User talk:BrendelSignature/November-December-January 2006

Acura RL, full-size?

Hi, the new Acura RL does have a wheelbase of 110.2 inches. Determine whether a car is full-size or not by its wheelbase of 110 inches is a very traditional point of view. Most luxury mid-size sedans nowadays have all increased its wheelbase. For examples, Lexus GS has always been considered a mid-size sedan. Its wheelbase is 112.2 inches, but it’s really only as big as the Toyota Camry. The full-size model of Lexus is LS. Infiniti M is another luxury mid-size sedan with an even larger wheelbase of 114.2, and it’s about as big as Nissan Altima. The full-size model of Infiniti is Q45. Another thing, Honda does not have a full-size sedan in North America yet. Due to the increasing number of car models, it is hard to decide the class of the vehicle sometimes. I prefer to look at the overall length of the car instead of its wheelbase. Acura RL, Lexus GS, and Infiniti M have a length of 193.6, 190.0, and 192.6 inches respectively. Full-size sedans such as Lexus LS, Infiniti Q45, and Audi A8 have a length of 197.4, 200.8, and 204.4 inches respectively.

Immigration

The material you've added to the United States and Immigration to the United States articles is interesting, but not sufficiently-well sourced or neutrally-presented. Please read over The five pillars of Wikipedia and How to write a great article. Thanks for contributing. -Willmcw 01:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mercedes-Benz vehicles

Why was the template deleted? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. That's isn't how you move a template, you simply move the text {{Mercedes-Benz vehicles}} to where you want it to go. As a result of blanking the template, all the pages which linked to it had the template removed. I fixed everything up, and it was an honest mistake so no harm done. Any questions or help don't hesitate to contact me. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About how you edit pages...

Hi there, I saw all the changes you made to several articles about Lincolns, and I should tell you that when you are making small tables about a certain generation of a car, please integrate them into the main table at the top of the page. Thanks. --ApolloBoy 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but it's generally better to have one table on the side than a bunch of small ones; it just makes an article look smoother and easier to read. --ApolloBoy 02:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. BTW, when putting an image in a table, do not use thumbnail or alignment tags (i.e. "|thumb|", "|right|"), as they are not needed. --ApolloBoy 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and other thing, when making a table, please put the name of the car below the picture of the car, not above it. If you look at other tables on car articles, you will notice that the majority of them do this. --ApolloBoy 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - No Problem, I will also change the Cadillac tables-that's where I got the idea for title above picture in the first place Gerdbrendel 03:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. And also, when the engines of a certain car are already listed on the main table, don't make another table just for the engines, because then it would be redundant. --ApolloBoy 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are the engines supposed to be listed in the main table then -that w

ould bring me beack to the long table issue- or can't I just leave the engines out of the main table with them being listed in the article within the little blue boxes Gerdbrendel 03:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the former. If you need more help, you can bring this issue up at the WikiProject Automobiles talk page, I'm sure you'll be able to get more feedback on this issue. --ApolloBoy 04:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autobox color conventions

All the infoboxes for different topics are color coded. The auto ones are specified at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts. It's white on darkgreen. If you're going to change them, change them to that. Thanks. Hektor 06:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I'll make sure they comply with this standard. Thanks for your quick response. Gerdbrendel 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln vehicles template

I have moved your Lincoln vehicle information box to a template (Template:Lincoln vehicles). Instead of pasting the whole box into articles, you can just do this: {{Lincoln vehicles}} --SFoskett 15:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing so. Gerdbrendel 19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit it by going to Template:Lincoln vehicles and clicking "edit this page", or simply by clicking this: edit. Looking forward to your future contributions! --SFoskett 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing vandals at WP:AIAV

Hey Gerdbrendel, I just want to let you know that before listing vandals at AIAV please make sure they have been warned up to a {{subst:test4}} . This ensures that the blocking policy is followed. If the vandalism is persistant and blatant, you can add {{subst:bv}} which allows a block if they still continue to vandalise. I'll add {{subst:bv}} to the IPs talk page if he still continues relist and I'll block. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUV Vandal

Thank you for reporting the SUV page vandal in a timely fashion, and for using the warning templates. However, I'd like to ask that in the future you don't use heated language and throw around the request for a block. It comes off as hostile, and also you really shouldn't guarantee a block unless you're the administrator performing it. It saves you from the embarassment of threatening a block and then having an admin come in and determine there's no block needed. Mo0[talk] 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'm sorry. Gerdbrendel 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue boxes

Thanks again for your contributions. However, I would like to suggest that you discuss the blue boxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts, since these are a completely new design element and might not be to everyone's taste (including mine)... Thanks! --SFoskett 14:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did bring them up for disscussion in Wikipedia autoproject disscussion but only one user responded (in support of them). The reason I came up with these boxes is because the tables on some of the car pages were too long and listing the engine specs in text as it was done in many articles made the article appear wordy. On the Lincoln Town Car page for example the table looks much better just being at the top w/o engine data. I will, however, bring the Blue boxes up for discussion again. Thank you. Gerdbrendel 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Lincoln MKS

I believe that what you can legitimately post in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is factual information, as released to the public, by the entity that owns the information. Everything else is to be considered pure speculation, gossip, rumors, or perhaps unauthorized leaks. Even if a "Ford insider" knows something about the "MKS" concept car that has not been publicly announced by the Company , they SHALL NOT post it here (as some have already done) - doing so may be considered Corporate Espionage, and can result in termination, lawsuits, and prosecution. I started to try to clean up all the speculation posts about the MKS - but gave up trying - it is just too deep now.

Now if Ford Motor Company publicly acknowleges (and you can prove it with a link to a legitimate Ford Motor Company Source - not from a fan / rumor / gossip or spy website), then by all means it can and should be posted here. For the time being, you have to go with the official company line - that the MKS is a concept car that "strongly hints" at a possible future full size Lincoln sedan. But you can feel free to scour online news reports using Yahoo! or Google or some other search engine, and then post anything you find, from a reputable news source, that is directly quoting Bill Ford or Mark Fields or Anne Stevens or some other Company Executive or Spokesman. I think the Company realizes there has been some mixed information released from various sources, and will try to straighten it all out in the coming days. For the next few weeks, Ford will be observing public and press reactions to the MKS Concept Car, and then make a final decision about production possibilities - most likely after "The Way Ahead" on January 23rd. In addition - Ford has many other upcoming Auto Shows, where more Concepts (and variations) and corporate announcements can be expected.

That said - I really do feel your pain. The sudden and unexpected renaming of the 2007 Lincoln Aviator as the 2007 Lincoln "MKX" has produced no small amount of chaos and controversy; and then saying it is all about "letters" for Lincoln from now on, and then saying MKX is actually pronounced "Mark X" (which is alarmingly close to "Mark Ten"), and then calling the "MKS" (pronounced "Mark S") as either a full size Concept Car (which would be E or F class), or a midsize D3-platform based midsize LS replacement (which is itself a mid-plus D/E class chassis) - it is all very confusing. The best we can do at this point is be patient - wait for the Corporate Executives and Marketing folks get their "official story" straight, and let the Full Battle Fury of the Auto Show settle down a bit with the dust; and then post "just the facts Ma'am" on Wikipedia. T-dot 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the information has been confusing. Nevertheless I'm going to go through the official press releases again to find out the current facts about the Lincoln MKS and try to clean up the site once more. Thank you for your quick response. Gerdbrendel 00:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I am all in favor of getting good quality official information out there for all to see (it makes good advertising!) - but cannot condone posting rumors and gossip and speculation as encyclopedic "facts". Nor can I abide the release and posting of illegal "insider information" that was essentially stolen from the Company. Ford (and all auto companies) are highly protective of their future product plans, and only release such information when it makes sense to do so. Thus - I have a big problem with anyone posting the product "timelines" that go beyond the current model year (2006), and those publicly announced products (eg: Ford Edge) for the next (2007). Anyway Good Luck, and Thanks for your high quality Contributions to the Cause. (btw: so this is how you get an indent...) T-dot 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Lincoln Mark X Concept

While you are at it - you might want to add the abandoned 2004 Lincoln Mark X Concept (pronounced either "Mark X" or "Mark Ten" - I forget...) to the Concept Models section at the bottom of the Lincoln Timeline chart - with the MK9 "Mark 9" or whatever. (Both of these orphans show the importance of keeping Concept and Production cars in the right perspective). Here is an official source info starter: [1] and some other possible info sources: [2]. You seem to be on a roll - and thought I'd give you another pet project... T-dot 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not quite sure that the MK9 and Mark Ten are different vehicles, asides from the Mark X being a convertible and the Mark 9 or MK9 being a hardtop coupe. I'm going to merge the two articles into one called the Lincoln MK9 (Ford Motor says MK stands for Mark anyway). All this name chaos shows the turmoil at the top of Ford Motor's Lincoln Division. Thanks for contributing. Gerdbrendel 02:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changes

Why did you change the infobox at the Dodge Intrepid article? My version was just fine, but then you cut it down without giving a reason. What was wrong with my infobox? I thought it explained things well... --ApolloBoy 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes you did explain things well but also a bit to thouroughly -in German we say: "Zu viel des Guten," meaning "too much of the good." I replaced the infobox with a new one that was developed in the Auto Layout Disussion. This new one is used on most luxury car articles, all Full-size car articles and is becoming more and more common among the others. Its meant to be shorter and thus less intimidating to a reader. Another issue was that information that in most vehicles changes with generation such as engine data should be mentioned in the article- just see the discussion. If you really, really don't like the new infobox you can change it back but then the Intrepid will be the only Full-size car without it- anyways I'm not married to the changes I made to the Intrepid page, Dodge seems to be your expertise. Thank you for understanding and my apologized for any inconveneince. Gerdbrendel 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Automobile changes

FYI, as noted in the discussion page, I have changed the syntax for Template:Infobox Automobile in a few areas: "engine" and "body_style" are no longer plural; "shares_with" has become "related"; and "similar_cars" is now just "similar". Thanks for your contributions! --SFoskett 14:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, makes sense I'll start changing them, which is now knid of a big task considering how many vehicles now feature this table, but that's alright. I am however still unsure about engines being mentioned in the infobox, that might drag them on a bit to long, anyways I also made a comment in th disussion. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that I already fixed all of them! Cheers! --SFoskett 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, thanks. Gerdbrendel 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've been putting general engine and tranny info in the infoboxes - which size and family, but not years and models in general since there's not enough room and we don't want a line wrap in an infobox. So yes, feel free to say which engines a car was equipped with but not when and with what model and how much horsepower and such. The same "engine" and "transmission" lines are in the regular infobox and in the generation one. --SFoskett 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mustang / Escape Related???

The mid-specialty S197 Mustang, which is a D2C platform originally inspired (but significantly changed during development) from the Lincoln-Jaguar DEW98 platform used by the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-type and the Ford Europe C1 platform, and is in no conceivable way related to the Mazda CD2 platform which hosts the Ford Escape, Mercury Mariner, and Mazda Tribute. The only thing the Mustang has in common with Mazda is it is assembled in the joint venture Ford-Mazda AutoAlliance plant in Flat Rock Michigan, which also builds the Mazda 6 sedan - but on a completely separate and independant production line. T-dot 11:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but then what is the Mustang's platform and who is it shared with? Thanks. Gerdbrendel 15:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mustang is on a unique D2C platform, there are no other vehicles currently using it. T-dot 17:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mercury Cougar, Ford Thunderbird, Lincoln LS as "related models" for the Mustang...

Not Quite - the Thunderbird, Lincoln LS, and Mercury Cougar mentioned in the last part of the D2C platform report are highly speculative hypothetical future models - NOT CURRENT platform-mates, therefore should not be listed as "related". The Mustang has NO current ""related" platform-mates. I did however add the Shelby Mustang so you would have something listed... T-dot 21:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]