Jump to content

Talk:Aptera 2 Series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vandalism

[edit]

Wikipedia might be communism, but I'm fairly sure that hammer 'n' sickle doesn't belong in an electric car article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.250.5 (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the page source to remove the vandalism, but I couldn't pin-point where it occurs. Perhaps a template is compromised. --211.27.150.17 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is either a bug in WikiMedia or how we are including the infobox subpage. You must make a main page edit in order to transclude the changed infobox into the article. --IanOsgood (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without wings

[edit]

Is it true that Aptera = without wings? 70.66.18.132 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in greek. See Aptera Motors. --- Autopilot (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Front wheel drive rumor (CONFIRMED)

[edit]

Rumors that the Aptera has been given front wheel drive do not belong in this article. Neither blogs nor uncaptioned photos are considered reliable sources for such a conclusion. Please don't put back this rumor unless Aptera themselves confirm it. --IanOsgood (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating what appears in the photo, however, is not the same as declaring that the Aptera has been given front-wheel drive.EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree (an uncaptioned photo is not a reliable source), but I won't revert a third time. Even if those are CV joints, they could be for some other purpose, such as regenerative braking only. We don't know so we shouldn't say anything one way or the other. The point is that until a reliable source actually comes out and says it has front-wheel drive, then a mention of it in the article is speculation or original research. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Front-wheel drive doesn't have enough reliability at this time. As far as speculation, look no further than the future automobile template. Even aptera.com has a disclaimer saying that nothing there is reliable. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that topic, several references on the page are to ApteraForum. A forum is not a WP:V source. -- 129.255.93.237 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --IanOsgood (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now they've let the cat out of the bag: http://aptera.com/newsletter121908/ --IanOsgood (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel economy

[edit]

The phrase "infinite fuel economy" sounds foolish, considering that were a company to claim this they would then have to justify the cost of the electrical energy, which then would result in quantifying the amount of carbon emitted to produce/harness the energy used. This is already being done, so declaring something as having infinite fuel economy is hardly appropriate for an encyclopaedia where research is assumed to have been done before facts are stated. Not to mention that if the petroleum engine was never switched on the fuel in the tank would go "off", and would have to be replaced, constituting a "use" so to speak. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "infinite fuel economy" sounds dumb. The fuel economy would actually be as quoted in citation 4, 96 watt-hours/mile. Aldenrw (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable preorderers

[edit]

Pass the sick-bag Alice. Do we really think this is encyclopedic? Greglocock (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not encyclopedic. They are WP:Fancruft and WP:Trivia. But unfortunately somebody has a motive to advertise this list of names. I wonder why? --Dbratland (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, by writing, "somebody has a motive to advertise this list of names", you're clearly violating Assumed good faith. Secondly, it's good to see that you're dropping the WP:Notability argument, as it clearly doesn't apply to content within an article. As for Trivia, it clearly does not fall into that category. As per the guidelines:
  • A number of articles contain lists of isolated information, which are often grouped into their own section, labeled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc -- This is not a "miscellaneous" (i.e., trivia) category. It's specific.
  • This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. -- The guideline says nothing about whether they should be included or not, just that there shouldn't be a miscellaneous category.
  • Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. -- Even when they do exist, they should not be removed in all cases.
  • It may be necessary to perform research to give each fact some context or to add references. Some entries may be speculative or factually incorrect, and should be removed; some may fall outside the scope of the article and should be moved to other articles; and others, such as "how-to" material or tangential/irrelevant facts, may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether. -- They're referenced, within the scope of the article, and not outside wikipedia's scope.
  • This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. -- Contrary to what you did.
  • This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. -- Contrary to your assertion.
  • A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. -- Again, this clearly doesn't apply.
As for Fancruft:
  • Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. -- Just the opposite, content related to celebrities is most interesting to people who are outside the hardcore fan circles. It's a segue for the general public.
  • Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil. -- Just a warning.
  • It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, -- Clearly not the case here.
  • Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". -- In no way does this fall afoul of the entries listed under indiscriminate collections of information page.
  • The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole. -- The entire topic is not unknown outside fan circles (in fact, it's more often about the celebrities -- i.e., for the general public -- rather than Aptera-specific). You'd be hard-pressed to argue that celebrity links are generally considered boring to the general public or that four lines constitutes boredom, distraction, or confusion.
  • The term "fancruft" is most commonly applied to fictional subjects -- You're really pushing it to call anything related to a physical vehicle "fancruft".
  • If you come across fancruft, a kind approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved. -- Rather than, say, simple, hasty deletion.
  • More likely, the article will lack a hook — one or more interesting facts to attract or pique the interest of readers outside of the small population of enthusiastic fans of the topic. -- Given that celebrities *are* a hook to a broader audience outside of Aptera's "fan base", if anything, it's "anti-cruft".
In short, I feel you're entirely offbase, and as consequence, I will RV your removal. -- 129.255.93.188 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm going to continue to call it fancruft in the edit summaries as it is a good short name. I suppose unencyclopedic would be better but I can't spel that. Greglocock (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously trivial, unless a source can be provided to specifically indicate that celebrity orders effected this vehicles popularity, interest or sales. This does not include name dropping in magazine articles or press releases. What is needed would be something saying "Celebrity orders have been an important part of the Apetera's history/sales/whatever." --Leivick (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need current photo

[edit]
moved from Talk:Aptera 2 Series/Infobox Svick (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Typ-1 design rendering is OK to show overall body layout, but is becoming increasingly out of date. Please find a more recent 2e design rendering or photo of a recent production model, showing the side mirrors, top camera fin, and front wheel drive linkages. --IanOsgood (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --IanOsgood (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done That image had copyright problems, apparently. The current image is of the Typ-1 prototype again. --IanOsgood (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aptera 2 Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aptera 2 Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aptera 2 Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aptera_2_Series&oldid=1198886290"