ford BA Falcon? If so I would be more than happy to help you out where I can, but remember quality of edits is more important than quantity. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
OSX, I will mercilessly edit all non encyclopaedic language and editorialising out of the Falcon articles. You and your ungrammatical buddy Senators have made those articles a joke. I agree, that I probably cut too much out, but that is collateral damage. Greglocock12:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Including the facts is not a joke, especially when they are backed up by sources. Although I do agree with you that poor grammar does not look good, and Senators really does need to improve in this area. Looking at your user page, and some of your recent edits, I have come to a vague conclusion that you are affiliated with Ford Australia, although please point out to me if I am wrong. I understand that you probably hold a bias towards Ford, but that does not give you the right to remove factually verifiable material just because it is in the best interest of your company.
On a second note, the Ford BA Falcon article is a good article, and it would not have passed if it were not up to an encyclopaedic standard. The same goes for the Holden VE Commodore article which is a featured article. Including the facts does not necessarily damage the article, and I think a compromise can be made. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And I will continue to mercilessly remove all editorialising, non NPOV language, weasel words, speculation and the like from articles you have edited. These are wiki policies, not debating points. Why are you bringing up the BA article ? The AU article is the particular case in point. Your language in your edit comments indicates that you cannot maintain NPOV on this subject, therefore you should be very cautious when expressing anything other than facts. Bear in mind that a journalist's opinion or speculation is NOT a fact. An encyclopaediac article is not a ragbag of sourced opinions, it is supposed to be a collection of verifiable facts describing the subject. Greglocock01:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The edits towards the article were verifiable facts. You say "a journalist's opinion or speculation is NOT a fact", well the claims are supported by numerous journalists, which I can provide by request. Secondly, sales were down significantly from the previous model, yet sales of the rival Commodore rose. That either means the VT/VX Commodore was some masterpiece of engineering and design, or the AU Falcon was a disaster. There is no point "hiding" the facts, just to suit Ford, since Wikipedia is not censored. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Stop whining. I don't have to request cites, either something is a verifiable fact or it isn't. If you put somethng into an article it has to be verifiable. Provide the sales figures, and the profitability, and a knowledgeable third party reliable source that says it it was a 'disaster', or shut up. It is /not/ your job to decide to decide whether a given model is a disaster. Stop whining. Greglocock10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Why the hell has Gregoclock got rid of my feature table on the AU Falcon article? Both me and another user worked on that. Also, why is it that Greg has just rocked up onto the scene and started bagging our work? HarrisonBSpeak!08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This is something that you should direct to Gregoclock, since I cannot answer questions regarding his actions for you. As for the feature table, it served no place in the article, and the key points should be converted into prose, see: [[2]]. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
HarrisonB, it stopped displaying properly and it was boring cruft that needs to be in a separate article, or eliminated. So I killed it. Personally I don't think it needed to exist. Sorry OSX, this shouldn't be here. Greglocock10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Images
Thanks for your work moving images to commons (with upload histories, no less!!)! One thing though: If you would tag them with {{subst:ncd}} per WP:CSD#I8, which is required for other people's images, we would be everso greatful. Thanks again!!! --But|seriously|folks09:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Bull crap, 10-50 OSX, 10-50 OSX, 10-51 needed for you OSX. NO reason to delete them all. You are a 10-96 for deleting all those references. GOSH!SenatorsTalk | Contribs06:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The references that were already there more than adequate. There was no reason to replace them with lower quality examples. So I stand by my actions. "Bull crap", I think not and I would like you to tell me where this article: http://www.fastlane.com.au/holden-history/vb-commodore-78-80.htm states "Holden looked towards Opel for providing the foundations of the VB; basing it loosely on the Rekord E bodyshell but with the front grafted on from the Opel Senator to accommodate the larger Holden six-cylinder and V8 engines". Nowhere exactly! Where in this article: http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/car_info_holden_commodore_vb.htm does it state "The "downsizing" was first seen as a major disadvantage for Holden, as they had effectively relinquished the potential of selling Commodores to the fleet and taxi industries. These sales losses were thought to be unrecoverable; however the 1979 energy crisis saw Australian oil prices rise by 140%, putting substantial strain on the automotive industry to downsize. To Holden the situation could not have come at a better time, and sales gained substantially."? These are just the first two examples, and I would hate to think what other nasties have crept into the article. I hope I am not offending you Senators, but you cannot keep this up. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't you see that for yourself. The parts that need references are the parts that currently contain no citations next to them. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't originally listed a source is because the original version of the file (here) was made from five different images, scattered over en-WP and the Commons. I updated the image because it didn't look good onscreen as a navigation template banner, but didn't update the source data info with it. After spending the morning reverting damage from last night, it was good to have one less housekeeping edit to do. --DeLarge16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would not be the only one, but it is not about how many references there are, but whether all the information is sourced. You could have an article with 300 references, but if there was unsourced information, it would still not be adequate. Also there is no need to include every fact about each model in the overview article. There are sub-articles and I would suggest that you add any more information to these pages. In short no. I'll get there ... eventually. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi OSX, sorry I have been a bit quiet lately. Whats happening with the Falcon article? Thanks ((Unsigned|HarrisonB|06:52, 1 August 2007}}
For now I've had enough, since I had a lot of trouble finding references from outside the Falcon Facts website. Instead I have devoted my time on improving other articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
big news VE Commodore , wagon and ute has been revealed
I have seen the new stationwagon and ute versions of the new VE Commodore. I saw these pictures in The Courier Mail (Brisbane) located in the Cars Guide section. The ute looks very good and the rear is totaly redesigned, the station wagon is magnificent. The SS versions of the stationwagon look great, and really brings out the sports-wagon ideology. Most of the desing for the wagon looks like it has been taken of the current Saab performance station wagons, which is no suprise. The Ute and Station wagon variants where worth the wait, when you see them you will no what I mean.SenatorsTalk | Contribs23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
On the CARSguide.com.au website, I found the following article, and the station wagon and utility body styles do look very nice. However I do hope you realise that these are not the official pictures, but rather computer generated "hype". Anyway thanks for pointing that out, but I will not be making any changes to the Holden VE Commodore article until the official press release is issued by Holden. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the VZ section is the only outstanding part requiring a re-write and citations. But before it gets nominated, I would like to get someone unfamiliar with the article to do a thorough copyedit. If you are willing find someone to do this, I would greatly appreciate it. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 08:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also would you be willing to track down a citation for this: "A Series II update of the VN appeared in September 1989, featuring a revised V6 engine, known internally, as the EV6.[28] Of the changes made, the most significant was a reduction in engine harshness and high torque characteristics at low revs, often leading to a loss of traction under full throttle.[citation needed]"? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that I should become an administrator in the near future, or do you think I should become one right now? Please can you answer these questions on my talk page so I can get a collaboration of other opinions on my talk page.SenatorsTalk | Contribs01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you comment for Senators adminship. I was not planning to become an administrator any time soon. I just wanted some info to see where I was going.SenatorsTalk | Contribs22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey OSX, I have a personal question I would like to ask you:
One thing that I worry about here on Wikipedia is that I am looked down at by other people. Am I? And if I am, what can I do to fix this? Thanks HarrisonBSpeak!07:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I haven't noticed anyone doing this, but it may all well be true. There are a couple of things that you could to that would "boost" your reputation. The quality of your edits is the main one. Lets just say for example you managed to bring an average article to GA-status on your own. Make sure you reference EVERYTHING, if you cannot find a reference tag it with the {{fact}} tag. Contributing the the project with your own photographs may also appeal to some people. I hope this helps OSX (talk • contributions) 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not sure if I can help with the photos but I would like to 'enhance' the Mitsubishi Magna article. Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it. HarrisonBSpeak!08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that you can do more to the article first than do it. To be honest one reference just does not cut it and I would actually consider merging the WM Statesman and WM Caprice articles together to Holden WM. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking that one day I want the Holden WM Caprice article to be listed as a Good Article. What things do you think need to be fixed on this article(peer review)? Please go into great detail with this, but do not worry, I don’t need the answer now, maybe in 2-4 days because this is a big ask for you.SenatorsTalk | Contribs08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That is quite alright Harrison. I've wanted Senators to remove that featured article box from his user page, but really didn't really know how to ask him. The fact that he was annoyed over the user box on your page, really only intensified the situation. Also why is he saying that you’re not experienced to enough to adopt a user? You seem to have a bit more maturity than him, so I would say go ahead. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Over the past week I have found out that abusing someone on wikipedia is not good, and I do understand that I was a little harsh. I will try to keep a cool head in the future.SenatorsTalk | Contribs08:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you recently changed the infobox of Toyota Aurion stating that the Aurion is a mid-size car.
What I'm unsure of is whether that is more appropriate or whether full-size is more appropriate. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries classifies the Aurion as a large car although it has the dimensions of the mid-size Camry, as reported by the drive.com.au article --> http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=20787&IsPgd=0
I think it should be full-size, because the FCAI is a government body and they classify the cars. Plus, it's priced and aimed at to compete with the Commodore and Falcon, both of which are counted as full-size cars.
A similar dispute was raised on the Holden Commodore talk page recently, but it was agreed that the Commodore should be classified as a full-size car because it has 124 ft³ of interior volume (120 ft³ is the minimum). I seriously doubt that the Camry/Aurion would have that much interior space so that is why I reclassified it. In Australia, the Commodore, Falcon and Aurion are classified as "large cars", which currently redirects to Full-size car. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no mistake that the Aurion is large car. It is bigger inside compared to the Camry and it's wheelbase is above the legal large car limit.SenatorsTalk | Contribs06:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the length and wheelbase of the Aurion are "full-sized" dimensions, but I am not sure about the width (1820 mm) or interior volume. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The Aurion can be rightfully classified as a Australian large car. But since there's no such dedicated article on Wikipedia, Australian cars have to be forcibly categorised into the US standards, which I don't really like. The Aurion has similar external dimensions compared to the Camry and likely very similar interior room. As the Camry is classified as mid-size, it would be wrong to classify the Aurion as full-size. Therefore the Toyota Aurion article should either be listed as a mid-size car or just use the redirect large car. VectorD09:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) The term 'large car' and 'full-size car' are not exactly the same. Just because it won the Best Large Car award doesn't automatically mean that it can be classified as a full-size car. To meet this criterion it would have to offer at least 120 ft³ of interior space, which I seriously doubt it would. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we stop arguing about this crap. The Aurion is clearly a full size/large car this is stated in many government listings. I clearly doubt that so many listings and cites over the internet are wrong. Only very few cites would say it is a mid size car.SenatorsTalk | Contribs02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Senators I would like you to tell me what is so clear about the Aurion being a full-sized car. Just because it is large doesn't make it full-sized. A full-sized car is different to a large car. Vehicles have to meet certain requirements; you cannot just classify it as full-sized becasue it competes with other full-sized vehicles. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with OSX, Large car ≠ Full-size car. One is an Australian classification system and the other is an American system. They have different requirements and you can't lump them together. The reason you won't find much mention of the Aurion as a "mid-size" car is because the car isn't sold in North America. Likewise, you won't find many references stating the Aurion is a full-size car. If you outright state the Aurion is full-size, you also have to change the Toyota Camry article to say so as well. VectorD04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing that's difficult in determining whether the Toyota Aurion is mid-sized or full-sized, is that in reality it's sort of stuck somewhere in between. The Toyota Camry/Toyota Aurion pretty much dwarfs cars in its class - Mazda 6, Subaru Liberty/Legacy, etc. However, the Toyota Aurion is slightly smaller than the Ford Falcon and smaller to a larger extent to the Holden Commodore Alphabeta77713:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, to testify for AlphaBeta, a mid size car is a Subaru Liberty, Holden Epica (to a worse extent), Mazda 6 etc. An Aurion, is a lot bigger than any of these, I know that because my Subaru Liberty (a definite mid size car) was parked next one a little while ago and I could not get over how big they are. HarrisonBSpeak!01:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Toyota Camry
Toyota Aurion
Wheelbase: 2775 mm
Wheelbase: 2775 mm (same)
Length: 4815 mm
Length: 4825 mm (10 mm more)
Width: 1820 mm
Width: 1820 mm (same)
Height: 1480 mm
Height: 1470 mm (10 mm less)
(indent reset) Because some of us still aren't convinced, I decided to compare the dimensions of the sixth generation Camry and Aurion from the data on the Toyota Australia website. The difference is negligible, with the length being 10 mm more than the Camry and the height being 10 mm less. Also according to this article: [5] there is no real difference in interior space between the two models either. Using this data as a guide, it cannot be justified to say that the Aurion is a full-sized car. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to argue, and I do grant you that the dimensions are the same, but why would they market two models of the same mid size? It is just me, or does that sound like bad business planning. Also, why does Toyota market it as a large/full size car? HarrisonBSpeak!09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
For the Australian market, the Camry is only available as a 4-cylinder, whereas the Aurion is exclusively V6. Toyota has very carefully positioned the Aurion is an alternative to the traditional large cars (i.e: Holden/Ford), selling it on its powerful V6 and fuel economy rather than overall size. Bad business planning would be what they did the last time: sell a V6 Camry alongside the flagship large car Avalon, with predictably bad results. VectorD11:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I found a lot of articles on Wikipedia that consider the Aurion to be full-size/large. While I am still undecided on its size, it'll take ages to find out all the articles and make them all in agreement with each other.
Sometimes the definitions of car categories are manipulated to serve marketing ends. In Australia, Toyota had categorized the V6 equipped Camry as a large car and the 4-cylinder Camry as a medium or mid-size car in order to dominate more segments, despite the physical size of the cars being identical.
A "large family car," the equivalent of a full-size car class in Australian terms, often denoted by width. Therefore, the Ford Falcon, Toyota Aurion and Holden Commodore are considered large cars in the Australian and New Zealand markets. These cars are sometimes referred to as "family cars" in Australia, and are typically 4.8 meters (about 15 ft, 9 in) or more in length.
The Toyota Aurion is above 4.8m in length.
Also from that wikipedia article, it states that a large car is equivalent to a full-size car.
From that, the main difference between mid-size and large is that large cars must have a 6 cylinder engine or above, which once again, agrees with the Aurion being large and the Camry being mid-sized. In addition, the link says "Passenger vehicles are classified dependent on size, specification and average retail pricing. " That says that a 'large car' in the eyes of the FCAI is not just based on size alone, but also in terms of specification and retail pricing, both of which the Aurion matches its large car competitors. Alphabeta77714:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please be careful with the distinction between large and full-size cars. There are a lot of references saying the Aurion is a large car I agree, but you won't find many calling it a full-size car. As seen here, the first article on Google search is this very conversation. As you've shown, the large car wikilink redirects to full-size car so there's no proper 'Large car' article and that's the crux of the matter. I have no problem classifying the Aurion as large (even though it is more of a marketing distinction). Thus, as I proposed earlier, the Toyota Aurion article could possibly point to the redirect or to the article mid-size car, but to use the term full-size would be incorrect.
The full-size car article says the US EPA uses the terms 'large car' and 'full-size car' interchangeably, but the American EPA definition of large car would almost certainly differ from the Australian definition. Therefore you can't use the terms interchangeably for the Aurion article. As in the 2nd paragraph, a US EPA "large car" must have greater than 120ft³ interior space which I doubt the Aurion has. VectorD06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for going on with this but I have a comment.
There has been much speculation that the buying public is confused with the cheaper Camry and the more up-market Aurion. Both the Aurion and Camry share the same cabin, which raises the question of whether the Camry is a big medium car or the Aurion is medium-sized large one. Also Australia is the only Country in the world that the Camry does not come with the 200 kW engine as used in the Aurion. A clear indication that Toyota has got some marketing issues and want the Camry not to have the same engine as the Aurion because they do not want the public to get confused. Why spend $35,000 for an Aurion, when you can spend $30,000 for a Camry with the exact same internal space as the Aurion if not the same engine? General Motors Holden and the Ford Motor Company of Australia both agree that the Aurion is a “large” medium sized car. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries classify that the Aurion as a Large car. Has the general public got the wrong idea for the Aurion? SenatorsTalk | Contribs23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what idea the general public has. It probably is as conflicted as this debate here. Toyota made a conscientious decision in only offering the Aurion with the V6 and the Camry with the 4-cylinder only. The question that sparked this whole debate is what will be listed in the Aurion article infobox: "mid-size car," the redirect "large car" or "full-size car" or something else altogether. This issue still hasn't been fully resolved it seems but if this continues for much longer, it may almost become a candidate for WP:LAME. VectorD08:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Toyota Australia clearly wants the two cars to be seen differently. Back when they had a Camry V6, it didn't have much sales, so they're trying this strategy, with two very similar cars, that look like completely different cars to the normal consumer. It's been a pretty successful strategy in my opinion, as the costs have been minimised (as two different cars do not need to be made) and also, together, the Camry and Aurion now take the place of the second best selling car in Australia. (If you count them as one model). Furthermore, they made sure that a Camry is only available with a 4 cylinder and an Aurion with a V6 to minimise overlap and to reduce the level of competition they have for each other. As for the original topic, I already voiced my support for it being a large/full-size car. Ford and Holden claim otherwise as they see the fact that its indeed pretty much a rebodied and engined Camry, and also, as competing manufacturers, you would tend to criticise the competitor's product. It may seem the general public is getting 'fooled', but in my opinion, they should do their research if they don't want a rebodied and engined Camry, and also, either way, an Aurion/Camry is a pretty solid, good car. As for the issue being resolved, it won't become a candidate for that lamest edit wars as we haven't been having an edit war in any way. None of us has really been editing that part at all, as we haven't gotten the agreement of everyone else. I think all of us have been contributing to the discussing the 'issue' in a good way. However, I hope OSX doesn't mind us using his talk page as a discussion area. Tell us if you mind. :p Alphabeta77709:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Time for an indent reset. I agree Toyota wants the Aurion to be seen as a large car—a competitor to the Falcon/Commodore according to the ads. I also agree that the Aurion can be classified as an Australian large car (primarily because the definition for a large car in Australia is extremely loose). However it would be wrong to classify the car using the American term 'full-size' because it doesn't meet the requirements so I believe an alternative has to be found. The Aurion article shouldn't mislead and has to be judged in an objective way regardless of the intentions/wishes of Toyota. As for the Aurion being a part of an edit war, it was short lived thing. It started out as full-size but changed here, 2 half-edits here & here, then here.
But yeah, since then it's been a good discussion on the talk page, although I recognise this should really be on Talk:Toyota Aurion (but since we've come so far already...) VectorD10:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you judging an Australian car by American standards? Surely the only relevant criterion is that where it is sold, and the only relatively neutral, reliable source is the FCAI, which classifies it as a Falcon/Commodore competitor. I very much doubt you'll be able to find a more reliable source that overturns that classification. The fact that it may not be as large inside should mean that it will be penalised in the marketplace, IF it is smaller, and IF customers care. I'd say the evidence thus far is that it is competing fairly well. From a practical point of view there seems little difference between a Commodore and an Aurion when accomodating 4 people and their luggage for a 4 week holiday. Greglocock12:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a direct competitor. Is it not possible to put 'large car' in that infobox? As for that last comment you made Greglocock, it's mostly true. The Aurion also has a larger boot than the Commodore by 8 litres. The Ford Falcon is classified as a full-size car. However, as mentioned above, the Commodore only fits the 'official criteria' by 4 cubic feet. Surely the Commodore which is 35mm wider, 32mm taller and 86mm longer in wheelbase has far more space than a Falcon. If the Commodore only clears 120 cubic feet by a mere 4 cubic feet, I would doubt the Falcon would reach the requirement. However, I disagree on using the American 'full-size car' term, as none of these cars mentioned are sold in America, with the exception of the Commodore, which has its own Pontiac G8 article that can be made appropriate for American readers. If you ask me, most viewers of the Aurion article would tend to be Australians and/or New Zealanders. The other countries where the Aurion are sold may have different car classes as well, but however for the sake of simplicity, I think the article should refer to the Aurion as a large car, the way it is classified and described by all in Australia. I don't really see why American standards must be followed for car conventions. Alphabeta77707:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we are missing the point here. You cannot classify two vehicles of almost equal dimensions (and origin) in different categories, just because Toyota wants to market one of them in a differently. This would be the same as classifying the BMW 5 Series as a full-size car just because Holden compares it with its Calais on television commercials. This would then force the Mercedes-Benz E-Class to be classified as full-sized because it competes with the 5 Series and so on. If we applied this very same strategy to every article on Wikipedia, we would end up with a mess. Please remember that the Aurion is more or less a 'tweaked' Camry. Only the front and rear ends remain changed. The interior has only slight changes, even the door trims are carry-over components. What Toyota wants the Aurion to be, and what it actually is, are completely different ball games. There are many vehicles that are in different categories that compete with each other, such as the higher specifications of the mid-size Subaru Liberty and the compact Mercedes-Benz C-Class. The 'official' grading is rendered irrelevant when purchasing a vehicle; the line is ultimately drawn at how big the vehicle is perceived to be. A compact car with excellent interior packaging could be more spacious than a mid-size car with poor interior packaging. In this case, I think Toyota has done well with maximising the interior space, but it stills falls short of the level given by the Holden, hence the mid-size grading. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to avoid judging an Australian car with American standards, but the term "full-size" (as used previously on the Aurion article) is a solely American term and therefore you have to judge the car using the American classification system if you want to use that particular phrase in the infobox. The alternative is to use "large car" in the infobox as Alphabeta777 says, but no such dedicated article exists on Wikipedia. In fact, there's very little info at all on the Australian classification system. What is clear though, is that you can't use the term full-size. VectorD11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly the Toyota Aurion should be classed a mid size or a large size by Australian standards, after all it is an Australian car. I don’t mean to be aggressive but let’s cut the crap. We should take a vote once and for all to determine what the Aurion is compared to Australian standards.
All in favour of naming the Toyota Aurion a large sized car -
All in favour of naming the Toyota Aurion a medium sized car -
Bear in mind that any 'vote' is non-binding and will be overturned as soon as someone points to an authoratitive source, such as FCAI, which (incidentally) says it competes directly in the same segment as Commodore and Falcon. End of story. Arguments based on comparisons with Camry are against WP:OR, and sources other than FCAI would not beat it due to WP:RS. Greglocock22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Voting on this isn't going to help much. The issue here is that even if everyone agrees the Aurion is a large car and the FCAI agrees, there's no large car article on Wikipedia. All there exists is one small paragraph on Australian large cars that someone's forcibly shoved into the full-size car article. And even then, that one paragraph confusingly points to another car classification large family car. Also, as I've said numerous times, you won't be able to wikilink directly to full-size car but have to use the redirect large car if you want to classify it as such. VectorD02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Westfield_Group_Logo.PNG){kind=link}
