User talk:Kierant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1: Page birth up until November 2006 (edited highlights!)
2: Staggered archiving up to June 2007
3: June–September 2007

Contents

[edit] Please read this before posting

To keep things running smoothly...

  • Please continue any conversation where it was started.
Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here;
I will have your talk page on my watchlist and will see when you have replied.
Obviously, existing conversations are best continued under existing headings.
If you would like to be aware of any reply, please ensure this page is on your own watch list.
  • As with all talk pages, please indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons.
  • You should sign your comments using four tildes ( ~~~~ ).

Many thanks to user Asterion from whose talk page the above wording was inspired.

This user assumes good faith.

[edit] Please do not edit above this point; begin new sections at the foot of the page

[edit] WP:BAH

Hi Kieran. WP:BAH was recently tagged as inactive, although, as I've been doing some BAH-related stuff, I removed the tag. Can we try and get it going again, or do we close it down?--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
well, it's interesting that the "to do" list is essentially about the project, rather than any articles within it. I think if we consider it to be a useful tool for developing and improving relevant articles, we should build a list of things which need to be done to articles; that would be a starting point for interested parties, and it would show whoever is concerned about the project being inactive, that the project members are actually active in those articles.
I'm certainly prepared to help with the articles we identify. I can't think of any offhand but I'll look through the "our articles" bit and see if anything stands out. (Well, I say "can't think of any"... there's always the thorny issue of the ampersand in Brighton and Hove - but I seem to always be in a minority about that one (I believe there should not be one in the article title) so I've left it alone recently.) – Kieran T (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue I (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! -- Noetic Sage 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Wallace

Taking on board what you've disclosed to me, I did not realise there was an on-going dispute between the for Comedian and the against Humorist, I am only too willing to revert back to Danny Wallace (humorist), sorry for any inconvenience and annoyance I may have imposed on you in your following of Danny Wallace's page. PoliceChief 14:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Wallace

Taking on board what you've disclosed to me, I did not realise there was an on-going dispute between the for Comedian and the against Humorist, I am only too willing to revert back to Danny Wallace (humorist), sorry for any inconvenience and annoyance I may have imposed on you in your following of Danny Wallace's page. PoliceChief 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you (Vauxhall Cavalier)

Thanks for tidying up the picture I uploaded. I don't like leaving things half done, but had to go out to collect one of the kids halfway through that one, and when I came back to it you'd already done what I had intended to do! Regards Charles01 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Real life, eh? ;-) It's great to see the various photos you've added recently — it seems very odd that we have so many once-common vehicles without illustrations. I hope we'll see more from you! – Kieran T (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Good to see some of them useful / appreciated, especially after yesterday splashing out indelicate quantities of pocket money on a better scanner (for the old 35 mm slides accumulated during my eccentrically focused adolescence) than the one I started with. I guess buying the cheapest one I could find back in the summer may have been a mistake. I think the shortage of illustrations, once the cars themselves have mostly rusted away, is at least partly down to the sensitivity of the copyright issues. I don't pretend to be a copyright expert, but having taken the picture oneself seems to be a relatively reliable 'solution' to the concerns of those who are / do. I hope. Charles01 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I bought myself a nice scanner a few months ago, too. I justified it as an "investment" since I'm planning to preserve all the old "family albums" — including a bunch of 35mm slides which are literally rotting away. I know I'll be coming across a similar... collection ...to the one you've got! – Kieran T (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
and I'm flattered by your comments about my picture of the second generation Cavalier. Though I confess I agree your judgement on this one: I hadn't taken in that the grainy shot was yours. AND I'm glad someone is watching out for my rogue apostrophes. My wife, who is Dutch and therefore knows the rules, is always telling me off about 'it's' and 'its' and in principal I know the rules perfectly well. And yet.... Charles01 21:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LDV Accounts

Kierant I have the Company accounts for LDV (which were downloaded off the Companies House website) and is considered public domain. How do I upload the file which will verify the figures? I've uploaded it but not sure how to link it to the LDV article.

Vanfan666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.64.75 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the normal thing to do is put it in as a reference. The syntax for the quick way of doing it is shown on the line below. (There are others but this is simplest.)
This represents the text you're providing the reference for.<ref>[http://full-URL-to-file/ Brief description of the file, mentioning that it is a PDF]</ref>
Then at the end of the article, presuming there's already a references section containing either {{Reflist}} or <references/>, your new reference will be automatically listed with the right number in the sequence of references.
All of this means you don't have to upload the PDF to anywhere in particular, and there's no worries about copyright at all even if the file in question were copyright, because you've linked to it rather than copied it. – Kieran T (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kierant The problem is that the documents come off the Companies House website which they charge £1. In their terms and conditions, copyright isn't broken because it's a statutory document and is considered in the public domain. Anyone has access to it and can copy it. It's like posting a birth certificate or marriage certificate on the Internet, it's considered public domain. Can you verify the copyright issue? The information is from www.companieshouse.gov.uk, which all their records is public domain. Thanks Vanfan666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanfan666 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Then just link to it anyway — via the last public (free) page with a link to or information on how to access the document. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Convenience links. This is a reliable source. But there's no essential requirement that it be available directly as a hyperlink; if that were the case, we wouldn't be able to use books and periodicals or indeed radio programmes as references. Checking of the document is possible using the information you could provide. The alternative of uploading the PDF somewhere makes me uncomfortable; even though it's in the public domain, there are always problems with unilaterally republishing things, even if as simple as the fact that the copy won't be updated with any corrections which may be needed. – Kieran T (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue II (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue III (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! Noetic Sage 19:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Trucks

You had earlier expressed interest in such a project. Please note that the project is now active. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Paper tiger film-soundtrack fair-use.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paper tiger film-soundtrack fair-use.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to this bot / note to anyone concerned: the image data has now been updated with a link to the film, which was named, but not via a Wikilink. – Kieran T (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notchbacks

Dear Kieran

When I started tentatively entering textual bits to wiki-car articles, I noticed you carefully removing Americanisms such as (in the case of my own contributions) 'sedan' and 'hood'. I don't have any strong views about that sort of thing, having spent too long working for Americans to have always a clear distinction in my own head between British and American English. I know that in principal one is expected to avoid mixing the two languages (per the Chomski definition of a language) in a single anglophone wiki entry, though in the case of these car articles that may sometimes be easier said than done if only because of the number of different folks contributing usefully per article.

Although I don't have strong views of my own, my weakly held view is that where the article will mostly be read by American-English speakers it makes sense to stick with sedan and where it will mostly be read by British-English speakers, courtesy says you should stick with saloon. Does that make sense to you? (English speakers interested in Japanese cars will more often be users of American English, I guess.) The problem here arises with certain continental European manufacturers - well, German and Swedish really - whose entries attract (I suspect) relatively large levels of interest in both UK and USA. I don't really have an answer to that dilemma. Obviously there are more Americans on the planet than Brits, but there are still plenty of European countries where - arguably for reasons of quasi-xenophobic snobbism - they think British-English 'better' than American-English. (Incidentally, on the subject of quasi xenophobic snobbism, I recognise it also in myself despite (or possibly because of) having been born in England with a grand mother born in New York.) All this by way of preamble.

As far as I remember, we've been talking about hatchbacks in England since we discovered the Renault 5. (Maybe the Renault 16 or 4, but my memory isn't so crystal clear that far back.) But what about fastbacks and notchbacks? I think fastback works in British-English without raising a twitch. But notchback? I first noticed the reference to fastbacks and notchbacks in Car and Driver magazine (a US fortnightly car magazine) from, I think, 1966. It was in the context of a full page ad for the Volkswagen Type 3 which was available (albeit in different markets and at different times) as a notchback and as a fastback (and indeed as a 'squareback' Variant, but I don't want to 'go there' with this question).

The reason I sometimes find myself wanting to use 'notchback' is that there is an inconsistency apparent in wiki (and in daily usage) about whether a hatchback is a saloon/sedan. Or not. Or a hatchback sedan/saloon. (And the Americans also write about something called a liftback.) Leaving aside the difference between American and English usage, there are cars that barely (or never) made it across the Atlantic. How should one differentiate between a Renault 5 and a Renault 7, a Fiat Tempra and a Tipo or between a Talbot Solara and the hatchback equivlant with all it's names over time? So that's why I occasionally catch myself wanting to write notchback even for British English. What are your thoughts, please?

Sorry I still haven't mastered succinct. And forgive me if somewhere this was all hammered out three years ago: I wasn't 'here' back then. Incidentally, (and probably you know this already, but I still think it's delicious) Chomski says a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Charles. You're absolutely right that this has been hammered away at before, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was hammered out though, since the manual of style still leaves a few questions unanswered. You've hit upon the main one yourself: where there is no obvious national variety of English. I find it preposterous that we go with "the variant first used in the article" because to me this is thus about the editor, rather than the subject matter, which goes against most of the other rules and the ethos of Wikipedia.
To address this, I once proposed that we look to the major version of the English language used in the model's home market. So, for example, a Fiat car, made in Italy, would use British English because Italy is in the European Union and the only version of English which is an official language for that entity is the British one. This survived in the manual of style as something which caused no offence for several months, until a debate between a very small number of users resulted in a weak consensus to remove it. Such is the nature of Wiki democracy! I accepted, and still do, that it wasn't a perfect solution, but I must admit that the present lack of any solution really irritates me!
You're also right that we must all be very wary of any form of cultural imperialism or snobbery. My favourite cautionary tale is the history of the word "tire". In British English it's "tyre", but the US form has not, in fact, simplified the English form, as some might suggest. In fact, "tire" is the Old English form, and the "y" crept in along with a trademark for a pneumatic variant!
Ultimately we just have to go with Wikipedia's rules, and change them in the manual of style discussions, not unilaterally in Project Automobiles. Thus we use the national variety of the product's home country, although whether that means manufacturer or manufacturing location remains unaddressed.
Right, there's my own preamble out of the way. Now to the practical point of notchbacks et al. It is indeed a minefield. The original Vauxhall Astra gives me the worst nightmares: the "E" trim level had a boot, all others had hatches, and they all looked the same until the aperture was opened. Yipes. Such intra-model issues aside, I think one has to say that "hatchback" and "saloon"/"sedan" are the prime level of descriptor, and then "notchback", "liftback", and "fastback" are secondary words, to be used in conjunction with one of the primes. I always thought that the Mark III Ford Escort (European) was the first notchback in the UK, because it plainly has a "notch" — as does the Ford Sierra which was launched not so long afterwards. But regardless of this detail, both are plainly hatchbacks as well. Sadly I see from the WP article about notchbacks that my interpretation of the term is far from the one described there. Similarly my first car was actually branded as a fastback (a Sunbeam Alpine), but is clearly (to me) a coupé. Coupé is in fact one of the hardest descriptions to pin down.
Ultimately, I think we should resort to Wikipedia rules, just as we do in the national varieties of English debate. Therefore, we should use whatever term is used by our verifiable, reliable, secondary sources, per WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, etc. This is frustrating since the manufacturer's own term "feels" like it ought to take priority. Perhaps I'm being too literal in my interpretation of that "secondary sources" rule, versus common sense. It's always being argued about somewhere on WP.
I do find all this fascinating, despite its being deeply geeky, so would be interested in your further thoughts. ;-)

– Kieran T (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Kieran.
I spent several months thinking about it before passing you my initial question. Most of my thinking happens when I’m looking the other way, or asleep, and it takes a very long time. So if you’re hoping for any serious enlightenment from my further thoughts … but you asked for them anyway.
You have given me the best available answer on the notchback word. Thank you. You have given me a lot of interesting and thoughtful insights into the way these English language issues have played out in Wikipedia. Thank you. And you’ve come along with several tantalising thought triggers. Thank you for these, too.
Interesting – not sure that’s the right word here, but it works – that you landed on the Vauxhall Astra in the notchback debate. I recently uploaded a picture of the first Vauxhall Astra to the Astra page – not a wonderful picture but the best available at the time. I have captioned it Astra hatchback. But it was one of the very first ones to turn up in England, and I have a gnawing doubt that the first UK Astras ‘saloons’ were all the downmarket ones, booted in the manner of a Morris 1100. Fortunately (or not) I cannot be sure whether or not it is a hatchback simply by looking at the picture. But if it’s not a hatchback, but a booted saloon, then I guess it’s simply …um… a saloon. A notchless notchback? Looking at the profile, you might be tempted to call it a four door fast back, but fastback, I now realise, surely implies an element of stylishness, and although the Asconas / Cavaliers of that period were decent looking cars, this Kadett / Astra, to my eye, looks like something styled by the ship’s cat. (Maybe the folks at Opel were simply depressed by the price of oil: as are we all.) So for now I leave the caption set at ‘hatchback’ and wonder whether anyone will be sharp eyed enough to determine that it’s not. And wonder what (s)he will do to the caption if ever that happens.
I’m not going to heckle everything you write that triggers a thought. Though now I review what I wrote I find that I almost have. I had already had the thought that using the English version that is apparently the mother tongue of the first contributor to tackle a subject was a pretty silly compromise. It triggers so many ‘yes, but….’ thoughts that I do not bother to list them, but your own I find self evident. I think it was as a reaction to that that I came up with the idea that one should choose the English version least likely to jar with the majority of likely readers of the page in question. I do think that if someone has the courtesy to want to read what you write, then there is a call for a sort of reciprocal courtesy in trying to address them without causing gratuitous shock. And for many purposes you can avoid using words that differ between American English and British English, but that doesn’t seem to work with cars.
Coupé is indeed another can of worms: I’ve just been worrying away at the Rover 3 Litre entry. I suppose one can sometimes blame the marketing departments, though in many ways I catch myself wondering if Rover actually had a marketing department in the 1960s. Rover always seemed a firm that resolutely gave the people what its engineers figured they ought to want, rather than stopping to listen in an effort to find out what the people themselves thought they wanted – one of several good reasons why Europe still buy lots of Fords and not too many Rovers. Still, I guess marketing departments come in a wide range of shapes, sizes and preconceptions. And the Rover 2000 certainly captured the Zeitgeist.
The ‘manufacturer’s own usage’ guideline falls down a little with Japanese manufacturers who cheerfully use the same name for different cars for different markets, though maybe I’m inhibited here from reaching too firm a set of conclusions (in part) by not knowing Japanese. There’s something called (by me) an Isuzu Trooper which seems to have had its article renamed ‘Isuzu Bighorn’ because Bighorn is somehow the Japanese name. I’m afraid for me Bighorn recalls Flanders and Swann (The Bodger on the Bonce of the Rhinocerus, which I do not like) or less pleasingly, the sort of smutty thoughts I really ought to have grown out of at age 14. Still, if Isuzu Trooper fails to make it with those who feel more strongly about the matter than I…
When in doubt, (1) identify, (2) understand and (3) follow the wiki-rules is clearly a fine guideline, though where Steps (1) and / or (2) appear challenging we can all be tempted not to make it with too much enthusiasm as far as Step (3). Also, I do not think either the US or the UK we are as accepting of rules imposed by authority figures as citizens of most ‘western’ countries, though of course quasi-democratic processes can make rules more acceptable, even in The Anglosphere. I lived in Germany in late the 1990s and I confess (as an Anglophone ex-pat) I was quite reassured by the level of resistance the 1996 language reforms encountered (and continue to encounter) there. It is easy, from the anglophone perspective, to criticise German society for being too quick to accept rules at face value, but I suppose it helps that many of their rules are relatively unambiguous while our own rule makers favour muddle. Anyhow, at least we don’t get the characters who have commandeered the levers of power in our ‘democracies’ presuming to tell us how to use our language. Not yet, at least. Then again, I lived also in the Netherlands for several years, which is a country that I think still works relatively well as a democracy, and there periodic government directed language reforms seemed to go through without too much resistance. (Not sure that would apply to the same extent now, though.) The Netherlands always impressed me by the extent to which the people and the government tend to think themselves on the same side. Doesn’t stop the people from moaning bitterly about the government, but it is still, as far as I can judge, more of a consensual society than UK, US or even (re)unified Germany. I wonder if that’s a small country’s heritage from long centuries of foreign occupation and threat thereof, whether you think of a Austrian / Spanish Emperor, the curiously one-sided territorial theories of Louis XIV, or the predations of Hitler. (Unless we can simply blame the Dutch sense of nationhood on a wish not to be mistaken for Belgians: there’s something about the relationship between neighbo(u)rs….) Or maybe, more than any of these, it’s down to the need to hang together in order to avoid getting washed away. Anyhow, this looks like the route to a hugely lengthy and frustratingly inconsequential digression.
No further thoughts on-topic either.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton

Thanks for your help with the Brighton page - there was a problem with the Wikipedia server and I couldn't finish the work I'd started, by the time I could get back on you'd finished what I'd begun! Cheers ... WorthyDan (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of sports car manufacturers

An editor has nominated List of sports car manufacturers, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sports car manufacturers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

[edit] Ford Focus

I undid your revert; it's an intentional link to the redirect to make it clear that it's intentional. Someone split the article into 2, for North America and RoW, but the data there refer to the sum of the 2 parts. The dab page is the least bad solution, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're trying to achieve. I reverted it to point to the disambig page, and you've reverted that, so it points to a redirect to a disambig page? With a piped link, what's more, so it's not obvious! Relying on users noticing that a link gets redirected is not a smart way to tell them anything, or get the community to fix misnamed articles. I apologise if I misread what you're trying to achieve, but I think it needs better explanation (please). – Kieran T (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Links to dab pages are generally to be avoided, and in fact I was working on removing links to the dab page Ford Focus. However, there are times when it's the right thing to link to a dab page, and I was making it clear that it was a deliberate choice rather than an oversight. I should have laid that out in the edit summary too; I used the default and I agree that's not very edifying. Sorry about the confusion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that. It's an interesting development — Ford getting into making more or less global cars. I wonder how many more articles like this (and those for the two Ford Escorts, and Granadas) we'll have to deal with in future. – Kieran T (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ADO16

On the ADO16 (Austin/Morris/Riley/Wolseley/MG/Uncle-Tom-Cobbleigh-And-All 1100/1300) page, I wonder whether it might be worth putting back the "most badge-engineered car" comment, but prefixed by "maybe" or "perhaps" and followed by a superscript "citation needed". I agree that as it stood it was a claim that certainly needed substantiation! If you disagree, no hard feelings! – Bardenite (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bardenite, and first of all, indeed, no hard feelings! Thanks for taking the trouble to chat about it. I must say though that I feel quite strongly that it shouldn't be there. It's possibly a fact which could be proven with some research, but it'd need a lot of research. Plenty of cars, globally, are sold under very many badges — especially some of the current crop of General Motors offerings; it gets worse as manufacturers merge. Besides it's just not a very encyclopædic comment. I'd certainly want to see a reference from something authoritative. Forgive me if this is patronising – it's intended to be helpful in a friendly way! – but have you read WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and the associated guidelines? We must avoid original research and essay writing, and also try to use reliable, secondary sources. Wikipedia's requirement is verifiability, not truth (weird as that may sound!) – Kieran T (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If it does turn out to be true (and can be substantiated) then it's an interesting piece of trivia that needs to be recorded. But I understand your very valid point of view. You probably know more about the house rule for Wikipedia than I do. One thing that probably could be clarified in the article, because of all the different badge variants, is the main differences on a badge by badge basis (eg ribbon speedo versus round gauges in front of the driver versus round gauge between the driver and passenger as for the Mini and Morris Minor). If only to stop my own brain from melting! Maybe a simple "how to tell the difference" table giving features versus badge. By the way, in the quote from Clockwise, is it "Morris or 1100" or is it "Morris or Austin"? – Bardenite (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That (the table) is a very good idea! It would also be nice because it could highlight the slightly varied timelines for each marque. As for the Clockwise quote, I don't know (I edited it rather than added it) but I've got a copy somewhere. If the occasion arises, I'll watch it sometime soon! Back on the topic of the badge-engineering: I'd agree that it's worthy of record if there's some way of proving it, so, well, good luck on finding that! ;-) – Kieran T (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renault 6

Thanks for toning down my statement about the weird linkage of the gear lever to the gearbox. I can picture the R6 linkage very clearly because I had to repair it in the field (literally!) when I reversed my mum's R6 into a field gateway while learning to drive and the gear lever flopped upside down because the grommit between the over-the-engine rod and the lever stiking out of the gearbox had fallen out: it is alleged that I uttered the immortal words "Is it supposed to do that?" ;-) I've seen the linkage on the Citroen 2CV when I looked under the bonnet at the Birmingham Motor Show; it looked similar but I couldn't swear that it was identical. – Bardenite (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to seem such a pedant! It's just that people out there will happily refer to Wikipedia as a source, so it's important that we are accurate. Incidentally, I considered a Saab 96 as my first car but decided against it since I wanted to learn to drive in something with a conventional gearchange. I ended up with a Sunbeam Alpine... with the handbrake on the wrong side! Ah well... – Kieran T (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AmericaniZation

Hi, thanks for your follow up edit to mine on The Grange. Your ENany userbox caught my eye. As a dual citizen of the Republic of Ireland and the United States, I heartily agree with your position. It works both ways, though. I have found that in disambiguation articles of worldwide scope, some editors will impose non-American naming formats on American places and buildings, e.g. The Grange, Paris, Kentucky vs. The Grange (Paris, Kentucky). The first would be proper for a neighborhood, but not for a building, and vice versa. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Sadly there seems to be substantial inconsistency across Wikipedia with the naming of articles about places. Even within that Grange page there are two different forms used for UK articles, although admittedly one is a redlink. I'll be sure, if correcting links or article titles, to bear what you've raised in mind, and check the naming conventions for their location. :) – Kieran T (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)