Talk:Lotus Esprit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject James Bond
James Bond Portal

This article is part of WikiProject James Bond, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to the James Bond 007 genre of books, films, characters and related articles. You can help in improvement by editing Lotus Esprit or related pages.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Al Holbert's Löwenbräu Porsche 962. This article is part of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to various sports car racing series throughout the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] V8 and 3.5L

What were the available displacement numbers in the V8 engines?

I believe the V8 Esprit was available in 3.5 Litres only.

Yes, 3.5L is the only displacement for the V8 engines.

[edit] Any purple Lotus Esprit owners out there?

I was playing the Seattle Circuit from Gran Turismo 4, and it hit me: Is there anyone in the Wikipedia community that has seen or owns a purple Lotus Esprit? I saw this page and I don't believe there are any pictures of any purple ones. Is purple often a rare color on a Lotus Esprit?

Purple Esprit: yes, they were made in purple, although it isn't very common (mine is black, very common). Lotus of Scottsdale (Arizona, USA) currently has a 2001 in inventory (http://www.lotusofscottsdale.com/5-040.html). (162.136.192.1 14:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Article to merge into this page

Do you think Lotus Esprit Repair needs its own page? Merge? BMan1113VR 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be merged. It is not extensive enough to have its own article and is more of a parts supplier list. --Mach535 01:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If anything I feel the repair "article" should be deleted, it's not encyclopedic in content, and despite a couple of dozen edits full of incomplete content and spelling errors. Merging followed by a bit of savage editing should suffice! M100 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, article has no place on Wiki. Adding to this one would change format, you don't get repair sections on ferrari entries on Wikipedia. Just cause its british doesnt mean we need a repair article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.57.227 (talk • contribs)

I've gone ahead and merged the contents anyway. But as I'm not an aficionado of Lts, I'll leave the editing in your hands instead. Ohconfucius 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Esprit

Leftlanenews has an article (http://www.leftlanenews.com/2007/02/07/spied-2010-lotus-esprit/) up with spy shots/news of the rumored 2010 model. Wes902 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can catagorically state that no one has any photos of an impending Esprit replacement because it doesn't exist yet. There are always prototypes, demonstration cars etc testing other technologies in old Esprit-looking bucks and these often get confused as future vehicles when they are not necessarily. LewisR (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And on what do you base this categorical statement? You may well be right... but given Lotus' own actions in the past I don't think you can really rule anything out. Greg Locock (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancies and questions

I have noticed a few discrepancies between this article and some information I found on http://www.lotusespritworld.com at the page http://www.lotusespritworld.com/models.html.

Wikipedia says:

  • Turbo Esprit HC – 1986–87
  • Turbo Esprit HCi (Bosch Fuel Injected) – 1986–87
  • Esprit GT3 – 1996–99

LotusEspritWorld says:

  • Turbo Esprit HC – 1987
  • Esprit GT3 – 1996–98

I suppose the HCi follows under the HC so they did not list it. The G3 production dates do not match. Can someone confirm the information on one or the other wesbite?

I have seen pictures of Esprits called NA or N/A for normally aspirated so I suppose that means no turbo. There is no model called NA or N/A. I suppose those NA are Peter Stevens's Esprits from 1987–90. I believe they are called like that to distinguish them from Peter Stevens's Esprit Turbos from 1987–90. Correct me if I am wrong.

I have also seen pictures of Esprits called X180. Wikipedia says that "The Stevens styled Esprit is collectively known as the X180". I would like to know if that applies to all the Esprits from the Stevens era or only to the Esprit Turbos from 1987–90.

LotusEspritWorld lists something called X180R but Wikipedia did not list this model so I added it.

ICE77 -- 81.104.129.226 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

X180 was the internal program name for the Stevens Esprit. NA means naturally aspirated. I don't know why we didn't call them efi. Greglocock 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. However, you did not answer my questions. X180 for the Stevens's Esprit but which one of them? NA stands for Naturally Aspirated: does that mean no turbo then? I do not understand what you mean by efi.

ICE77 -- 81.104.129.226 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

X180 was the name of the whole program, never mind which engine, at least for the two years before launch. NA is how engineers referred to the non turbo cars, I don't know how this spread to the wider community. However I have worked on at least one program called NA, it may be that Lotus used that designation as well - for example the FWD Elan had several different program names over its life. Usually when car manufacturers had NA cars at the time they called them EFI, for electronic fuel injection, in their marketing. I'm surprised Lotus didn't, but I'm pretty sure they didn't. Greglocock 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue, it helped a lot. By the way you wrote it seems to me you've been involved in the development of the Esprit. X180 is used for all Stevens's Esprits and NA is used for non turbo Stevens's Esprits but those are just internal names since no model is officially called like X180 or NA: I got the point now. EFI has never been used by Lotus, probably because the Esprit is something different from other cards ... it is something special!

ICE77 -- 195.212.29.83 12:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture section

So this section has apparently been removed following a general vote ("pop culture and trivia references, unless particularly factually significant, have been vetoed by Wikiproject:Automobiles and are being phased out - thanks for understanding"). Now the forward reference to it is inappropriate. The Seventh Taylor 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've cleaned up that reference, but there is scope for discussion about this section. The WikiProject:Automobiles consensus so far includes the idea that trivia and pop-culture sections are inappropriate to the car's entry if the car was significant to the film, but may be relevant if the film was significant to the car. It could be argued that the Bond appearances significantly upped the recognition of the Lotus. – Kieran T (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V8 Image

Can someone condense the image for the Esprit V8 into a thumbnail as there's no point to having the image in the article. That and I'm likely to break the article if I do it myself... 81.110.245.215 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

We need to come to a decision about these external links. I am for taking them out, and if someone will second me on that, I will take them out. However, if the consensus is that they should stay, I would be fine with that too. Zach4636(Talk) 17:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

generally I think one (best,hopefully international) info/resource/forum site is acceptable, but I found that http://www.lotusespritworld.com/ has link to that forum (http://www.lotusespritforum.com/) so maybe that one is enough? --— Typ932T | C  17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why are valid, useful external links being repeatedly purged?

I have a problem with the approach that is being taken on this particular entry regarding external links; looking back over the history for the past couple of weeks there is a clear feeling that the current links are insufficient, but no consistent editorial policy is being applied.

As an anonymous user, I tried to add links to Lotus Esprit World and Lotus Esprit Forum, to complement the existing link to the Esprit Fact File. Subsequent to this, my two additions were removed, then another user added a different site, again there was a partial clean-up, closely follwed by a purge of the entire External Links section. Subsequent users have then reinstated the same external links, only to have them purged again. This is starting to look a little farcical, wouldn't you say?

I'm trying to understand why the links I have posted are verboten, and indeed why some people see the whole concept of external links as irrelevant.

Let me recap on where this particular car is in its product lifecyle: having been produced for the best part of 30 years, it's now been out of production for over 3 years. As a non-current model, whilst Lotus still actively support the vehicle through parts availability and ongoing development, they (understandably) do not devote any of their public, corporate, website to discussion of the Esprit. Having built up an enthusiastic following over the past 30 years as an iconic sportscar, the support and information resources pertinent to the Esprit are, entirely understandably, now provided by clubs and enthusiasts. There is a diverse range of marque-specific and model-specific clubs and informative websites out there, some more useful or complete than others.

Reading the Esprit entry a week or so back, I was frankly astonished to see that two of the three main sources of Esprit information were not linked to, merely being obliquely referenced in the references section. Hence my additions and where this saga began.

Please do not consider the following as 'advertising'. I feel, having been challenged, that I have to justify why the sites I chose are worthy of inclusion, and to do them justice I need to ensure you understand what they are about.

Esprit Fact File and Lotus Esprit World are broadly similar in their origins and ambitions, and are complementary. Both were started by individuals keen to share and expand upon the information they had accumulated when purchasing and maintaining thier own cars. It's fair to say that Lotus Esprit World has grown considerably in size, but the breadth of content is truly remarkable - full specifications for every model variant produced, pictorial 'how to' guides, an archive of contemporary road tests, a regularly updated news page for information of interest to the Esprit owner, and much more. As perhaps the ultimate mark of a quality information resource, the engineers at Lotus publicly acknowledge that they use the site for reference purposes.

The Lotus Esprit Forum is one of several discussion groups that exist for the model and the marque. What differentiates it and elevates it as a useful resource is the fact that it has over 4,000 members worldwide, amongst them many current Lotus staff, and that it is sub-divided to seperate chat and event talk from technical discussions. It has built up an enviable archive of 'howto' threads which are available for the benfit of all. Mike Kimberley, CEO of Group Lotus, is an occasional but enthusiastic contributor. It is estimated the the Forum accounts for owners of more than a third of all Esprits ever built. This is a resource operated for and by owners and enthusiasts; just two of its achievements in the few short years it has been running were the widely-reported secret rebuilding of an Esprit belonging to a member with a debilitating medical condition, and the organising of the first Esprit-only factory event, which attracted 100 cars and owners from the UK, Europe, and North America.

Reading through wikipedia's guidelines on External Links, I see that any external links should be "restricted to the most relevant and helpful", that sites linked to should be "relevant to the content of the article (useful, helpful, informative, factual, etc.)", and include sites that "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail". I believe that both Lotus Esprit World and Lotus Esprit Forum satisfy these criteria.

Both sites could attract criticism: both are supported by either advertising or a paid-membership subsection, and a forum, by its very nature requires a user to register and sign-in to participate. The advertising, where used, is not intrusive, and the paid-membership sectons merely complement the freely-available reference, technical, or 'how-to' information in order to financially support the hosting of these sites. However, weighing these considerations against the wealth of information and appeal that both sites contain, it is clear that they are an invaluable resource for the Esprit enthusiast and owner.

Fundamentally, if Wikipedia is to maintain credibility for its content, shouldn't such useful sites as these be openly acknowledged and linked to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBasterfield (talk • contribs) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Read one up --— Typ932T | C  18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
At least one person posting some of those links is directly affiliated with the website in question. See WP:COI. Anyone can find those links with google. Also see [[1]] and the following sections. In particular Links to avoid
    • Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
    • Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
    • Links mainly intended to promote a website.
All the links I checked had errors, either factual or by omission. Greg Locock (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Greg, with the greatest of respect that comes across as an "it's my ball and you're not going to play with it" attitude. Please quantify why you object to the sites, with specific examples of errors.

If we're being nit-picky about technical details, may I respectfully point out that in your own reply above (under 'questions and discrepancies') you said, regarding the naturally aspirated Esprit "I don't know why we didn't call them efi". Since the engines were all built and sold with twin Dell'Orto DHLA45 carburettors, then it would have been misleading the customer to claim that they had Electronic Fuel Injection (EFI). We can all make mistakes, my friend, so I think a little more tolerance and a little less keyboard rattling might be in order.

If you're implying that the links as typed here had errors, let me assure you I double-checked myself that they led to the intended sites - in fact I've just checked again under the edit history. I wouldn't want a typo in the middle of my edit. Or are you saying that you're concerned about the content of the sites I linked to?

I hope you're not applying the "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" guidance to a forum; that would be perverse to say the least - it's a place for discussion, after all. The point is it connects interested readers directly with other owners.

I wouldn't have the confidence to stand up and say that the content of Lotus Esprit World does not add to the Esprit article - in any current or future form. To do that would require the whole of LEF to be replicated into Wikipedia. Why go to all that effort when the Wikipedia entry is a comprehensive summary? All it needs is a link to LEF where the interested reader can delve further, should they so wish.

Upon casual checking, I see that the entries for both the Ferrari 355 and Porsche 911 have links to non-manufacturer sites, broadly similar in scope to Lotus Esprit World, and yet they've not been purged. Both entries have a reasonable handful of useful, relevant, external links, which is exactly what I'm aiming for here.

Please either give some examples where the content at Lotus Esprit World is inaccurate, or accept that it is a valid site to be linked from this entry. Your attitude is coming across as unnecessarily dismissive and defensive, please let's discuss this rationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBasterfield (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is doing anything too you personally so there is no need to get all upset about it. Only those sites which are exceptional are linked. Also, if you have an evident conflict of interest, any of these links WILL be removed because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote others websites. Let me give you a personal example: when I joined Wikipedia, the first thing I did was to put in a link to one of my websites. It was immediately removed. I too was rather unhappy about this and I wanted to do everything in my power to get it back in, but I never did because I recognized that I was in the wrong. I hope that this helps you, and please do NOT add these links back in again.
Zach4636 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Dan, are you affiliated with any of the links that you are defending? I KNOW that lotusespritturbo is being reposted by someone with an email address at that website. You are all tarred with the same brush in my mind. Check the external links that have been posted to this page over the last year and you will see that many do not reach the admittedly high standard of LEworld, and that there is a tendency for people to pile in with their 'favorites'. Since all these sites can be found with google, it is not exactly as if finding out about these cars is difficult. Greg Locock (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Guys - thanks for some rational replies. I'm not developing a victim complex here, neither do I have a connection with any of these sites. My interest is that as an owner of one of these cars, LEW, EFF and LEF are the sources of information and assistance, and that for completeness the Wikipedia article needs to acknowledge this. The EFF link seems to be accepted by some, banned by others, in successive edits. Compared with other car articles, these links are appropriate and in line with current practice. Please tell me what, specifically, offends you about either LEW or LEF? If you've had problems with COI postings in the past then you have my sympathy, but this is not the case now and you are coming across as very heavy-handed. DanBasterfield (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, in the absence of any further objections, I'll add back in the link to Lotus Esprit Forum. DanBasterfield (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
typ932, please read the above before getting trigger happy with the delete button. The function of LEF is very distinct to that of LEW; yes, they cross-link to each other, but that's because they directly complement each other and support and inform exactly the same target audience. It's called cooperation, i'm sure you guys have heard of it.
I asked the owner of LEF for some stats on its operation. This is the reply: "LEF has 5,000,000 hits per month, around 300,000 page views. We have almost 4,000 members, 1,500 of whom visit at least once every couple of weeks and although almost 1,000 are dormant accounts, that still gives us almost 3,000 active members which is very close to a third of all Esprit's ever produced accounted for and we have had visitors from over 50 different countries this month alone." This is a worldwide user community catering for owners of around one third of all examples of this vehicle ever built, and you remove the link to it simply because another site links to this one? I fail to see how this is aiding the credibility of the information held in wikipedia. Once again, my point in doing this is to ensure that the article is comprehensive, and to be comprehensive it must link to the major external sites providing information and support.
Please tell me - apart from the link on LEW - what is so wrong with LEF that it cannot be referenced within this article for interested readers to pursue further? DanBasterfield (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


I will state my interest up front, I am a donator to LEF/LEW so that the forum and website can be run to provide access to esprit technical help, to people like me who have limited mechanical or engineering knowledge. Thishas been invaluable for me with the running and maintenance of my Esprit. When I first decided to choose to get the car I used all three sites Wiki, LEW and LEF to help me and provide me with the knowledge I was after. The fact that all three provided me with the information to make a good choice shows how they compliment each other in their aims. The Like you Dan, I believe that the wiki is both fair and complete with the links to what have to be some of the most informative internet sites covering the esprit being present. Any reader of the wiki article may wish to find even more detailed knowledge of the marque and model by being able to conatct other web based sites and owners of the car. 3 simple links on the wiki provide the reader with the simple and effortless ability to do that. The arguments stated above for removal of these links just seem petty at best. Wiki is full of links to other sites which are often more comprehensive in their information of the stated topic than the wiki and this does not cause problems for the integrity of the encyclopedia. I would suggest that this problem be resolve by the wiki adminstrators for arbitration as a diplomatic resolution does not seem forthcoming. I have read in detail the Wiki 3Rs rule, vandalism rules etc and I believe that this editing is starting to fall foul of those rules.

I believe a simple solution to the problem would be to add a little text to each link stating in general terms what useful knowledge they would serve the reader if they accessed them. for example the LEF link could come come with a line saying "A source of real fixes for technical problems for all G and S models esprits (but please be minded also contains non technical unrelated info)"

This to me shows a balanced view of what LEF can offer to the wiki reader. This should not be hard to resolve! Alex1200r (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1200r (talk • contribs) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not have a consensus to put those links in, we do not yet have a consensus to take them out. This discussion is not over. I am ambivalent towards LEW, but I do not think that LEF has any encyclopaedic value. If you think it fulfils the criteria of WP:EXT please explain how. Consider the following quotes from that page: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." "Avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website unless there is good reason to do so" "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" "Avoid... Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET. " Unless you can demonstrate that LEF satisfies ALL of those criteria, it goes. I shall be applying similar logic to other links, later. Greg Locock (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


In my opnion, LEF does satisfy the following wiki criteria "there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article" LEF is a content relevant link

"The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." -LEF has provided and still does provide many effective collaborations on Esprits eg restoration projects, technical discussion, mechanical help info for people geographically separated through out the world. LEF has no interest in using wiki as a source of social networking.

In the end the points you cite are just guidelines, in the same way the ones I have cited are guidelines. Some are easily met, others not so. From the links guideline page " in a nutshell: Adding external links can be helpful to everyone, but they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article." The wiki guidlines themselve do not state that all have to be met, it is what is a sensible balance. The inclusion is sensible and does not detract from the quality of the article already written.

Does LEF/LEW link merit inclusion? Well it has over 4700 esprit related technical topics. This knowledge and information source merits reference. This knowledge is easily asccessible to all, and the bottom line it is relevant to the General Article on the Lotus Esprit. Alex1200r (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware: extensive internet research has revealed that these figures stated above are quite inflated. I did quite a bit of digging, and I discovered that the figures quoted were nowhere near the real figures. I am not calling anyone a liar, but this information came from several sites such as Alexa and Compete.com. I think that these links should be taken out and replacements found.
Zach4636 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't see any other better sites then LEW or LEF. Realizing that the information isn't absolutely perfect 100% of the time... neither is your information -- you claim the citroen box is not in the stevens esprit... I have one... with a citroen box. This is a hand-built car with many inconsistency's. I've been working on these cars for about a year and in that time i've completely rebuilt everything but the engine in mine and I've done a lot of work to a 1994 S4 and a 2002 V8... they are all very different cars and you can easily tell they are handbuilt... and because they are handbuilt each one is very unique in the way it is put together. The term "fact" with regards to an "Esprit" is almost an oxymoron. So, those who have spent the time to do the research and collect the data should be regarded as the best source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.13.157 (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Glad to see you've taken a breather and come back to this one afresh, Greg. I'm not happy with your assertion that "we do not yet have a consensus to take them out" as you are still prejudging the outcome; in truth we are without a consensus to either include or exclude the link to LEF. Please completely put aside this attitude that "it's your ball" etc. so we can discuss on merit alone. I'm not here to mess up your toy, but neither is it your toy to be messed up.
I'm glad to see that you have mellowed on the subject of LEW, even though I note you're still ambivalent about it. Perhaps it has been expanded and improved from the site you recalled when you last viewed it - I would encourage you to spend more time exploring the site. However I think we're making positive progress from the position we were in a couple of days ago where you clearly saw no purpose for any external links, given your repeated deletion of that entire section. I accept that this could have been brought on by frustration with ill-judged (novice?) posting of links to minor sites, or where you felt there was a clear COI. At least now we can discuss individual links on their merits, rather than flip-flopping between discussing specific links and the general concept of linking externally.


As regards the encyclopaedic value of LEF, let me proceed. I've tried to outline in he exchanges above how it is of tangible value, but this has not convinced you. You repeatedly bounce different quoted sections of policy at me without quantifying your objection. I would like to review the [WP:EXT] policy against LEF. I like your approach of quoting policy verbatim, as it focuses on clear and specific aspects, so will adopt it for the following.
Points to Remember
Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful...
Noting the statistics I cited above, LEF has a right to claim to be the most useful site for Esprit owners, in the sense that it directly connects the reader with thousands of other owners worldwide. This is useful in the sense of "I need to find an answer/solution to xxx, please help". No other informational site performs this role, as they are static; no other forum etc. can claim anywhere near the same number of total members; the next largest forum is the turboesprit Yahoo! group, which has 2250 total members (percentage inactive currently unknown) vs. LEF's 4000; turboesprit's audience is largely North American, whilst LEF's is worldwide. Result: positive
External links should typically not be in the body of an article...
Agreed. I don't think we need to debate this one further given that we now accept the principle of an 'External Links' section within the article. Result: positive
Avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website...
The link to LEF is to the front page of the site; no other link within the article refers to either this page or any sub-page of LEF. Result: positive


Restrictions on linking
Sites that violate the copyrights of others...
The terms of use of LEF, part of the user sign-up agreement, state "You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board.". All posts are reviewed by a select team of moderators for, amongst other issues, copyright infringement wthin postings. I would say this counts as taking reasonable care to prevent copyright infringement on the site. Result: positive
Sites that match the spam blacklist without being whitelisted...
I know of no incident where LEF has been identified as a source of spam. Result: positive
What to link
Is it accessible to the reader?
Yes it is. Through the subdivision of technical, chat, and event discussion threads, users may quickly proceed to an area of interest and disregard irrelevant content. Needless to say there is an effective search function. No charge is made for access to the site, although due to the nature of a forum users need to be able to identify themselves when posting, hence registration is required. As discussions involve enthusiasts, owners, prospective owners, and at times marque specialists and Lotus personnel, discussion proceeds in a down-to-earth fashion. New users are actively encouraged to introduce themselves in the 'Newbies' section, where LEF etiquette ensures they receive a swift and warm welcome. Result: positive
Is it relevant to the content of the article....
As noted in the stats above and in previous answers regarding the nature of contributors and the main topic of discussion, most emphatically so. Result: positive
Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
Yes, it is operated and hosted in a professional fashion. The size of membership would suggest it has mometum and critical mass to continue for a long time. Result: positive
What should be linked
Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
As the acknowledged home site of the Lotus Esprit Forum, this is correct. LEF is acknowledged by Lotus as a valid and valued owners & enthusiasts club. Mike Kimberley, CEO Group Lotus, has told LEF members both in person, when he invited them to the factory, and in posts to LEF, that "You are the most important ambassadors that Lotus has." Result: postive
An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media
Not relevant. Result: neutral
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to...
I have dealt with the copyright aspects in a previous reply. An additional role of the moderators is to ensure that, within reasonable limits, both the nature and content of discussion remain neutral and open to discussion and diverse opinions. The nature of a technical, single-interest forum does not allow for factual inaccuracies to go un-corrected for any length of time. Result: positive
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article...
I hope I have covered this one in previous replies, particularly the value and nature of the content. I would add that to distill the accumulated body of knowledge held within LEF into a WP article (howto or FAQ article section perhaps?) would be both a mammoth task, and a never-ending one due to the site's nature. It would therefore be inappropriate to attempt this, and hence the next logical step is to provide a link to LEF for interested readers to review in more depth. Result: positive
Links to be considered
For albums, movies, books...
Not relevant. Result: neutral
Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis...
LEF is a threaded forum; there is also an option for a 'lo-fi' text-mode interface. Both aspects therefore restrict the size and download time required to view individual LEF pages. Result: positive
Long lists of links are not appropriate...
Agreed. So far I'm trying to increment a list of one link. Two links do not make for a "long list". Result: positive
Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
I've explained above why I feel LEF is reliable (participants, moderation, self-policing of factual inaccuracies, acknowledgement/support by Lotus, etc.). Given the subject matter of the forum and the nature of many of its members (owners of the subject vehicle), I think anyone would have to acknowledge that the majority of contributors would be knowledgeable to a greater or lesser degree. I'm not claiming expert status for each member, but then neither is this a requirement of this policy clause. Result: positive
Links normally to be avoided
Any site that does not provide a unique resource...
See above answers. LEF may be "one of" the discussion groups for the Esprit, but it's unique selling point is that it is the largest and most active such group. Result: positive
Any site that misleads the reader by...
See above answers regarding moderation and peer review. Result: positive
Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware...
LEF has never attempted to install malware. Result: positive
Links mainly intended to promote a website
As per the statistics posted above, LEF already has around 5,000,000 hits a month. As you yourself have noted above, LEF can be readily located using Google, etc. I have also declared repeatedly thatI have not COI here, and that my reason for linking to the site is for the completeness and comprehensiveness of the WP article. However, you could argue that any WP external link implicitly promotes some site or other by virtue of bringing it to the reader's attention, and by giving it an amount of credibility by being mentioned on the WP article. We can play semantic ping-pong with this one as it is a poorly-worded requirement, so I'll give it a result of neutral.
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell
No - LEF is a free-to-use service for the majority of content. Result: positive
Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
LEF has discrete acknowledgement of companies or individuals that support it in some way, however this is low-key and could not be described as "objectionable". Result: positive
Links to sites that require payment or registration
I've already covered both the payment question, and the inherent requirement for users to register in order to meaningfully interact with the site. I accept that, to the word of the WP policy, registration is "to be avoided" - note the use of guideline rather than mandatory language, both here and in the subject heading "Links normally to be avoided". I view the meaningful-interaction requirement for registration as a suitable defence, in this instance, of going against advisories, but we're back into the realms of semantics and syntax as much as genuine appraisal. Result: neutral
Sites that are inaccessible...
I have personally accessed the site using various versions of IE, Opera, and Firefox on Windows and Linux platforms; I know of users who access the site solely from Macs. Result: positive
Direct links to documents that require external applications...
No external applications are required to make use of LEF or its immediate content. Result: positive
Links to search engine and aggregated results pages
LEF is neither a (web) search engine nor an aggregated links page. Result: positive
Links to ... discussion forums/groups...
This is where LEF scores its first definite negative. It is a forum. However, refer to one of my early points that the subject vehicle of this article is out of production, and much support is peer-provided through clubs and discussion groups both online and offline. Also the points reqarging scope, nature, value of LEF as pertains to the Lotus Esprit ownership experience. Refer to my overriding consideration that the link is of value to the article to give it completeness and credibility for all interested readers; there will be a significant proportion of readers who have heard the "Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious" quip, and indeed those that hear the motoring press refer frequently refer to the Esprit as a benchmark for handling, and just want to ask whether it's as good/bad/fragile/expensive/exhilarating as heresay would have it. In the absence of a long discussion of the pros and cons of ownership within the article (which would be very difficult to write in a comprehensive and unbiased manner) or in deed a sporadic Q&A in the talk page (which most WP users are oblivious to, hence will not benefit from peer-correction of inaccuracies) what better resource to direct readers to than the largest online gathering of owners of the subject vehicle? I believe the policy wording is short-sighted in this instance. Result: negative
Links to blogs and personal web pages...
LEF is neither a blog nor a personal web page. Result: positive
Links to open wikis...
LEF is not a Wiki. Result: positive
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject...
I think we've covered this already; LEF is directly linked to the article's subject. Result: positive
Lists of links to...
LEF is not a list of links. Result: positive
Advertising and conflicts of interest
I have covered advertising within LEF above, as have I covered "promotion of websites" and my own lack of COI. Result: positive
In biographies of living people
Not relevant to LEF. Result: neutral
Sites requiring registration
Covered in depth already. Result: neutral
Non-English language content
LEF is almost entirely English language content. The only exceptions I have seen are occasional greetings or phrases where users are either being welcoming to those for whom English is not their first language, or part of a good-natured exchange. Due to the international audience, this helps forge a sense of community. Result: positive
Redirection sites
LEF is not a redirection site. Result: positive
Rich media
LEF is rendered in HTML or rich text, at the user's discretion. Result: positive
Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites
LEF is not one of these sites. Result: positive
Avoid undue weight on particular points of view
As discussed above, peer-correction and moderation foster a balanced perspective. Result: positive
Longevity of links
Covered already, so I'll tag this as a neutral
What can be done with a dead external link
The link to LEF is not dead. Result: positive
Hijacked and re-registered sites
LEF has not, to my knowledge been hijacked or re-registered, nor is it likely to be. See comments above regarding professional hosting and operation of the site. Result: positive


Well, I would commend you for reading this far! Seriously, I have gone to this length to try to address all the aspects of the External Links policy. By a quick totting up, I make the score:
31 positive
7 neutral
1 negative
I think it would therefore be unreasonable to refuse an external link to LEF based on such a predominantly positive showing, and given the advisory nature of the wording of the policy clause for which it scored negative.


I therefore propose that the link is accepted.

DanBasterfield (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan... your argument is invalid. The wiki criteria you quoted provides a list of types of links to be avoided. As such, matching one of the criteria on the list means that the link doesn't pass the test: it's irrelevant that the link doesn' match the other criteria. For example, the criteria state that links should not attempt to surreptitiously install malware, *and* that they should not be forums. By your argument, it would be OK to link to a site that surreptitiously installed malware because it only had that one negative. --David Broadfoot (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi David - the basis of my argument has consistently been that LEF has value because of its content; this guideline excludes it because of its format - the book has been judged by its cover. If it had have failed due to content rather than presentation - say on the malware point - I would not have felt there was a case to argue. Anyway, thanks for chipping in, and if you see below I have conceded that the consensus of opinion is against its inclusion. DanBasterfield (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Zach - please declare the source and method of calculation for the figures you obtained that disagree with mine, and the figures themselves. I declared my figures as coming from the owner of the website being discussed; for instance you can see at the bottom of the LEF home page that membership currently stands at 3816. I'd say that validates the claim of "almost 4000 members". Please provide more detail so I can understand the basis of your disagreement. Thanks! DanBasterfield (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I already told you where I got the information from: Alexa and Compete.com. Also, I want a direct answer as to whether or not you are affiliated with these websites. You may have already said, but I am not sure. I have a feeling though that you are affiliated because no one would be so adamant about having these links in. If that is the case, you have no business trying to put them in because you have a conflict of interest.
Zach4636 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's obviously something about owning a Lotus and being prepared to waste inordinate amounts of time, judging from the behaviour of a couple of zealots. First read up on the definition of consensus. It is not a majority (although it can be, typically a 75% majority is the best that can be achieved). It is certainly not last man standing. Thus far we have roughly two agin and two for. That is not consensus. Secondly I said "You do not have a consensus to put those links in, we do not yet have a consensus to take them out." How is that prejudging the issue? Anyway, I would rather hear from other editors, I think Dan has made his point again and again and again. and again and again and again. and will doubrtless be the first to respond to this post. Incidentally this article is of only the slightest interest to myself, I have scarcely contributed to it. Greg Locock (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At every turn you refuse to consider the matter, simply replying to any reasoned argument with one or more of
Arrogance
Personal attacks
Heavy-handed editing
Parrot-like quoting of phrases from policy with no commentary regarding context
Assertions of gross innacuracy of material without citing any examples
Is it any reason that I have to repeat myself when this is the attitude I'm faced with? Perhaps if you took your fingers out of your ears and stopped chanting "It's my ball and you're not going to play with it" for ten minutes we could resolve this like adults.
Might I suggest you read the WP guide yourself? Start with [WP:AGF], [WP:CIV], [WP:BITE], and [WP:NPA].
A little lesson in semantics, in the following sentence:
"You do not have a consensus to put those links in, we do not yet have a consensus to take them out."
To make this balanced and non-prejudicial, either remove the single 'yet', which implies time-conditionality on only one side of the argument, or place a 'yet' against either possible outcome.
I'll also ask you to consider the fact that you have been "fighting off" edits to the external links section; yes, some have had a degree of self-interest but do you not think that this indicates that external links are both wanted and insufficient in their current form? Oh no, of course in Greg's world, everybody else is just vandalising his precious page. Take a step back and look at your attitude.
"Incidentally this article is of only the slightest interest to myself, I have scarcely contributed to it."
Then with the greatest of respect, go somewhere else and stop obstructing the efforts of those who are interested in it. DanBasterfield (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
QED Greg Locock (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It too would be interested to see the details of zach4636 statistics calculations. You seem to quote third party sites as the source of your information. Well here is a question for you - which do you think is the more accurate - third party web sites which may or may not have 100% connectivity to the site in question or the web server log files for the site in question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.1.191 (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying that respected, well-known websites are wrong, be my guest and go right ahead with that. I made none of this up on my own: I only quoted what I read. Since there is so much controversy regarding these links, I think that ALL of them should be removed. There is nothing saying that there must be external links; and since emotion has replaced reason, I think that they should all go or we get an administrator involved to settle it.
Zach4636 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote one of the sites you use "We have little data for lotusespritforum.com, so these are rough estimates" and the other has no data at all - hardly accurate figures and this refers to the site that you said the figures quoted were "nowhere near the real figures" so I say again where are your facts?

I also ask again which is more accurate - commercial sites trying to sell a service or the actual web server log files for the site in question??

There is no controversy concerning the links - the posters are simply asking for consistency in applying the rules. If these links go then so should the others quoted (Ferrari and Porche links) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.1.191 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Zach - if your figures are so at odds with others quoted here, please post them so we can compare. No point us all trawling the web and using the available tools in different manners. At the moment you are not giving us the opportunity to discuss what you see as a primary reason for excluding this link.
I'd like to add that I've maintained a level and conciliatory tone throughout this, despite the obvious frustration that has resulted. I am not the one who has resorted to personal attacks and slurs, and I have declared all my facts and reasoning, and have even declared where my arguments in favour of the links fall short. I do not have a hidden agenda, yet you (Greg, Zach, Typ932) are continually saying "We do not need links on this article, so let's not discuss it further". Clearly this is the most hotly contended topic this article has seen in a long, long time; is that a reason to stonewall any dissent, or rather a reason to have a frank and open discussion?
By the way, who owns this article? I'd like to contact them. DanBasterfield (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Dan, I am not going to address anything of the questions that you asked until I get a "Yes" or "No" answer to the question about whether or not you are affiliated with any of these sites. Also, Wikipedia does not allow you to "own" pages (see Help:Watching pages).
Zach4636 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
He has said he is not affilliated. You probably missed it. Actually Dan I find your tone completely innappropriate. You probably think the same of mine. The difference is that I have thousands of article edits, to hundreds of articles, and have made several from scratch. You have, um, one or two small edits to one article. That is not a priori evidence that I am right, it does however suggest that my perspective may have some weight of experience behind it. I suggest Dan that you spend a month editing other articles, since you appear to have boundless free time and a desire to make a difference. That will give you a better idea of how wiki works (big clue: that long post of yours above was counterproductive to a degree that defies comprehension), after that, come back and decide whether the LEF and LET links really do fit in. I think LEW is redundant, but acceptable. This will be my last post here for two weeks, as you suggest, there are plenty of more interesting articles and problems around, these anorak articles are not my primary focus.Greg Locock (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Firstly let me set out my position I am an esprit owner and poster on LEF (lotusespritforum), and ocasional user of LEW (lotusespritworld), EFF (espritfactfile) and lotusespritturbo but have no further affiliation to any site.

My opinion on this discussion of links is as follows. My first port of call for any factual information on the esprit is LEW I will then ocasionally expand to other sites for further reading or views to sites that include EFF and lotusespritturbo and even sometimes wikipedia its self. On this basis alone I feel that LEW warrents its place as where else could you turn for factual information and find a site that is endorsed by lotus and for full roundness of information I too would include both EFF and lotusespritturbo in any links section.

On the point of LEF is it possible anywhere else on the web to go and seek help or advice sometimes in near real time from, current owners, past owners, ex and current factory employees and people who make a living working on and caring for these cars 24 hours a day? Add to this the depth of knowledge that is offered for free to anyone in relation to the esprit, and I fail to see how any site, page or article that is aiming to be a repository of information relating to the esprit could fail to aknowledge LEF as a leading resource for said information.

Thanks Glyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.248.98 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Zach - As I've said already, I do not have a conflict of interest with the sites that I am attempting to post links to. DanBasterfield (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was all that I wanted to know. Zach4636 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Greg - thank you for your comments, and for taking your obstruction elsewhere. I respect your experience, but not your attitude - this whole dispute has been fuelled by your attitude. All I asked was that valid links be added, or a reasonable explanation for their exclusion be given.

I see from your edit history that you are interested in alternative power sources for vehicles. I note with interest that you have contributed heavily in the past fortnight to pages such as:

Compressed Air Car - 31 external links in a sub-divided 'External Links' section, including 3 links direct to discussion forums, and 2 links declared as "Fan site and Portal..."
Compressed Air Energy Storage - 12 external links
Fuel Economy-maximising Behaviours - 6 external links, including one link direct to a discussion forum

I do not therefore understand why you have chosen to apply a 'no external links' policy to this article in particular, nor do I understand your objection to external links to discussion groups, forums, etc. Your position here has consistently relied on two principles, namely that external links are largely unnecessary and that links to discussion groups are excluded by WP policy.

I fail to see how the link to LEW is redundant when every reference cited is held within LEW. In the Compressed Air Car article, for example, there are sites in the external links section which are seperately referenced as citations from within the body of that articles. DanBasterfield (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

@ Zach4636 - you replied above to DanBasterfield that "Thanks, that was all I wanted to know". This sounds like you agreed or at least were no longer against having the link. Why are you still removing the link to the forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.17.50 (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that I wanted to know if he was affiliated with the sites in question. I am entirely against LEF, but I have no problem with LEW. Also, I don't care if every page on Wikipedia links to a forum, that doesn't make it right! I suggest that you leave LEF out or I will ask an admin. to decide whether or not it is included.
Zach4636 (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Zach - I think getting an impartial third party involved would be a good idea. I see this debate rumbling on and on. How do we go about this? DanBasterfield (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to contact an admin. on behalf of all of us. But we must all agree to accept whatever he decides. If you are okay with that, I will get the ball rolling.
Zach4636 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, Zach, that's why I see this as a good way forwards. Four questions I'd like to see answered to put this to bed are:
Is an 'external links' section appropriate to this article?
Is LEW an appropriate external link?
Is LEF an appropriate external link?
How could the parties involved have better dealt with the dispute?
Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBasterfield (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I will try to contact someone by mid-afternoon or tomorrow at the latest. Zach4636 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Geez, It's quite straightforward... Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of links and Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Remember: GFE (Google F...ing Exists) - the search string "lotus esprit forum" returns the desired website as the first link - even without using the quotes. --David Broadfoot (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Outside opinion Wikipedia articles do not have to have external links sections, period. I don't see any pressing need to include any non-official links on a vehicle's page. (Sometimes, a few review links from major publications are OK, especially as a performance reference). As others have noted, forums are usually discouraged. Wikipedia does not need to do what search engines already do. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Would your suggestion then be to leave the page as it is, to remove all the links, or to add any links? Also, thanks for intervening in this discussion.
Zach4636 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Jamie - thanks for adding your perspective. I accept that the link to LEF is unwanted. DanBasterfield (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any connection to the Rover 3.5L V8?

Does the 3.5L V8 in the Lotus have any connection at all to the Rover 3.5L V8? Davez621 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so far as I know - the I4 engine was a slant block design so I'm pretty sure they'd have just reflected it across the crank axis. That way they could use the old heads and pistons. Greg Locock (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)