User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2020

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

Please join the discussion at Talk:Daihatsu Taft (offroader)

Good morning. Can you please join the the discussion at Talk:Daihatsu Taft (offroader) regarding the article's title change? Thank you. 2001:E00:25:19F7:240B:C891:1C7F:F69D (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Uses of VIN

It is not unique to VIN but it can also be used for the same. So what's wrong in mentioning it in the article? I guess it's important to say for what something can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalnomadiclife (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to discus it on the article talk page where all inter4ested parties can see and contribute. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  14:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you look at a move?

Hello. We recently "met" and you were polite to me. I am looking for some "new eyes" on a truck move and I would appreciate it if you would take a peek. Any or no position, just a quick glance?

I do know that you are Australian, will know the names, and probably will have a different POV. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stepho, would you feel eligible to close that proposed move? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Stepho-wrs

Thank you for creating Daihatsu Taft (F60).

User:Dmehus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This is a good redirect you created. I've added the rcats {{R from brand name}} and {{R from product name}}. You may wish to install Archer as a great script created by MJL that aids in categorizing redirects.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dmehus}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Doug Mehus T·C 01:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.  Stepho  talk  10:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused.

Hello, But I don't understand what you mean by an "automated manual transmission" (AMT) being an oxymoron. I would consider "semi-automatic" erroneous if referring to the mechanisms of the transmission. Nothing about it is automatic, except it being able to operate in an "automatic" mode. It still has a clutch, but that's automated, and operated by computer-controlled electrohydraulics. "Semi-automatic/manual" might be correct for the mode that the driver can operate the gear-shifting in, but if referring to the transmissions and it's internals, it's not "automatic," or "semi-automatic" for that reason. It's automated, and is a manual transmission with an automated clutch, so that makes it an automated (computer-controlled) electrohydraulic manual transmission.

If you have any other queries, please let me know.

Regards, Michael. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davism0703 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place so that all interested parties can follow it. See Talk:Semi-automatic_transmission#Automated_manual.  Stepho  talk  03:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-automatic new section w/Automated-clutch manual, and page layout.

Stepho,

You did say on the talk page you liked the idea of a new sub-section within the existing Semi-automatic page, explaining the operation of various automated clutches, and how they're actuated. I personally like the layout on the DCT page, how it includes a section for the "2 Overview," but then under that, two smaller subsections, labeled; 2.1 Clutch types and 2.2 Clutch installation. I believe we could do something like that on the current Semi-automatic transmission page, and have different subsections for the different automated clutches. Do you think more should be added to the Electrohydraulic manual transmission page? I think it's a little bland right now, albeit speaking of the clutch operation (slightly), it doesn't really mention anything else, besides the Use in road cars section and the Applications section. I sure thing we could expand on that a little bit, that's my proposition. What do you think? I just find that particular page to be a little bland and empty, and it doesn't really explain much about the electrohydraulic clutch actuation, albeit being on the page's title name, Go figure!

I still find Ferrari's "Valeo" automated transmission for the Ferrari Mondial T a little weird, as the traditional H-pattern gated shifter was kept, albeit having a clutch, the clutch was electromechanically and hydraulically actuated, every time the driver moved the gearshift position, the clutch would disengage, the re-engage when moved into the appropriate gear position. And also, this transmission didn't even have an automatic mode like some of the newer cars, where the computer takes over the gear-shifting and clutch actuation, it literally could only be operated in that "clutchless-manual" mode. I guess you could call it "semi-automatic transmission" or the (partially) erroneous "clutchless manual transmission," or the slightly more correct "Automated-clutch manual transmission." Davism0703 (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not answering earlier - I wanted to think a bit first.
Yes, the format at Dual-clutch transmission could be used at Electrohydraulic manual transmission. I personally prefer to concentrate on the types of mechanism rather than the manufacturer but I won't make too much of a fuss about that.
For the Valeo, that is exact what a semi-automatic transmission does - it does some of the gearbox activation while leaving the actual choice of gears up to the driver. "clutchless manual transmission" of course refers to the view of the driver - even though a clutch is still present inside the transmission assembly.  Stepho  talk  00:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Toyota Corona XX

Hi Stepho, I acquired a book titled What car is that? : in Australia & New Zealand and have been using it here and there. It is a bit disappointing as a reference work; contains very little actual information and mixes up metric and imperial horsepower completely while often converting them to kW incorrectly, and has literally no information whatsoever on the NZ market. I noticed that the Corona XX is mentioned in WP as having received the Japanese-made 21R-C engine, but the book makes it very clear that all Coronas aside from the liftback are fitted with the Holden Misfire engine. Who is wrong? Did Toyota change the XX engine sometime in 1982? Was David Boyce referring pre-release information? Is everyone confused? Thankful for your assistance.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm only relying on memory but most Australian sold Corona's of that generation had the Holden Misfire, er Starfire, engine - a much unloved engine but made the Australian manufactured content high enough to qualify for government discounts. However, the RT132 liftback had the Japanese made engine and cost more due to government charges. I don't remember the Corona XX being sold here new, although many came in later as second hand grey imports. Pedr Davis had a few pages in his book "The Long Run - Toyota - The first 40 years in Australia". The section title is "Starfire fiasco - which says it all.  Stepho  talk  08:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Your memories confirm Boyce's text, good enough to change the article. The XX was definitely built in Australia: "The Corona XX...has everything to make life easier and help you forget the fuel crisis and your big old six-cylinder transport."  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems like your research is better than my memories :) All good!  Stepho  talk  00:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

AUTOSAR

That's a pretty gross exaggeration, and the article is still terrible. There isn't a single secondary source in that entire thing. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy to talk about it on the talk page of the article.  Stepho  talk  11:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

History of the metre

Hello, you just reverted my contribution in which I explained how the metre was used in international scientific work notably both by Gauss for is work on Earth's magnetic field and in the field of geodesy. The statement about the use of the metre by the British Association for the Advancement of Science is clearly missleading. Charles Inigo (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you repeat this on the article talk page so that other editors can also see the discussion. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  18:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of wikilinks to relevant metallic elements in article "Gas turbine" ?

Hi Stepho-wrs,

You reverted a minor edit of mine wiki-linking references to two relevant metals in the article "Gas turbine".

High-strength/weight ratio metals like titanium are essential to the manufacture of modern high performance aircraft gas turbine "jet engines", where weight is a critical factor . This article already contains wikilinks for other less significant metals (rhenium, ruthenium) that are used in trace amounts in high temperature alloys for turbine blades, etc.

I have reviewed WP:OVERLINK and it appears to me that these links do not meet any of the criteria in the sub-section "What generally should not be linked".

Why do you think this "overlinking"?

iolar 00:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iolar~enwiki (talk • contribs)

Hi, WP:OVERLINK has 2 clauses that cover this.
  • "Everyday words understood by most readers in context"
  • "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar."
Most readers will know what aluminium is, therefore this should not be linked. Titanium is less common, although a lot of people know about titanium hip joints and implants. I won't object if you add titanium back in.
Don't forget to sign talk page comments with your username by putting 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.  Stepho  talk  10:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There are missing information about a possibility of VIN number checking by some free service.

Hello, VIN checking is not only American thing. I have added also a service that is able to check VIN for EU & other cars too. here & here. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.163.1.66 (talk • contribs)

I see your point. However, we do try to prevent promoting one company above others - especially when the website exists mainly to bring business for their own products. Bring it up on the talk page about having a section for VIN checking. However, we would be unlikely to support an actual link to a particular site.  Stepho  talk  10:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarity

Hey, I forgot to remove the "Reply to" and it pinged you several times I guess. I've been trying to follow what you suggested to me at Lexus LS, so I don't disagree with you, but... I wholeheartedly agree and I am following your example, as it's the correct method. Carmaker1 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem.  Stepho  talk  04:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stratoliners

Many thanks for your work tidying the refs. I do notice, however, that a couple have not quite succeeded. Clearly if I knew how to check them myself, I would already have done so. Therefore could you have another look at that page and resolve the 2 niggles please.Protozoon (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Not sure what you meant about the 2 niggles. I haven't completed the job yet - I normally do a handful of references in a session and then do some more over the next few days - depending on how much real-life intrudes :)  Stepho  talk  07:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes in financial data of GM and Ford Motor Co.

The source of those changes is the same company financial report (Form K-10) in each article plus 2020 Fortune 500 and Yahoo Finance. 2020 Fortune 500 and Yahoo Finance say: Ford Motor net income was $47 million, because in the Form K-10 says: net income $84 million, but net income(loss) attributable to Ford Motor Co.: $47 million and it is the correct net income. The current FM operating income in the article [-$315 million) is wrong. K-10 in the article says: [$574 million], then where is "-$315 million" ?. In both articles I changed the "total equity" that was correct for the total "stockholders equity" or "shareholders equity" value that is the equity used in the finance publications, not the "total equity", but I accept my error because the item in each article is "total equity". The correct form for negative financial numbers is: ex. $-68 million not -$68 million (Source: publications about finance). I will fix the errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitholov (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For the unsung slog of background maintenance: you know, the sort of stuff you don't notice when done right, only if done wrong... Protozoon (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very kind of you.  Stepho  talk  23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

limited slip differential

cited reference (donnon) is a convicted industry liar) - not correct to cite a reference such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.3.205 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


If this is true (and I don't know either way), then you should raise it on the talk page of the article. That way we know that you have a legitimate complaint. At the moment your actions look like those of the typical vandal, just trying to waste our time. With proper discussion we have more chance at getting to the truth.
Don't forget to sign each talk page comment with 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end.  Stepho  talk  00:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

no worries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.3.205 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT

PLEASE listen to me, you MUST NOT delete my edits, they are perfectly acceptable and valid, you are extremely stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.78.222 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Such eloquance! You have made the case to ignore your arguments very well.  Stepho  talk  20:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

...for reverting my intemperately-worded edit on the Ricardo talk page. Hateful speech is never acceptable, but I'd just like to explain what had just happened. I felt a headache coming on, so I popped a few paracetamols. I was in the middle of cooking supper, and began sharpening my favourite knife. Then I painfully stubbed my toe and in a fit of annoyance drove my knife downwards into the chopping board. Unfortunately the knife was in my left hand with the blade uppermost (with the sharpener in my right) and my thumb slipped past the end of the handle. The rest of my hand followed through, and since I suffer from Dupuytren's contracture (the pics on WP don't look like mine) the rest of my fingers remained curled around the knife. The newly-sharpened blade sliced a considerable way through my little finger. "Oh well," (or similar) I thought, "at least I've taken the pain killers already." In the rush to get to the tap I tripped over the cat which sent me sprawling towards the sink, spraying blood all over the dishes and the chopped vegetables. I rinsed my finger under the tap, bound it with a cloth and held my arm upright. "I think I'll sit down," I said to myself, since there was little pain and little point in calling an ambulance. To take my mind off things I remembered a conversation I had had earlier in the day with someone whose dad used to work for Ricardo's in Surrey back in the 1950s, and decided to have a glance at the WP article: you know the rest. I might have a look at the article again some time, but the sentence still sounds it was written by someone from the corporate press department familiar with Genesis 38:9. I've also cleaned up the kitchen so it no longer looks like a murder scene. MinorProphet (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries.  Stepho  talk  20:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Toyota HiMedic for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. U1 quattro TALK 02:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

mustang shelby name corrections

both the the gt350 and gt500 have been known as the cobra not just the roadster model

http://www.classiccarstodayonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Ford-1968-Mustang-Shelby-GT500-KR-ad-a1-729x1024.jpg

other sources Shelby American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.148.126 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This entire paragraph is nonsense on the celica article.

I own a stock 2005 Celica GTS. The red line starts at 7800rpm. The limiter is between 8300rpm and 8400rpm. This is a stock, non-modified car. The information in this paragraph is false and there is 0 evidence to back it up, thus it should be deleted or changed. I'm fairly certain there is no model year celica GTS that came with the rev limiter set to 7800rpm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.9.63 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

What you just described for your 2005 model year GTS agree with what the article says about the 2000,2001,2003,2004 model years. However, you didn't change the 2005 model year information but instead broke the 2000,2001,2003,2004 model years. Since there is no supporting references for the 2002 and 2005 model years being different, I am quite happy if we just change the sentence to be "For the 2000 – 2005 GT-S model years, the rev limiter is set to around 8200–8300 rpm." The part about the 2002 and 2005 model years can be dropped.
Don't forget to sign your talk page messages by putting ~~~~ at the end of the message so that we know who said what.  Stepho  talk  06:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly that ENTIRE paragraph is a bunch of conjecture and nonsense. Per more research, the rev limiter may be 7800rpm on some automatic transmission models. Lift is not universally kicking in at 6200rpm either, some models have it at 6000, some at 6200, and others at 6500. Even your change doesn't really reflect reality and there's still no sources. -209.6.9.63 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)mike

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Stonkaments (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of Lexus ES (XV70)

A tag has been placed on Lexus ES (XV70) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 182.30.205.201 (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Much apologies

This was my first edit to any wiki article and I was sure it was a production car, I had just seen Nico Rosberg get one and assumed that it was available to the public, which I think it still is based off their website. Again, sorry if I made a mess, I'll try again on something I'm more sure on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.183.52 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Please keep contributing.  Stepho  talk  11:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Overlinking in article Gas Turbine ?

Hi. Back in April 2020 you reverted a minor edit I made to the article Gas Turbine (in the subsection "Creep") removing the wiki-linking I had added of the first reference to each of the metals aluminium and titanium on the grounds of being contrary to the WP:OVERLINK recommendations from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.

I have reviewed the latter, particularly sections 1.2.2 on overlinking, and the example in 1.2.5, and can see no obvious specific contravention. While it might be argued that "alumin(i)um" is an "everyday word", titanium certainly is not, and other alloying elements that are relevant to the subtopic of creep[-resistance] (such as rhenium and ruthenium) are already wiki-linked in the same sub-section.

While aluminium may be a common metal, most readers' only direct and conscious experience of it will be with Aluminium foil and disposable food containers, which gives no sense of its relevant characteristics in the context of the sub-section's topic.

Can you please explain?

Iolar~enwiki (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To me, both words are common enough. But on reflection, I think you are right about titanium. I have no objection if you link titanium.
I find it's usually best to raise these types of objections on the article's own talk page so that other editors can also join the discussion.  Stepho  talk  22:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Toyopet Master

I am trying to add some relevant Masterline content to this article, more eyes are always welcome. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that earlier today. The Masterline Ribbon was totally new to me - kind of nice to find new things occasionally :) I already put in most of what I know, but I'll keep an eye on it.  Stepho  talk  03:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I have a few period references to the Master Ribbon, but I wonder whether any were actually built. Several of the illustrations have distinct "Masterline" text on the front fenders. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Move Title

Hi Stepho,

You recently replied to my message on the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week page regarding possibly moving the title so it is just Mercede-Benz Fashion, as the majority of information on the page is about Mercedes-Benz Fashion, who also organise the fashion weeks. I was wondering if you had heard back about moving the title? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmasmallwoodKO (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody objected, so I did the move.  Stepho  talk  20:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Plug-in electric vehicle into Battery electric vehicle

If you are interested please discuss at Talk:Battery_electric_vehicle#Merger_proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Plug-in electric vehicle

Hi Stepho-wrs. I though you might be interested in participating in this discussion. Cheers.-Mariordo (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The Plug-in electric vehicle—has been proposed for merging with Battery electric vehicle. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion.

Cosmetic Edits & Your Issue with Dashes.

Hello, as stated per MOS:YEARRANGE – or {{ndash}} should be used to separate year ranges. In addition per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#To separate parts of an item in a list, "Spaced en dashes are sometimes used between parts of list items." Also, you're pension to change {{ubl}} to {{Unbulleted list}} is a cosmetic edit and shouldn't be just in spite your preference or preconception that one is better than the other. Please stop "controlling" the Toyota/Lexus/Scion articles, you don't own these articles. ThePersecuted (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@ThePersecuted: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#To separate parts of an item in a list says to use spaced en dashes. However, it does not say whether that en dash is in the form of –, {{ndash}}, the unicode character – (my preferred form) or any other particular form. In fact, its own examples use the Unicode character. So I'm not sure why you think it argues against my action.
The – form is incredibly awkward for most editors to read and understand. It clutters up the wiki mark-up, makes it hard to read, hard to understand and hides the actual text. Far from being a cosmetic edit, my edit made the wiki mark-up simpler and easier to understand without losing anything. Some people criticise it as hard to type (ie, its not on most people's keyboard) but it is available on the insert line slightly underneath the summary line and is often available via cut and paste from nearby text. As a fall-back, the – can be used but that should be a fall-back, not the primary use. Changing an already typed in "–" to – helps no one but hinders many.
Similarly for your excessive use of   where it is not needed. Where you inserted it near the beginning of lines (ie where a browser would never split the line), it served no useful purpose but made it made the mark-up much harder to read and understand. For cases where you inserted it further into a paragraph (ie, where a browser might split the line), I left it in the   form.
Also similarly, {{ubl}} means nothing to a new editor. {{unbulleted list}} may still be a bit cryptic but at least they have some clue that it is to do with a list that doesn't have bullets. Why force them to use the cryptic form when there is a form that is so much easier to understand.
MOS:YEARRANGE admittedly does not seem to support my argument. I believe that this is because of an oversight by the people that wrote it since they didn't explicitly disallow it. To make sure, we can raise a topic on its talk page.
I know of no other part of MOS that says whether – or the Unicode – character is preferred. I watch and sometimes participate in various MOS discussions. Every time the subject comes up it ends indeterminately, leaving both forms as valid.
As for the claim of me trying to own articles, my history speaks for itself. I aim to improve articles whenever possible. All articles I work on are shared works with other editors. Sometimes the other editors have preferences that are different to mine but unless that preference is decidedly bad then I leave it alone. If it is decidedly bad (in my opinion) and the other editor feels strongly about it then I initiate a discussion. If you feel that this is trying to own articles then you should call in an administrator.
This is the second time you have blamed me for owning articles - see Talk:Lexus_GS#ubl_vs_unbulleted_list. You make changes according to your preferences. Then when somebody dares to change it back to the other way you come in all guns blazing, claiming all manner of ill-will. In the previous case, I initiated a discussion topic - which you declined to participate in. Which one of us is try to own things?
And lastly, your unfounded claims against my personal character violate WP:CIVIL.  Stepho  talk  11:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I have asked the question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unicode_ndash_character_in_year_ranges. Your contribution there is welcome.  Stepho  talk  11:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Based on this edit (and this), FAW Toyota was a redlink before it happened to be a redirect target from a page move. Regards. 182.30.141.203 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. At the moment FAW Toyota is the actual article and Sichuan FAW Toyota Motor is the redirect. From the history, Andra Febrian did some renaming on it after you but before me. All good now.  Stepho  talk  10:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

List Of Toyota Vehicles

Hello! On this article, you have left a comment saying that "That's not how we do the links." I believe this comment is talking about the cars Toyota 86 Shooting Brake, Toyota Concept-i, Toyota Concept-i Walk, and Toyota Concept-i Ride, all of which I have linked to pages. Could you please help me understand the correct way to insert that link, as I am unsure of what I am doing wrong. Thanks! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I appreciate the work you are putting in. There's just a bit a of learning curve to get the details rights.
If you go to List of Toyota vehicles, sort the concept cars by year (click on the up/down arrows near "year" at the top of the column), then click on Toyota Camatte Setsuna. This takes you to the section within [Toyota concept vehicles (2010–2019)]] but if you then go to the top of the article you will see it says "(Redirected from Toyota Camatte Setsuna)". Click on "Toyota Camatte Setsuna" and it will take you to what's called a redirect. Click on edit and have a look. Highlight the details and copy it - but don't click on the publish button.
Now go back to List of Toyota vehicles and find a red link that you wish to point to a new section within one of the concept articles. Click on it and it will create a page for you. Paste in what you copied from the Setsuna redirect. Change "Camatte Setsuna" to the name of the new section. Click on publish. Make sure that you are creating the redirect for the new car and not modifying the redirect for the Setsuna it's easy to get confused).
Go back to List of Toyota vehicles and reload/refresh the article (F5 on the browser if it is still open in another tab). The link should no longer be red but should now take you to the correct section for the new car.
Sounds a roundabout way to do it but it has many advantages. For us, it means that the car appears as a suggestion in the search box as the user types in a partial name and makes it much easier to link to from many articles. Most of the other concept cars are done this way. See WP:REDIRECT.  Stepho  talk  20:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question!!! I am going to go back and change my links. Please let me know if I am still doing it incorrectly. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am following your instructions, but when I go to the red link Toyota 86 Shooting Brake, I am unable to edit the article. What should I do? DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

When I go to List of Toyota vehicles (a nice freshly loaded copy) and click on the red shooting brake link it takes me to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_86_Shooting_Brake&action=edit&redlink=1
If the link was not red then you need to refresh the List of Toyota vehicles page (F5 will do this) so that you get the latest version where I undid your previous changes.
From the the new creation page, insert the following:
#REDIRECT [[Toyota concept vehicles (2010–2019)#Toyota 86 Shooting Brake]] [[Category:Toyota concept vehicles|Toyota 86 Shooting Brake]]
Do not add any text or details about the car. You will add those details to the section in Toyota concept vehicles (2010–2019).
You also broke the redirect for the Toyota Camatte Setsuna. You needed to make some (but not all) of these at Toyota 86 Shooting Brake instead. I have fixed the Setsuma redirect for you.  Stepho  talk  21:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I see the red link, but when I click on the red link Toyota 86 Shooting Brake, it brings me to the page with the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Toyota+86+Shooting+Brake, even if I click on the link you put, or if I reload my page DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like you don't have permission to create new articles yet. I'm about to go to work soon but I will do them for you tonight. After you've been here a while, then you will be given the extra abilities automatically (WP will let you know when it gives you more permissions/abilities).  Stepho  talk  22:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's fine...you don't have to work on them if you don't want to. I'll just wait until I have permission to edit articles. In the mean time, I will just add information on the cars to the concept vehicles pages and link them later. Thanks for all your help! DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've created the following redirects:

Thanks so much!!!!DestinationFearFan (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem.  Stepho  talk  04:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! I have created the redirect link for the Toyota EV2 and linked it to List of Toyota vehicles. Can you check if I linked it correctly? Hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Yesterday was quite busy, so I wasn't able to do much on WP then. Toyota EV2 is fine. The new entries in the articles should be in year order with each one separated by {{clear}} to keep the infoboxes within their own sections. Each section needs to written in our own words - copying directly from the references can be a copyright violation. See WP:COPYVIO. Otherwise, its looking good.  Stepho  talk  21:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Aright, thank you! DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Toyota Setsuna

Hello Stepho! I have created a new section under this page titled Toyota Setsuna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_concept_vehicles_(2010%E2%80%932019)#Setsuna). I was wondering if this section had enough information and reliable sources to be created into an article by itself. Could I hear your opinion on it? Thanks! (feel free to message me on my talk page instead) DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

From previous experience, the Setsuna info would be deleted as non-notable if put into its own article. That's a major reason why I gathered many concept cars together into one article. The Setsuna section is a little large compared to other sections but that's okay. Please remember to keep the entries in year order.  Stepho  talk 

Alright, got it. That makes sense. Thanks! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A bunny for you!

A bunny for you!
Some Cuteness. Thanks again for helping me with the Toyota articles! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
That's very kind of you. And of course, thank you for your own hard work on those same articles.  Stepho  talk  20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Danhausen

Based on the criteria for notability for a professional wrestler, would Danhausen not qualify? He is signed to a major American promotion (Ring of Honor) which is included in the list of promotions deemed to be notable. Please explain rationale for reversion. Interlaker (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What reversion? Can you give me some context about what you are talking about?  Stepho  talk  23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Look what I found

This is probably not the right place to post this, but I wish I had US$17K just sitting around... three doors!!! Although the crap overspray is killing me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the good ol' reliable Stout. Always dependable. Farmer's over here loved them. But there was a reason why the HiLux was considered luxury compared to the Stout. :)  Stepho  talk  04:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2020&oldid=1061671842"