|
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 |
Scion iQ EV
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Backtalk
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
![Mail-message-new.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20211016131052im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Problem Editor
I have noticed a string of highly problematic edits by user Carmaker1:[1]. As with Volvo V70, Nissan Murano, Audi 100 and Honda Odyssey (North America), he inserts the names of car designers based on missing, misleading or spurious references. In the Volvo V70 article, he inserted the name of a dubious designer into an article in such a way as to leave a direct and referenced quote by the actual designer attributed to his newly introduced spurious designer. And from what I can tell, he's pretty much blazing a trail through lots and lots of articles. His responses are... well... not helpful, to say the least. I notice that you ran into some similar issues with him recently. Is this something you could help with?842U (talk)
US$
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Toyopet Master
I am trying to add some relevant Masterline content to this article, more eyes are always welcome. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I saw that earlier today. The Masterline Ribbon was totally new to me - kind of nice to find new things occasionally :) I already put in most of what I know, but I'll keep an eye on it. Stepho talk 03:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have a few period references to the Master Ribbon, but I wonder whether any were actually built. Several of the illustrations have distinct "Masterline" text on the front fenders. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Move Title
Hi Stepho,
You recently replied to my message on the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week page regarding possibly moving the title so it is just Mercede-Benz Fashion, as the majority of information on the page is about Mercedes-Benz Fashion, who also organise the fashion weeks. I was wondering if you had heard back about moving the title? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmasmallwoodKO (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal to merge Plug-in electric vehicle into Battery electric vehicle
If you are interested please discuss at Talk:Battery_electric_vehicle#Merger_proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Plug-in electric vehicle
Hi Stepho-wrs. I though you might be interested in participating in this discussion. Cheers.-Mariordo (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The Plug-in electric vehicle—has been proposed for merging with Battery electric vehicle. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion.
Cosmetic Edits & Your Issue with Dashes.
Hello, as stated per MOS:YEARRANGE – or {{ndash}} should be used to separate year ranges. In addition per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#To separate parts of an item in a list, "Spaced en dashes are sometimes used between parts of list items." Also, you're pension to change {{ubl}} to {{Unbulleted list}} is a cosmetic edit and shouldn't be just in spite your preference or preconception that one is better than the other. Please stop "controlling" the Toyota/Lexus/Scion articles, you don't own these articles. ThePersecuted (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ThePersecuted: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#To separate parts of an item in a list says to use spaced en dashes. However, it does not say whether that en dash is in the form of
–
,{{ndash}}
, the unicode character – (my preferred form) or any other particular form. In fact, its own examples use the Unicode character. So I'm not sure why you think it argues against my action.
- The
–
form is incredibly awkward for most editors to read and understand. It clutters up the wiki mark-up, makes it hard to read, hard to understand and hides the actual text. Far from being a cosmetic edit, my edit made the wiki mark-up simpler and easier to understand without losing anything. Some people criticise it as hard to type (ie, its not on most people's keyboard) but it is available on the insert line slightly underneath the summary line and is often available via cut and paste from nearby text. As a fall-back, the–
can be used but that should be a fall-back, not the primary use. Changing an already typed in "–" to–
helps no one but hinders many. - Similarly for your excessive use of
where it is not needed. Where you inserted it near the beginning of lines (ie where a browser would never split the line), it served no useful purpose but made it made the mark-up much harder to read and understand. For cases where you inserted it further into a paragraph (ie, where a browser might split the line), I left it in the
form.
- Also similarly,
{{ubl}}
means nothing to a new editor.{{unbulleted list}}
may still be a bit cryptic but at least they have some clue that it is to do with a list that doesn't have bullets. Why force them to use the cryptic form when there is a form that is so much easier to understand.
- MOS:YEARRANGE admittedly does not seem to support my argument. I believe that this is because of an oversight by the people that wrote it since they didn't explicitly disallow it. To make sure, we can raise a topic on its talk page.
- I know of no other part of MOS that says whether
–
or the Unicode – character is preferred. I watch and sometimes participate in various MOS discussions. Every time the subject comes up it ends indeterminately, leaving both forms as valid.
- As for the claim of me trying to own articles, my history speaks for itself. I aim to improve articles whenever possible. All articles I work on are shared works with other editors. Sometimes the other editors have preferences that are different to mine but unless that preference is decidedly bad then I leave it alone. If it is decidedly bad (in my opinion) and the other editor feels strongly about it then I initiate a discussion. If you feel that this is trying to own articles then you should call in an administrator.
- This is the second time you have blamed me for owning articles - see Talk:Lexus_GS#ubl_vs_unbulleted_list. You make changes according to your preferences. Then when somebody dares to change it back to the other way you come in all guns blazing, claiming all manner of ill-will. In the previous case, I initiated a discussion topic - which you declined to participate in. Which one of us is try to own things?
- And lastly, your unfounded claims against my personal character violate WP:CIVIL. Stepho talk 11:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have asked the question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unicode_ndash_character_in_year_ranges. Your contribution there is welcome. Stepho talk 11:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
List Of Toyota Vehicles
Hello! On this article, you have left a comment saying that "That's not how we do the links." I believe this comment is talking about the cars Toyota 86 Shooting Brake, Toyota Concept-i, Toyota Concept-i Walk, and Toyota Concept-i Ride, all of which I have linked to pages. Could you please help me understand the correct way to insert that link, as I am unsure of what I am doing wrong. Thanks! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! I appreciate the work you are putting in. There's just a bit a of learning curve to get the details rights.
- If you go to List of Toyota vehicles, sort the concept cars by year (click on the up/down arrows near "year" at the top of the column), then click on Toyota Camatte Setsuna. This takes you to the section within [Toyota concept vehicles (2010–2019)]] but if you then go to the top of the article you will see it says "(Redirected from Toyota Camatte Setsuna)". Click on "Toyota Camatte Setsuna" and it will take you to what's called a redirect. Click on edit and have a look. Highlight the details and copy it - but don't click on the publish button.
- Now go back to List of Toyota vehicles and find a red link that you wish to point to a new section within one of the concept articles. Click on it and it will create a page for you. Paste in what you copied from the Setsuna redirect. Change "Camatte Setsuna" to the name of the new section. Click on publish. Make sure that you are creating the redirect for the new car and not modifying the redirect for the Setsuna it's easy to get confused).
- Go back to List of Toyota vehicles and reload/refresh the article (F5 on the browser if it is still open in another tab). The link should no longer be red but should now take you to the correct section for the new car.
- Sounds a roundabout way to do it but it has many advantages. For us, it means that the car appears as a suggestion in the search box as the user types in a partial name and makes it much easier to link to from many articles. Most of the other concept cars are done this way. See WP:REDIRECT. Stepho talk 20:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question!!! I am going to go back and change my links. Please let me know if I am still doing it incorrectly. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I am following your instructions, but when I go to the red link Toyota 86 Shooting Brake, I am unable to edit the article. What should I do? DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- When I go to List of Toyota vehicles (a nice freshly loaded copy) and click on the red shooting brake link it takes me to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_86_Shooting_Brake&action=edit&redlink=1
- If the link was not red then you need to refresh the List of Toyota vehicles page (F5 will do this) so that you get the latest version where I undid your previous changes.
- From the the new creation page, insert the following:
#REDIRECT [[Toyota concept vehicles (2010–2019)#Toyota 86 Shooting Brake]] [[Category:Toyota concept vehicles|Toyota 86 Shooting Brake]]
- Do not add any text or details about the car. You will add those details to the section in Toyota concept vehicles (2010–2019).
- You also broke the redirect for the Toyota Camatte Setsuna. You needed to make some (but not all) of these at Toyota 86 Shooting Brake instead. I have fixed the Setsuma redirect for you. Stepho talk 21:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I see the red link, but when I click on the red link Toyota 86 Shooting Brake, it brings me to the page with the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Toyota+86+Shooting+Brake, even if I click on the link you put, or if I reload my page DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, seems like you don't have permission to create new articles yet. I'm about to go to work soon but I will do them for you tonight. After you've been here a while, then you will be given the extra abilities automatically (WP will let you know when it gives you more permissions/abilities). Stepho talk 22:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
It's fine...you don't have to work on them if you don't want to. I'll just wait until I have permission to edit articles. In the mean time, I will just add information on the cars to the concept vehicles pages and link them later. Thanks for all your help! DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've created the following redirects:
- Toyota Concept-i
- Toyota Concept-i Ride
- Toyota CQ-1
- Toyota Concept-i Walk
- Toyota D-4D 180 Clean Power Concept Car Stepho talk 14:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much!!!!DestinationFearFan (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello again! I have created the redirect link for the Toyota EV2 and linked it to List of Toyota vehicles. Can you check if I linked it correctly? Hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! Yesterday was quite busy, so I wasn't able to do much on WP then. Toyota EV2 is fine. The new entries in the articles should be in year order with each one separated by
{{clear}}
to keep the infoboxes within their own sections. Each section needs to written in our own words - copying directly from the references can be a copyright violation. See WP:COPYVIO. Otherwise, its looking good. Stepho talk 21:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Aright, thank you! DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Misunderstanding
Based on this edit (and this), FAW Toyota was a redlink before it happened to be a redirect target from a page move. Regards. 182.30.141.203 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, makes sense. At the moment FAW Toyota is the actual article and Sichuan FAW Toyota Motor is the redirect. From the history, Andra Febrian did some renaming on it after you but before me. All good now. Stepho talk 10:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Toyota Setsuna
Hello Stepho! I have created a new section under this page titled Toyota Setsuna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_concept_vehicles_(2010%E2%80%932019)#Setsuna). I was wondering if this section had enough information and reliable sources to be created into an article by itself. Could I hear your opinion on it? Thanks! (feel free to message me on my talk page instead) DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- From previous experience, the Setsuna info would be deleted as non-notable if put into its own article. That's a major reason why I gathered many concept cars together into one article. The Setsuna section is a little large compared to other sections but that's okay. Please remember to keep the entries in year order. Stepho talk
Alright, got it. That makes sense. Thanks! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A bunny for you!
![]() |
A bunny for you! |
Some Cuteness. Thanks again for helping me with the Toyota articles! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC) |
- That's very kind of you. And of course, thank you for your own hard work on those same articles. Stepho talk 20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Danhausen
Based on the criteria for notability for a professional wrestler, would Danhausen not qualify? He is signed to a major American promotion (Ring of Honor) which is included in the list of promotions deemed to be notable. Please explain rationale for reversion. Interlaker (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- What reversion? Can you give me some context about what you are talking about? Stepho talk 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Look what I found
This is probably not the right place to post this, but I wish I had US$17K just sitting around... three doors!!! Although the crap overspray is killing me. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, the good ol' reliable Stout. Always dependable. Farmer's over here loved them. But there was a reason why the HiLux was considered luxury compared to the Stout. :) Stepho talk 04:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to my stalkers
😉 Stepho talk 02:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- A bit late, but thanks! Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A small 'thanks'
Hey, wanted to acknowledge that I appreciated your reversion of my removal of the inquiry about 'how you make your cars' on the General Motors talk page. I had speedily skimmed the message, and hadn't seen the mention of 'when i grow up'. I lean strongly towards terseness and bluntness, particularly with IP users, because there's so much crud that accumulates both in article space and talk space. But a less blunt path was certainly desireable in this case. So, thanks, and cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Help needed
Hello Stepho-wrs I've filed a dispute resolution request Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and listed you as one of the eiditors involved due to your very good analysis of the Talk:Nissan S30 disagreement on lead units. The same thing has happened on Talk:Berliet T100, if you'd be kind enough to comment on the dispute noticeboard above Title: Nissan S30 Berliet_T100. On another subject, I have two sibling and numerous cousins in Perth. Avi8tor (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Slippery slopes
I see what you fear about using horsepower allowing other old units to return. However, I do not think there is much cause for concern. Power output is so essential to a car that its emotional power and relevance is very different from dimensions or weights (with notable exceptions, such as Ford fans getting mad when 302 cubic inches converts to 4.9 and not 5.0 liters...).
As an example, I happened to be doing some Daihatsu Taft research recently and was reading old Canberra Times. It wasn't until after this dispute had started that I realized something peculiar: This 1978 article uses metric throughout, with imperials in parentheses, except for the engine dimensions which are all metric and the horsepower - which is the only imperial measure to lead. I think the horsepower has a bit of a special place. I suppose this is why the horsepower was a metric unit from the earliest days of automobile history. The WP style guidelines, however, do not give much thought to these intermediate units. In Sweden we have our own "mile", which equals 10km - this unit is still used in legislation, even though it is not technically speaking officially recognized.
As for other units reverting to inches or whatever, I don't really see a risk since what I am arguing for here is to use a metric unit (when appropriate), just one that is not in the SI set. I guess someone might someday try to write that an old Datsun is 181 in (4,600 mm) long just because their source is an old Autocar, but I do not find it likely and we could easily write the guidelines to preclude this. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Re: McLaren F1 speed record
It's cool that you were involved with EFI software. I never dealt with the software side of things but I was certainly responsible for a share of the calibration team's headaches. It's nice to see knowledgeable people interested in the details and giving their opinion. Thanks for the good discussion. IPBilly (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mostly the low level side (interrupts, memory management, scheduler, UDS, XCP) and how MatLab/SimuLink got translated to C and then into binary. The calibration stuff generally went over my head. Cool to see another professional here too. Stepho talk 22:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Making sure this Toyota vehicle is real and has enough reliable sources
Hello Stepho! I have a notability and reliability questions about this Toyota. It's called the Toyota Yaris Adventure, and I found some sources to go with it (1, 2, 3). Source 2 is actually a page on Toyota's website, and it is another one of those April Fool's joke vehicles, like the Toyota PieAce; it's not an actual production vehicle, but a joke. If this car is good enough to be on Wikipedia, it would be created as a redirect to a section in Toyota concept vehicles (2020–2029). I am also pinging @Andra Febrian: because they have also been helping me on that article. Andra, you are also free to respond to the question here as well. Thank you! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would treat this exactly the way we treated the Toyota PieAce - ie, put it on the relevant concept page and on the relevant Yaris page but clearly mark it as an April Fool's joke by Toyota. It does remind me of my first car, a Datsun 1200 ute and also reminds me of the Suzuki Mighty Boy ute. It would probably sell if it was made. Stepho talk 20:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
All right, thank you very much! Agreeing that it would sell well, being one of the, if not only, vehicles in subcompact truck class. But not sure if I would get one... DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:CITEVAR on Vickers Vimy
Where is the consensus for changing the reference format on Vickers Vimy? (and fix the small text on your talk page - it makes it difficult to read)Nigel Ish (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up. I will answer on the Vimy talk page.
- What small text? It's the same size as al other Wikipedia pages and I haven't done anything to change it. Perhaps your browser has chosen a different zoom level. Try typing ctrl+0 to restore to 100%. Stepho talk 09:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- The text size below the {{/header}} template definitely looks smaller than on other talk pages. It looks like when someone forgets to close a small tag.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like my /header template was missing a couple of |} at the end. Not sure why it didn't show any problem for me. Maybe my standard CSS hides the problem and your CSS makes it more obvious. I can't see any difference with the fix in place. Hopefully it looks better for you. Stepho talk 10:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- The text size below the {{/header}} template definitely looks smaller than on other talk pages. It looks like when someone forgets to close a small tag.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
You removed my edit and you are wrong about your reasoning
On the supercar wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar), i gave information as to from where and when the term "hypercar" originated. You removed my edit wrongfully. When you mentionned that it is referenced in 1993 and 2005, that is wrong. The term is used today to describe those old cars as hypercars, but when the cars first came out, the term hypercar did not exist yet, hence the Mclaren f1 and bugatti veyron were not called hypercars before the 2010's decade. As for you saying that a wiki not a valid source, I cannot find a valid source anywhere on the internet. The "need for speed fandom wiki" is the best I could find. Here is a youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvNOr969Pus&t=31s) video in which at the 0:31 mark you can see the 5 tiers of cars which were in the game. The hyper tier contained all of the cars which are known are hypercars today (bugatti, f1, koenignsegg...). I cannot find a source for this but I can assure you that what I am saying is true because I have the game myself and I can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.119.78.59 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Camry XV70
I saw your recent reversal of the units on this page. I clicked a couple of sources and only found PS or hp listed. Reference #17, for instance, specifies 183 PS for the 2AR-FE, and 178 PS for the A25A-FXS. Not sure what this correlates to in the table, which is unreferenced itself and eschews metric hp entirely. Also, is it really correct to state that the A25A-FKS has 151.5 or 153.5 kW? Those look like numbers that were fudged to get the desired hp output. I can't even tell if the base unit was originally PS or hp? I don't particularly care about new Camrys (sorry!!!), but I always think that it is best to at least convert from the correct unit, no matter which unit leads in the output. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- The places that I changed didn't have an obvious reference (although I didn't search very hard) and violated the MOS general rule of metric first, so I thought it was an American trying to force their units on us. I did check that the old and new versions were just the same numbers flipped. I have no problem if the conversions are redone using hp as the input - just as long as there is a corresponding
|order=flip
to make metric show first. - And yeah, I'm not keen on anything with the modern look either - far to edgy and jarring. Stepho talk 22:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ha, I just expected the table to have originated with you. Take it as a compliment. Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nissan GT-R, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RML.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Saab 401
FYI, the Saab 401 was a military prototype between the late 50s and 1964. That description that you restored came from the son of an engineer on the project, who has been trying to promote his father's importance by puffing things up on Wikipedia. If anything, it's an invented description; I never saw the "Hovercraft project" description anywhere when looking for sources to improve the Saab 401 article. --- Possibly (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! I don't have any problem if you want to change the description. Just something more descriptive than a model number. Stepho talk 10:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. I thought the article title should be changed to Saab 401 Hovercraft, but then I saw that we have Saab 900 and Saab 340, and many more. Do you think Saab 401 Hovercraft is better? --- Possibly (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Please retain the 9A engine
Good morning to you Stepho, I assume it's morning where you're at considering your profile says you're located in Australia.
I'm writing to you to implore you to please genuinely consider retaining the 9A section in the Toyota A series engine page. Your reason for reverting it, as I understand it, is that tuner engines are not manufacturer made and therefore do not belong, else the entire page would fill with information specifically about tuning. I'm here to convice you otherwise.
Primarily, the 7A-GE engine is still under the 7A banner. I understand it makes much more sense to include the 7A-GE, since someone could become potentially confused after hearing someone mention a 7A-GE only to go to Wikipedia and so absolutely no mention of it. This does not, however, deminish the fact that it is still a tuner engine with a significant amount of development to boot. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as 'off goes the FE head and on goes the 20v". It would be nice if it was that simple though.
Going off of that principal, it wouldn't be ludicrous to include the 9A engine. I added it myself because as I was searching for information, I couldn't find any information easily available to read up on. The only mainstream coverage I've really seen of it is a single video made by a youtuber on the history of the 4A-GE, who goes by the name of 'driving4answers'. He covered it for all of about 2 minutes though, and it wasn't very informational.
The A series of Toyota engines would not exist as it were today if it were not for tuning culture. I think both you and I can agree to that. Is it not a reasonable request to leave the 9A at the literal bottom of the page? It's written so that perhaps one of the absolute first things an inquirer would read on the engine is that it is not mae by Toyota, but rather is a custon tuning engine. Anyone who is genuinely interested in the information is more than welcome to read up on it. Isn't that what Wikipedia's purpose is? If not with a website as large as Wikipedia, then where?
It's not as if the 9A-GE is a new concept either. The original mention of this engine on Wikipedia was deleted nearly 11 years ago, but it was not really quality in terms of information. It supposed the possibility to create the engine. As opposed to now, where a New Zealand company sells a 9A-GE engine kit for 10,000 NZD plus options.
I await a favorable respone, Justaguywholikesflowers Justaguywholikesflowers (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! Thank you for your polite response. I understand where you are coming from. I own an AE86 Sprinter with a blacktop 4A-GE and an MR2 with a big port 4A-GE, so I too follow the A engine. However, WP:NOTAMANUAL says that we should not be describing how to do things. Wikipedia lists the engine made by Toyota. Maybe it is okay to have a short section to mention that custom engine are sometimes made based on factory parts but at most it should only be a paragraph or 2. Under no circumstances can we call it a 9A - at best it would be a variation of the base block used (eg 7A). I'd even be wary of that because once the precedence is set of allowing 1 or 2 variations (eg 7A with 4A-GE head or bored 7A worth 1ZZ crank and 4A-GE head) then other editors take it as permission to add every conceivable combination. This is something that is more suited to web forums than Wikipedia.
- As a counter example, look at the Ford and GM V8 engine articles. They would have to be the engines with the most tried combinations on the planet. Yet their articles list only the factory versions.
- But you are always free to raise the point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Thanks. Stepho talk 23:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. I see now why you've decided to remove the 9A section. It seems it isn't necessarily a matter in your control. How open would you be to creating a small 9A subsection, similar to the 7A-GE, under the 7A section? I still feel it's important to leave some mention of what it is somewhere, just so it doesn't retain this mythical, unobtanium status, especially since it's basically just a bored and stroked 7A-GE to 2.0 liters.
- I await a favorable response,
- Justaguywholikesflowers
- Justaguywholikesflowers (talk) 09:55, 15 July ::2021 (UTC)
- I can't see any circumstances where we can call the custom engine a '9A'. Toyota never released a 9A engine, therefore we can't call it that. However, we could add something in the 7A section that says some enthusiasts have used a bored 7A block with a 4A-GE head, a 1ZZ crank, 1ZZ rods, custom pistons and custom machining. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this because we could also make similar claims for the A, 2A, 3A, etc. It's getting beyond just swapping a few obvious parts like with the faux 7A-GE. But you can certainly raise the question on the A engine's talk page to see if other editors like the idea or not.
- Out of interest, how similar is the bore spacing of the 7A and 1ZZ? Stepho talk 22:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Good evening Stepho,
- I've been looking around in response to your curiosity, and I've found that the 1ZZ-FE has a bore spacing of 87.5mm. The 7A-FE and 4A-GE have identical bore spacing because the 7A is essentially a 4A with a longer deck height. Their bore spacing is also 87.5mm apart on the 81mm bore A series engines. This is the primary reason why the 1ZZ crank works in the 7A block. You have to grind away a tad towards the bottom of each cylinder wall, where it opens up into the crank case, in order to clearance the connecting rods, and you have to grind away the areas where the crank sits to recenter it properly, but if you know the exact measurements, you can take it to most reputable machine shops and have them do the work for you. Or, since you are in Australia, you could probably get a 4A specialist shop to do the work as well.
- I didn't know that the A series engine page had a talk board, so I'll bring up that subject there. One thing I wanted to run by you was including something in the 5A. Way back in the 90s, HKS had a limited run of a stroker crank for the 4A to bring it to 1.7 or 1.8, I can't remember exactly, but they called it a 5A-GE. An old video option or hot version tape has a clip showing Keiichi Tsuchiya and a few other men with their 86s, and one of their engines had a 5A-G carbureted. It never made sense to me at the time why someone would go through the hassle of putting a 4A-GE head on a 5A-F engine, but they actually used that HKS stroker crank, so in reality it was probably a 1.7 liter. Modern day stroker kits for 4A-GEs also call themselves 5A as well. I wanted to add a small section towards the bottom of the 5A saying something about how 'Some tuning companies made a stroker kit for the 4A-GE and marketed it as a 5A, which is not to be confused with the genuine 5A engine series. It is simply a stroked 4A-GE'. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that matter. This matter also ties into why the bored and stroked 7A should still be called a 9A. Simply put, if the community chooses to call it a 9A, then that is what it will be known as. It wouldn't have to be very confusing either, something simple such as, 'Some tuners have taken their 7A-GEs ever farther, and installed either a custom made stroker kit, or retro-fitted a 1ZZ-FE crankshaft and bored out their cylinders to 83mm. This brings the displacement up to 2.0 liters. These custom tuners engines are known colloquially as 9A-GE engines, but Toyota has never made such an A series engine with that name. It is entirely fan-based.' I'd also like to hear your thoughts on this matter as well, since it should (hopefully) not fall under the discretion of 'Telling people how to do things'.
- Also, the 7A-GE is unfortunately not as simple as, 'off goes the economy head and on goes the 20v'. It would be fantastic if it was the case though.
- I await a favorable response,
- Justaguywholikesflowers (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Questioning your reversion of my edit to PGM-11 Redstone
Yesterday you reverted my edit of PGM-11 Redstone with the explanation that "Explorer 1 was launched by Jupiter-C, not Redstone", followed by pointing out differences between the two. I disagree with this reversion. Yes, there are differences, but my claim was that it was a rocket in the Redstone family that launched Explorer 1, just as Alan Shepard's Freedom 7 flight was launched by a rocket in that family. The differences you mention aren't big enough to justify excluding the Jupiter-C (renamed "Juno I" for satellite launches) from the family. In particular, the Jupiter-C's engine was not as different from the Redstone's as you seem to think; it was merely a minor variant of the same Rocketdyne North American Aviation 75-110 engine that had been used throughout the Redstone missile's development. The use of Hydyne fuel doesn't mean much; Redstone engines had been flown with Hydyne as well as with alcohol. The Jupiter-C's greater length was shared by the Mercury-Redstone, since both needed longer propellant tanks to achieve their missions. The main reason the Mercury-Redstone didn't also use Hydyne was because that fuel was more toxic than alcohol and there were safety concerns about employing it for a human-crewed launch. It's notable that discussions of the Redstone family such as John W. Bullard's History of the Redstone Missile System, the NASA report The Mercury-Redstone Project, and Wernher von Braun's autumn 1963 article "The Redstone, Jupiter, and Juno" in Technology and Culture treat the Jupiter-C as a member of that family. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your polite discussion. Agreed that the Jupiter-C/Juno are part of the Redstone family. However, it was worded as the Redstone rather than Redstone family. While I follow spaceflight and aeronautical engineering in general, perhaps I have gotten slightly over my head. It might be better if you repeat that on the article's talk page. I will follow the consensus. Thanks. Stepho talk 22:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I just repeated my query there, with some minor tweaks. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Bugatti Veyron
Thank you for correcting mistakes made by me for the I frequently make errors while typing on this new device as it auto corrects and becomes slow at times. But I do not understand how moving the pictures to the end of the article keeps it in the relevant article space and how keeping it at the top in a typical way does not do so. ගොඩය (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It's the
{{clear}}
and{{clear left}}
templates that forces the next section to be after the end of any images, tables or infoboxes. Stepho talk 09:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Toyota Land Cruiser Ovar plant - info source
Source: https://www.razaoautomovel.com/2021/05/toyota-celebra-50-anos-de-producao-nacional-da-fabrica-de-ovar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.144.139 (talk • contribs)
Chevy Nova page
The Chevrolet Nova page is incorrect. There are only 5 generations of Novas, not 6. 1973-74 are part of the 3rd generation. 1st = 1962-65 2nd = 1966-67 3rd = 1968-74 4th = 1975-79 5th = 1985-88
Please correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.74.154 (talk • contribs)
- I will ask for further advice at Talk:Chevrolet Chevy II / Nova#Fourth gen. Stepho talk 21:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Volkswagen Kommandeurswagen
A Leadscrew and a Worm drive is the same thing? Tomatenbrille (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Tomatenbrille (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Tomatenbrille:, I just saw your summary comment for Volkswagen Kommandeurswagen at [2]. As noted above, I admitted my mistake, so I have no problem with the revert itself. But I don't understand why your comment was caustic. Stepho talk 09:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Named references
I think you were confused in this edit. You tried to use a named reference which you hadn't defined. In the previous version there weren't two references defined as number 1; the ref was defined, then reused, see WP:named references. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oops. I well understand how multiple uses of the same reference works (I often merge duplicated reference done by other editors). But this time I misread what was 2 separate references side-by-side and took them for a single reference. Thanks for correcting it. Stepho talk 11:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"Toyota Noah (AH30)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Toyota Noah (AH30). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 2#Toyota Noah (AH30) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 114.10.9.143 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)