User talk:OSX/Archive 1

Warning

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 there is no copyright notice, an image is copyrighted by default, and not usable on Wikipedia. Kimchi.sg 11:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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.sg 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As a courtesy for other editors, kindly observe Wikipedia guidelines and sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. For further info see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. Kimchi.sg 11:13, 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. ×Meegs 11:28, 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. OSX 11:37, 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). ×Meegs 11:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the thumbnails of the images found on the Holden website:

http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/vehicleentry?vehicleid=4 http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/vehicleentry?vehicleid=5&navid=1 http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/vehicleentry?vehicleid=6&navid=1

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.OSX 12:09, 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. ×Meegs 12:13, 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.

cheers for your revert of Dalas (talk · contribs)'s edit on Helensburgh, New South Wales - i got to the vandal warning but somehow my edit died... Dibo 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PNG Image

What programme did you use to edit the Westfield logo I uploaded? [1] Ansett 03:38, 20 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.Ansett 12:00, 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. Gwernol 16:00, 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.Ansett 12:00, 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.--58.167.197.174 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of edit summaries.

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) ╫

VE Holden Commodore

Hi, thanks for your edits to VE Holden Commodore, it's great work. I've made a few changes and clarifications but overall it seems factually sound. VectorD 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Holden renames

Could you please hold off on the cut-paste moves and discuss why you are doing these moves out of process (see WP:MOVE and WP:CUTPASTE for what I mean)?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 3 November 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/c 07:09, 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 6.9 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

I need some tips or help from you an expert for my article HSV Senator. Senators 10:28, 04 November 2006 (UTC) (australia)

Hello

thanks for any comments and editing you have done to my article. Senators 5:26pm, 05 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting better

My article is getting better HSV Senator Signature please help me by telling me if there is any things i need to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senators (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wait

I am going to properly review your article on Friday sometime, sorry I am just a bit busy.

P.S. I may review it before the given date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.231.226 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Review article 1988 Holden VN Commodore

He is some simple tips to help your article:

• Lead paragraph is too big, try to keep the lead paragraph at least a couple of lines free of the rest.
• Need to have more general information for the models such as how the model came to be not just what options come with it.
• Try not to have such a lead paragraph section I mean from a distance it looks like its just one big paragraph.
• Can we have less specifications and more history on the car.

P.S. i will see if i can get any more information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senators (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please?

What do you think of me putting my article up for featured article review?

P.S. Thanks for the edits.Senators 07:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore -- Good Article nomination

Hi,

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

Good luck!

--Ling.Nut 00:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Review Holden VE Commodore

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

P.S. i need some help on my article, if you know any information please tell me on my talk pageSenators 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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! VectorD 02:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GOOD NEWS

I have added your article to the cars portal Senators 01:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review page

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. Homestarmy 03:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I have added a good amount to the introduction of HSV Senator Signature could you check it and then add more information to it.Senators 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:GTA Navigational boxes

The current design of the boxes are based on specifications provided in Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Navboxes (see also original discussion in WP:CVG/T), which is based on {{Navbox generic}}. If in doubt or proposing design changes, may I recommend bringing this comment up in Navbox/T or WP:CVG/T, as it is proposed that the navboxes in certain articles covered by WP:CVG are to be standardized. I'm prepared to go ahead with your style if your proposal is approved. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

FORD BA FALCON new article check?

Could you please check my new article Ford BA Falcon can you write what you think about it.Senators 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

VE Commodore good article status

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! VectorD 04:02, 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. Senators 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon

Are you expanding the Ford BF Falcon article? Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Great article

Keep working hard on the Holden VZ Commodore article and get it to good article status. It's great that we can show the world how good and reliable Australian made cars are. You OSX should see the article Ford BA Falcon. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you need help?

If you need me (Senators) to help you with anything I am glad to, such as reviews, article checks and general assistance. Contact me on my talk page for help. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello OSX, I need your assistance on an article Ford BA Falcon please of you can could you complete one of the following points:

• Copy/edit
• Add information
• Review article
• Nominate article for Good Article status

If you have any questions just go to my talk page. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

what

What can I add to the Ford BA Falcon article to make it look better. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 08:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon Good Article

What is missing to make the Ford BA Falcon a Good Article?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A.S.A.P

I will repair the parts that you and others have addressed on the article Ford BA Falcon on Wednesday some time before 3:00pm Brisbane time.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 08:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

How do you use the semi-automatic javascript program.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See User:AndyZ/peerreviewer#Installation for full details on how to install the JS program. OSX 06:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What else

Is the article Ford BA Falcon close to be nominated for good article status?!?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for editing my article, if you wnat me to edit any car articles please tell me.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Holden VE Clay Model.jpg image

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. VectorD 02:59, 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 OSX 06:10, 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. VectorD 08:03, 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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:26, 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 OSX 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon

Some improvements are now featured in the Ford BA Falcon article, you can check it.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 07:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then

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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great

It is great that in some time the Holden VE Commodore article may be a featured article, finally everyone will be able to see what Australian cars are made of!!!!Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore rework

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. VectorD 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Following up

Are you planning to pursue any other car articles, if you are I can help you with it. Please leave your comment on my talk page.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Special Award for OSX from Senators

		The Minor Barnstar
		message SenatorsTalk | Contribs 02:55, 13 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. --DeLarge 10:52, 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 Cyr 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi i

Regarding your edits to the above article...

• 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, --DeLarge 11:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Holden New Zealand

Sure thing, Holden New Zealand is now the article title. Nice work on Holden VE Commodore by the way. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Flip 2D

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)

CVG release dates

Well, what about the other GTA Series, like GTA San Andres? the dates are with a flag too. Yoosq 13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Message replied to on User talk:Yoosq. OSX 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things

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.

The second thing is, if you want any help from me don’t hesitate to tell me.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar OSX, I really appreciate it. Congratulations on persevering and getting Holden VE Commodore up to FA status. Cheers. VectorD 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Holden

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-HB4026 07:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

		Excellent User Page Award
		I Senators, hereby award you with Excellent User Page Award, for a professional layout and design. Senators 06:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am giving you this award because your user page is well set out. You can put it on your userpage.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 07:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Senators. Feel free to modify and have it as your own if you wish. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Holden Captiva wikitable

{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)

Model	Year	Engine	Power	Torque	Transmission
SX	2006	3.2 L Alloytec V6	169 kW (227 hp)	297 N•m (219 ft•lbf)	5-speed automatic
CX		2.0 L Turbodiesel I4	112 kW (150 hp)	320 N•m (236 ft•lbf)	5-speed manual
LX					5-speed automatic

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 Keane 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this what you want?

Model	Year	Engine	Power	Torque	Transmission
SX	2006	3.2 L Alloytec V6	169 kW (227 hp)	297 N•m (219 ft•lbf)	5-speed automatic
CX					5-speed manual
		2.0 L Turbodiesel I4	112 kW (150 hp)	320 N•m (236 ft•lbf)
LX					5-speed automatic

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)

Request

Hi, I need to ask you a favour about those wikipedia advertising boards you helped create. Would you be able to create a part on The soft drinks wikiproject?. Thanks. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, (Image:Qxz-ad42.gif) if you have any concerns please let me know. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fonts for ads

What fonts do you use for the ads, because I am making one for the fraternities/sororities wikiproject. Thanks! Real96 15:53, 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)

Image:Qxz-ad42.gif

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 – Gurch 15:59, 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-HB4026 08:32, 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-HB4026 08:56, 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-HB4026 09:47, 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, GTHO 11:39, 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.

If I can help out at all with any of this please let me know. Cheers GTHO 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I will have a look at it. Cheers, GTHO 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have had a go at the tables and the text. See what you think. Regards, GTHO 08:26, 12 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)

I have access to the September & October 1971 Modern Motor magazines which make the point about a Statesman (at that time) not being a Holden. I have the HQ & HJ Statesman brochures and soft copies of the HX and WB Statesman brochures. I have the book "Aussie Cars" (© 1987 Marque Publishing Company) which has articles on the "1971 GM-H Statesman" and the "1980 GM-H Statesman WB". I also have the 1990 HOLDEN VQ Statesman & 1990 VQ HOLDEN Caprice brochure. Between these publications I think we would have it covered. GTHO 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF

Hey, Do you have some sort of problem?

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)

Thanks

Thank you for your edits towards the List of Statesman vehicles article. I am currently doing school exams which means my edits will be down, but in a few days I will be back editing like crazy.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon picture

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.

File:Ford BA Falcon XT 02.jpg

Edited

File:Ford BA Falcon XT 01.jpg

Non-edited

Please chose which one is better than tell me on my talk page.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

File:Ford BA Falcon XT 03.jpg

I have edited it a bit for you on Photoshop. Harrison-HB4026 09:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford Falcon

Hi, the article is going good but I think that we should make a checklist of what needs to be done. Harrison-HB4026 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Copied from Talk: Ford Falcon

This article is being assessed but before that happens we need to make a checklist of what needs to be done.

1.  Not done All of the sections of the article need to have several references from credible websites.
2.  Not done All or most of the sections (earlier models if possible) need to have pictures.
3.  Not done Every model needs to have a main article.
4.  Not done All of the article needs to be thouroughly checked for spelling and grammar.
5.  Not done A section or template needs be made for all of the Ford Falcon models.
6.  Not done More links need to be created in the "See Also" section (e.g. Ford Australia).
7.  Not done The ED Falcon section needs to be expanded.
8.  Not done All of the main model articles need to be over Start quality.

Please add more if needed. Harrison-HB4026 09:35, 16 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.

1.  Not done The entire article needs to reference each and every fact from credible sources.
2.  Not done An image is needed for each significant model (not just minor cosmetic updates).
3.  Not done If a section becomes to long, it should probably be split into a separate article (e.g. EA Falcon).
4.  Not done The entire article needs to be copyedited for instances of bad prose, poor spelling and grammar, wikilinks, etc.
5.  Not done The lead must more adequately summarise the article body.
6.  Not done More links need to be created in the "See also" section (e.g. Ford Australia).
7.  Not done The article should be revamped enough so it can receive a B-class or GA-class rating.
8.  Not done The exports section needs to be slimmed down in some areas, and expanded in others. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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-HB4026 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford Falcon

How do you upload pics from Flickr? (e.g lisensing how to do it etc.)

Harrison-HB4026 06:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

VE Commodore front page?

When does the Holden VE Commodre article get's it's place on the front page? Please answer this question on my talk page.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

help

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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:53, 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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:42, 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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:53, 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".

• CAN I PUT THE TEMPLATE ON THE FORD BA FALCON ARTICLE PLEASE ANSWER.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Dreamy 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

Do you need any help with any article at the current time? I am able to work on anything related to Wikipedia.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:20, 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-HB4026 09:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, under the section "July 16 - Holden VE Commodore..." OSX (talk • contributions) 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There we are, hopefully that sounds appropriate. Harrison-HB4026 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

New Falcon 'Orion'

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?

Thanks Harrison-HB4026 08:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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-HB4026 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Harrison, I cannot quite see what your on about, could you please rephrase that? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I just realised the answer:) Harrison-HB4026 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Templates

Why is there two GA templates on the BA Falcon talk page? Please explain.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:35, 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?

Harrison-HB4026 11:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

An extra message

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.

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for the wonderful work you have done to the Ford BA Falcon article, it has been a long time but finally it is a Good Article, Thank you very much to get it there. SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

• I believe in the holy sprit,
• No needs to fear it just reveal it,
• He lives in heaven,
• That‘s a 24 seven,
• Check the bible,
• John 2:11.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		This is for all of the work that you have do (and have already done) for the Ford Falcon article. Thankyou. Harrison-HB4026 02:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S Senators has one too.

Wow, two barnstars in one day, now that is a rare event. Cheers Harrison. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Username Change

I have now changed my username to HarrisonB. Thanks User: HarrisonB 01:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(HB4026)

Five pillars

Salam, Thanks a lot.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Holden GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

holden ve commodore front page

When your article (Holden VE Commodore) goes on to the front page it will get a lot more visitors and more edits, please be ready.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best Senators, but I am pretty sure that others will get there before me most of the time. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your highly extensive efforts with Holden VE Commodore, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. With you, that article would not have made it to FA status. Good job! --Sharkface217 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar Sharkface217, I really do appreciate it. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch your visitors

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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:20, 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)

Peer review holden Commodore

I have nominated the Holden Commodore article for a peer review to find out what is wrong with the article, so it can be classed as a Good Article.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 07:18, 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)

Yes OSX, this going to be my next little article to fix and get to good article status.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AU Falcon Non encyclopaedic language

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. Greglocock 12:28, 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. Greglocock 01:11, 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. Greglocock 10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What else?

What do you think needs to be fixed in the Holden Commodore article? I am ready to fix it.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations, and desperately. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

10-4 I will get on to it.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

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? HarrisonB Speak! 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. Greglocock 10:38, 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|folks  09:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that's {{subst:ncd}} when it has a different name at commons. -- But|seriously|folks  09:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

HB4026

I take that you have noticed my username change? HarrisonB Speak! 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since you've already told me once before, but I do appreciate that you went to the trouble to remind me just in case. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory

Just wanted to make you aware: [3] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it ready yet?

What other things need fixing on the Holden Commodore article before I nominate it for Good Article status?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Are all the facts backed-up? Come back to me when they are, and properly! OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF ?

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!Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:57, 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)

• 10-4 I understand I have been having a bad week, High school is hard.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• What parts in the article need references?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:01, 29 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)

• ease up turbo-Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: AIL Storm

Hi OSX,

I've replied to your comments on Talk:AIL Storm. Tewfik^Talk 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mitsutech banner.jpg

Cheers for fixing this for me.

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. --DeLarge 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Commodore

I have checked the Holden Commodore article and I think we have got enough references, is it only you that disagree with me?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 03:43, 1 August 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)

• 10-4 I will keep on focusSenators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ford

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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:05, 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)

Holden Commodore GA?

What is stopping the Commodore article from being a GA or even FA? I am willing to help on it. Thanks HarrisonB Speak! 01:37, 6 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)

• I have copyedited the VZ Commodore section in the Holden Commodore article.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I have someone in mind for the copyedit. HarrisonB Speak! 04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have found some info on the VN 'Dore NVH fix, would it work?

Link [4]

HarrisonB Speak! 04:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the statement all together, since I could not find a source that mentioned the high torque characteristics. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship for Senators

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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:15, 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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal: Australian Motorvehicles

What do you think of the idea? Please express your opinion here. HarrisonB Speak! 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A Personal Question

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 HarrisonB Speak! 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. HarrisonB Speak! 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog contest

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the GAC backlog elimination drive! ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review Holden WM Caprice

Should I start a peer review for the WM Caprice article?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:11, 14 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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Senators

Thanks for taking him down a peg, I was quite offended when I saw that message pop up. HarrisonB Speak! 07:05, 21 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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 08:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is good that you are taking responsibility for your actions Senators. Doing this will only get yourself closer to adminship. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aurion midsize or fullsize?

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.

Alphabeta777 11:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:24, 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. VectorD 09:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aurion is NOT a mid-size car. It won the Best Large Car award so therefore it is a large car. HarrisonB Speak! 01:10, 25 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.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:38, 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. VectorD 04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK then, so should we just name it a large car or should we continue this more?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:04, 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 Alphabeta777 13:05, 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. HarrisonB Speak! 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? HarrisonB Speak! 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. VectorD 11:25, 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.

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-size :

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.

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_car :

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.

Also, the FCAI gives a very loose definition of what a large car is http://www.fcai.com.au/sales.php/2001/12/criteria.html

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. Alphabeta777 14:29, 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. VectorD 06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can we settle this dispute and just call it a large car? I think it would be correct to do so.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:29, 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? Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:01, 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. VectorD 08:33, 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 Alphabeta777 09:08, 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...) VectorD 10:10, 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. Greglocock 12:31, 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. Alphabeta777 07:57, 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. VectorD 11:09, 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 -

Let's make a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senators (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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. Greglocock 22:18, 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. VectorD 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)