User talk:Vossanova/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vossanova. 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.

Hi. I 've seen the way you 've edited several automotive timeline template categories. In the VW group templates it seems you left untouched the templates Template:Škoda timeline 1945-1990 and Template:Škoda timeline 1990 to date, but you edited other VW group brands timeline templates. Why is that? I mean since Škoda is a VW group brand, its templates are already included under the VW group timeline template subcategory, so what is the reason those two Škoda templates should be included for a second time also in the 'Automotive company timeline templates' general category?(LeonCR (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Because you've done such a good job on the LA Auto Show article, I wanted to run this by you. I will be attending again this year (as I have done almost every year for decades), so are there any images that you think would improve the article? I'm not sure if you are attending. I'm not promising that I can take the photos or that they would be any good if I did, but I wanted to get your input. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been a lot of changes to the LA Auto Show article lately, mainly the addition of earlier years but also changes in recent years (including the removal of references.) You may want to take a look at the history for the last couple of days as you added most of the content that was changed. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the references you added to North American International Auto Show. However, they should be formatted in the same style that the rest of the article uses. In this article, references use the {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, ... series of templates. Thanks

An article that you have been involved in editing, GM Family II engine , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. VX1NG (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I re-installed the vertical TOC in the LA Auto Show article, because it doesn't brake the col-begin template in the 2013 section after I replaced it with a col-float template. Regarding the fact that it looks better, I think it is better to stick to the common vertical style used in the majority of the articles. It makes the choice of one particular year easier in vertical than on horizontal and it is generally specific to list menus. I noticed that the horizontal table of contents are more common in category pages, where a vertical list would not fit into the layout, but that is not the case here. To conclude, I think it is better in vertical form and I hope we can agree over this issue, otherwise I believe we will have to let others express their opinions too. What shall be fixed at this moment in the article is the conflict of floating between the column templates and the thumbnails, some of which make the subsection titles appear lower than immediately after the preceding text. I can't figure out a solution for this at this moment. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geneva Motor Show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Škoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The article NoooN has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Λeternus ^(talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Λeternus ^(talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

...a way to reduce the number of articles listing and comparing AMD processors. It's a maintenance nightmare. It's making AMD hard to follow and making AMD weak on Wikipedia. There's too much to update, repair and edit for anyone, even hundreds of united editors would struggle. It's also having the effect of making it hard to find a central repository of information on newer APUs and CPUs. Until I edited the main AMD article it didn't really have anything clear about APUs, it was all dated information that was hard to follow. A previous debate on Comparison of AMD processors resulted in the argument that we should keep the comparison page because the list pages didn't have the same level of information on the processors. This is true. But my suggestion is that the information be moved to the lists, and some lists be merged into larger lists. There are hundreds of lists on Duron processors etc. Some of them have got to be merge-able. Duron and Athlon together, etc? Lists by generation? Lists by microarchitecture core (Jaguar, Piledriver etc.)?--Manboobies (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Right away the Athlon thing screams "merge merge merge". Was fascinated to see that a Jaguar core Athlon with built in graphics was made (APU) so I guess it will have to be "List of AMD Athlon CPUs and APUs"? Processors wouldn't be technically accurate. Is an APU still a processor, in terms of naming? I mean it has loads of processors in it... I think another issue must be size too. Of articles. Back in the day Wikipedia systems complained about the MJ article me and another author got to FA status because it was over a certain size. What's the limit? I think processor names with less models could be merged with redirects so nothing leads to a dead end and it's under the size limit. Duron and Sempron? No real link but probably smaller lists on those two.--Manboobies (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

ps doesn't a SOAC have to have memory in it and all the hardware circuits for peripherals ? I thought the Pi was a SOC, but that Kabini was an APU?--Manboobies (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geneva Motor Show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volvo V40. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corvette Daytona Prototype, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IMSA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vossanova

I notice that you are a prolific Wikipedian, and that you recently edited Vehicle registration plates of Connecticut. I am wondering, therefore, if you would be able to help me in a difficult situation regarding the corresponding article for Wisconsin.

I should point out that I am a license plate enthusiast (though not a member of the Automobile License Plate Collectors Association), and that I have edited the vast majority of articles on license plates of US states and Canadian provinces and territories, as well as the article on the license plates of the United Kingdom.

Anyway, for the past 18 months or thereabouts, a user at numerous IP addresses in the 32.218.x.x range has been claiming that the Wisconsin article is overly detailed. I take it that this is a genuine opinion, which (s)he is perfectly entitled to.

However, (s)he is not pointing out the things that (s)he believes make the article overly detailed. And (s)he does not appear to be willing to do so.

Nor does (s)he appear to be willing to look at the corresponding articles for other states, many of which are even more detailed - the Connecticut one, for instance, is over 37,000 bytes, and the New York one is over 52,000, whereas the Wisconsin one is less than 15,000.

I have repeatedly suggested to him/her, both on the article's talk page and on the talk pages for the IP addresses that (s)he has used, that (s)he point out the things that (s)he believes make the article overly detailed, and that (s)he look at the corresponding articles for other states. Maybe I haven't gone about it the right way - saying "Don't make me take this matter to ANI" definitely wasn't a smart move. It is true that I don't want to take the matter to ANI, though - I know that if I do, then it could put him/her off editing Wikipedia altogether, and then I would feel guilty (because it's not my desire to drive other users away, unless they're seriously mischievous).

But I do believe that if this user could just point out the things that (s)he believes make the Wisconsin article overly detailed - like, perhaps, a description of a plate or its slogan that may be a little too long, or a note regarding a particular plate that may not be entirely necessary - then (s)he would make life easier for himself/herself, for me, and for other users. As it is, I don't know what these things are, and nor do I know how to work them out.

So, do you believe that you can be of help here? If you don't, then that's perfectly fine.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

...I take it you don't believe that you can be of help here, then? Bluebird207 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Wisconsin page looks fine to me. If the passenger plate had several changes over the years, there's no issue in listing all the changes. If one of the changes had 10 paragraphs of details, maybe that would be excessive. Likewise, very minor changes in a large list could be grouped together or included in a summary. There are plenty of essays and guidelines on listcruft, trivia, and scope. --Vossanova ^o< 14:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

So, like me, you don't believe that the article is overly detailed.

I'm still not sure what to do next, though. Not only does this 32.218.x.x user not appear to be willing to explain his/her beliefs, but also (s)he has never reacted kindly to any of the changes I have made to the article - in particular, the removal of the {{Overly detailed}} template (which, as you may gather, (s)he keeps putting back).

I do simplify the descriptions of plates and slogans, and reduce clutter, as I feel necessary - not only in the Wisconsin article, but in the articles for other states' license plates as well. Alas, it's clearly still not enough for this user - and it has reached the stage now where I'm actually quite fearful that the next change I make to the Wisconsin article, even if it's a minor one, could be enough for him/her to decide, "Oh, I'm not going to bother with this article or this site any more if this is how it's going to be".

There's probably no need for me to be like this - but I really don't want to drive this user, or any other decent user (whether they have a username or just use the IP address they're currently at), away from this article or from Wikipedia altogether.

I do want to continue editing the article, however. There are still a few passenger plates from the past (mostly from before World War II) that have not yet been added, and I'd also like to create a section for the month-code systems used from 1946 through 1986 (Wisconsin being the first state to use such registration systems).

So, what do you think I should do?

Thanks and regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well?

Sorry to keep at you like this - it's just that I would like this matter sorted out ASAP, and I honestly don't feel that I can sort it out myself.

Thanks, Bluebird207 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't really help you much further. You can try discussing the articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. I don't see a WikiProject for license plates, but if there was one, I'd say go there instead. --Vossanova ^o< 18:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for everything.

Regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Vossanova. When I wanted to continue today moving car pages from 'vehicles introduced in xxxx' to 'cars introduced in xxxx', I discovered you already finished the job. Thank you for that. I already did a lot, but it was quite a boring task so that's why I didn't do it all at once (even leaving much time in between). I wanted to ask you, did you check all years again so that you're sure all car articles have been moved? When I was busy with it, I kept a list so that I knew what still needed to be done etc. (keeping a bit of variety in the work by switching between the years). If you checked them all, or if you are sure everything has been moved, I would like to know. Otherwise I will check all years again.

By the way, it was this list I kept so far:

Cars (introduced in...)	Done?
1901-1910	N
1911-1920	N
1921-1930	N
1931-1940	Done
1941-1950	Done
1951-1960	Done
1961-1970	Done
1971-1980	Half done
1981-1990	N
1991-2000	N
2001-2010	Half done
2011-2016	Done

Done: 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007

King regards, Coldbolt (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I consider 1960-present done. Those that I left in the vehicles categories are commercial vehicles, or in some cases vans which are used for both passengers and cargo, for which I erred on the side of leaving alone. I've also added some missing Railway locomotives introduced in.. categories, and removed some Vehicle manufacturing companies established in.. categories, since 1960. If you want to go through pre-1960 categories, be my guest. --Vossanova ^o< 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I will check these categories soon. Kind regards Coldbolt (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

the article needs a list of non passenger plates Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem with your reversion of my reversion(!) of this. The reason I did that is that it was one of numerous edits carried out by anonymous editor 50.100.178.173 which were contrary to the manual of style, broke subsection links for no good reason and linked to dab pages instead of dirctly to the intended article (as was the case originally). In short, he/she messed up or degraded a whole load of stuff for reasons that are unclear.

With that many counter-productive edits, I didn't have the time (or inclination- or obligation!) to sort the tiny amount of wheat from the chaff, and I reverted to a "known good" version of the template.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Honda Accord page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for your participation in RM discussions. But a number of times recently (eg here) you haven't signed correctly. Perhaps use Show preview a bit and find out whether it's just mistyping (I did the same for a while when I last changed my keyboard and had many typos).

Just a suggestion. Best. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=1R1zIzg92FHco4d_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_5sRqqDucaN38Nal&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary on this edit you made - what happened was that I noticed this IP had added information, and I had rolled it back. However, I saw that what was added seemed content-related, not vandalism, so I reverted myself and left things alone. The IP address is the user you'll want to discuss this content-related issue with, as it looks like this user has repeatedly reverted the page. Let me know if you need any help, and I'll be glad to do so. Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you have made an error in your merge suggestion by linking to a redirect, or do you really want to merge the Mercedes AMG GLE63 page into Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class page which at the moment has no content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.57.109 (talk • contribs)

Also in my opinion they should definitely be merged. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I assumed GLE-Class was the proper page but it appears that redirects to M-Class. --Vossanova ^o< 20:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You also need to start a discussion on the proposed destination page's talk page (more info on WP:MERGEPROP).

Greetings. You changed the year for the XC40 to 2018 in the Volvo cars timeline. Reason as per comment was "move XC40 to 2018 debut".
However the car is in production at the moment and has already debuted. Which year is supposed to set the base line - model year or production year? At the moment the whole timeline is very inconsistent and contradicts several articles. If model year sets the standard 2018 is correct, otherwise it's 2017. Or is the year counted from when the first customer car(s) get delivered?
Similar issue with the XC60. The first generation was build until 2017 (model year 2017), the second generation launched and was delivered in 2017 (model year 2018). As such drawing the line between 2016 and 2017 is misleading.
To better explain the way Volvo uses model years: A model year has 12 months in total and overlaps two years. The first six months of 2017 are still model year 2017, the last 6 months (+ the first six months of 2018) are model year 2018.
I have looked at how this is done for other manufacturers but that often is a similar mess. One template had half years which would be a good solution. Is that okay or how is this usually done? Regards, 2A04:4540:110A:3D01:5962:3A4D:5FE8:2563 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

While production of the XC40 may start in November, I prefer to go by retail availability, which may not happen until December or January. Even if it does first go on sale in December or late November, it is only a small portion of 2017 so I'd prefer to start it at 2018 on the timeline. The new XC60, on the other hand, went on sale in the middle of the year, so it was more reasonable to start it at 2017. This being a global timeline, I understand that model years won't be used. --Vossanova ^o< 17:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that retail availability is suitable to be used for this. XC40 price lists were made available in September, the car can be ordered right now and demo cars (general and dealer) are out. Wouldn't that make the car a 2017? At least I assume that you define retail availability as when a car can be ordered. Not using model years makes sense. However this still makes the timeline conflict with the articles. That's the only thing I'm trying to change. 2A04:4540:1102:6501:C899:BA9:E053:4D9A (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vossanova. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vossanova. 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.