User talk:OSX/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Holden Commodore GA? 2 Adminship for Senators 3 Portal: Australian Motorvehicles 4 A Personal Question 5 GAC backlog contest 6 Peer review Holden WM Caprice 7 User: Senators 8 Aurion midsize or fullsize? 9 GA Pass Holden Commodore 10 Barnstar 11 Caprice pic 12 re:Nissan 13 task collaboration 14 Your recent edits 15 FA Status 16 Barnstar 17 Chrysler 180 18 Quick Question 19 The TRD Aurion 20 Statesmans v Holden Statesmans 21 No big deal 22 GA for Toyota Aurion 23 Is the Aurion really assembled in that many places? 24 RE: Issues with the Toyota Aurion article 25 Aurion GA now 26 Toyota Aurion now a GA nominee 27 Aurion 28 Aurion Photo Revert 29 Holden Suburban 30 Partial Reverts 31 Main Aurion pic? 32 AIL Storm 33 Main Aurion photo 34 Archiving

Holden Commodore GA?

What is stopping the Commodore article from being a GA or even FA? I am willing to help on it. Thanks HarrisonB Speak! 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the VZ section is the only outstanding part requiring a re-write and citations. But before it gets nominated, I would like to get someone unfamiliar with the article to do a thorough copyedit. If you are willing find someone to do this, I would greatly appreciate it. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 08:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also would you be willing to track down a citation for this: "A Series II update of the VN appeared in September 1989, featuring a revised V6 engine, known internally, as the EV6.[28] Of the changes made, the most significant was a reduction in engine harshness and high torque characteristics at low revs, often leading to a loss of traction under full throttle.[citation needed]"? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Link [1]

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

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

Adminship for Senators

Do you think that I should become an administrator in the near future, or do you think I should become one right now? Please can you answer these questions on my talk page so I can get a collaboration of other opinions on my talk page.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for you comment for Senators adminship. I was not planning to become an administrator any time soon. I just wanted some info to see where I was going.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal: Australian Motorvehicles

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

A Personal Question

Hey OSX, I have a personal question I would like to ask you:

One thing that I worry about here on Wikipedia is that I am looked down at by other people. Am I? And if I am, what can I do to fix this? Thanks HarrisonB Speak! 07:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I haven't noticed anyone doing this, but it may all well be true. There are a couple of things that you could to that would "boost" your reputation. The quality of your edits is the main one. Lets just say for example you managed to bring an average article to GA-status on your own. Make sure you reference EVERYTHING, if you cannot find a reference tag it with the {{fact}} tag. Contributing the the project with your own photographs may also appeal to some people. I hope this helps OSX (talk • contributions) 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure if I can help with the photos but I would like to 'enhance' the Mitsubishi Magna article. Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it. HarrisonB Speak! 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog contest

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

Peer review Holden WM Caprice

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

If you feel that you can do more to the article first than do it. To be honest one reference just does not cut it and I would actually consider merging the WM Statesman and WM Caprice articles together to Holden WM. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am thinking that one day I want the Holden WM Caprice article to be listed as a Good Article. What things do you think need to be fixed on this article(peer review)? Please go into great detail with this, but do not worry, I don’t need the answer now, maybe in 2-4 days because this is a big ask for you.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Senators

Thanks for taking him down a peg, I was quite offended when I saw that message pop up. HarrisonB Speak! 07:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is quite alright Harrison. I've wanted Senators to remove that featured article box from his user page, but really didn't really know how to ask him. The fact that he was annoyed over the user box on your page, really only intensified the situation. Also why is he saying that you’re not experienced to enough to adopt a user? You seem to have a bit more maturity than him, so I would say go ahead. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Over the past week I have found out that abusing someone on wikipedia is not good, and I do understand that I was a little harsh. I will try to keep a cool head in the future.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 08:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Aurion midsize or fullsize?

Hello, you recently changed the infobox of Toyota Aurion stating that the Aurion is a mid-size car.

What I'm unsure of is whether that is more appropriate or whether full-size is more appropriate. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries classifies the Aurion as a large car although it has the dimensions of the mid-size Camry, as reported by the drive.com.au article --> http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=20787&IsPgd=0

I think it should be full-size, because the FCAI is a government body and they classify the cars. Plus, it's priced and aimed at to compete with the Commodore and Falcon, both of which are counted as full-size cars.

Alphabeta777 11:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A similar dispute was raised on the Holden Commodore talk page recently, but it was agreed that the Commodore should be classified as a full-size car because it has 124 ft³ of interior volume (120 ft³ is the minimum). I seriously doubt that the Camry/Aurion would have that much interior space so that is why I reclassified it. In Australia, the Commodore, Falcon and Aurion are classified as "large cars", which currently redirects to Full-size car. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no mistake that the Aurion is large car. It is bigger inside compared to the Camry and it's wheelbase is above the legal large car limit.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the length and wheelbase of the Aurion are "full-sized" dimensions, but I am not sure about the width (1820 mm) or interior volume. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aurion can be rightfully classified as a Australian large car. But since there's no such dedicated article on Wikipedia, Australian cars have to be forcibly categorised into the US standards, which I don't really like. The Aurion has similar external dimensions compared to the Camry and likely very similar interior room. As the Camry is classified as mid-size, it would be wrong to classify the Aurion as full-size. Therefore the Toyota Aurion article should either be listed as a mid-size car or just use the redirect large car. VectorD 09:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aurion is NOT a mid-size car. It won the Best Large Car award so therefore it is a large car. HarrisonB Speak! 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) The term 'large car' and 'full-size car' are not exactly the same. Just because it won the Best Large Car award doesn't automatically mean that it can be classified as a full-size car. To meet this criterion it would have to offer at least 120 ft³ of interior space, which I seriously doubt it would. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can we stop arguing about this crap. The Aurion is clearly a full size/large car this is stated in many government listings. I clearly doubt that so many listings and cites over the internet are wrong. Only very few cites would say it is a mid size car.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Senators I would like you to tell me what is so clear about the Aurion being a full-sized car. Just because it is large doesn't make it full-sized. A full-sized car is different to a large car. Vehicles have to meet certain requirements; you cannot just classify it as full-sized becasue it competes with other full-sized vehicles. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with OSX, Large car ≠ Full-size car. One is an Australian classification system and the other is an American system. They have different requirements and you can't lump them together. The reason you won't find much mention of the Aurion as a "mid-size" car is because the car isn't sold in North America. Likewise, you won't find many references stating the Aurion is a full-size car. If you outright state the Aurion is full-size, you also have to change the Toyota Camry article to say so as well. VectorD 04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK then, so should we just name it a large car or should we continue this more?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing that's difficult in determining whether the Toyota Aurion is mid-sized or full-sized, is that in reality it's sort of stuck somewhere in between. The Toyota Camry/Toyota Aurion pretty much dwarfs cars in its class - Mazda 6, Subaru Liberty/Legacy, etc. However, the Toyota Aurion is slightly smaller than the Ford Falcon and smaller to a larger extent to the Holden Commodore Alphabeta777 13:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, to testify for AlphaBeta, a mid size car is a Subaru Liberty, Holden Epica (to a worse extent), Mazda 6 etc. An Aurion, is a lot bigger than any of these, I know that because my Subaru Liberty (a definite mid size car) was parked next one a little while ago and I could not get over how big they are. HarrisonB Speak! 01:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Camry	Toyota Aurion
Wheelbase: 2775 mm	Wheelbase: 2775 mm (same)
Length: 4815 mm	Length: 4825 mm (10 mm more)
Width: 1820 mm	Width: 1820 mm (same)
Height: 1480 mm	Height: 1470 mm (10 mm less)

(indent reset) Because some of us still aren't convinced, I decided to compare the dimensions of the sixth generation Camry and Aurion from the data on the Toyota Australia website. The difference is negligible, with the length being 10 mm more than the Camry and the height being 10 mm less. Also according to this article: [2] there is no real difference in interior space between the two models either. Using this data as a guide, it cannot be justified to say that the Aurion is a full-sized car. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to argue, and I do grant you that the dimensions are the same, but why would they market two models of the same mid size? It is just me, or does that sound like bad business planning. Also, why does Toyota market it as a large/full size car? HarrisonB Speak! 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For the Australian market, the Camry is only available as a 4-cylinder, whereas the Aurion is exclusively V6. Toyota has very carefully positioned the Aurion is an alternative to the traditional large cars (i.e: Holden/Ford), selling it on its powerful V6 and fuel economy rather than overall size. Bad business planning would be what they did the last time: sell a V6 Camry alongside the flagship large car Avalon, with predictably bad results. VectorD 11:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a lot of articles on Wikipedia that consider the Aurion to be full-size/large. While I am still undecided on its size, it'll take ages to find out all the articles and make them all in agreement with each other.

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

Sometimes the definitions of car categories are manipulated to serve marketing ends. In Australia, Toyota had categorized the V6 equipped Camry as a large car and the 4-cylinder Camry as a medium or mid-size car in order to dominate more segments, despite the physical size of the cars being identical.

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

A "large family car," the equivalent of a full-size car class in Australian terms, often denoted by width. Therefore, the Ford Falcon, Toyota Aurion and Holden Commodore are considered large cars in the Australian and New Zealand markets. These cars are sometimes referred to as "family cars" in Australia, and are typically 4.8 meters (about 15 ft, 9 in) or more in length.

The Toyota Aurion is above 4.8m in length.

Also from that wikipedia article, it states that a large car is equivalent to a full-size car.

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

From that, the main difference between mid-size and large is that large cars must have a 6 cylinder engine or above, which once again, agrees with the Aurion being large and the Camry being mid-sized. In addition, the link says "Passenger vehicles are classified dependent on size, specification and average retail pricing. " That says that a 'large car' in the eyes of the FCAI is not just based on size alone, but also in terms of specification and retail pricing, both of which the Aurion matches its large car competitors. Alphabeta777 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with the distinction between large and full-size cars. There are a lot of references saying the Aurion is a large car I agree, but you won't find many calling it a full-size car. As seen here, the first article on Google search is this very conversation. As you've shown, the large car wikilink redirects to full-size car so there's no proper 'Large car' article and that's the crux of the matter. I have no problem classifying the Aurion as large (even though it is more of a marketing distinction). Thus, as I proposed earlier, the Toyota Aurion article could possibly point to the redirect or to the article mid-size car, but to use the term full-size would be incorrect.

The full-size car article says the US EPA uses the terms 'large car' and 'full-size car' interchangeably, but the American EPA definition of large car would almost certainly differ from the Australian definition. Therefore you can't use the terms interchangeably for the Aurion article. As in the 2nd paragraph, a US EPA "large car" must have greater than 120ft³ interior space which I doubt the Aurion has. VectorD 06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can we settle this dispute and just call it a large car? I think it would be correct to do so.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for going on with this but I have a comment.

There has been much speculation that the buying public is confused with the cheaper Camry and the more up-market Aurion. Both the Aurion and Camry share the same cabin, which raises the question of whether the Camry is a big medium car or the Aurion is medium-sized large one. Also Australia is the only Country in the world that the Camry does not come with the 200 kW engine as used in the Aurion. A clear indication that Toyota has got some marketing issues and want the Camry not to have the same engine as the Aurion because they do not want the public to get confused. Why spend $35,000 for an Aurion, when you can spend $30,000 for a Camry with the exact same internal space as the Aurion if not the same engine? General Motors Holden and the Ford Motor Company of Australia both agree that the Aurion is a “large” medium sized car. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries classify that the Aurion as a Large car. Has the general public got the wrong idea for the Aurion? Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what idea the general public has. It probably is as conflicted as this debate here. Toyota made a conscientious decision in only offering the Aurion with the V6 and the Camry with the 4-cylinder only. The question that sparked this whole debate is what will be listed in the Aurion article infobox: "mid-size car," the redirect "large car" or "full-size car" or something else altogether. This issue still hasn't been fully resolved it seems but if this continues for much longer, it may almost become a candidate for WP:LAME. VectorD 08:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Australia clearly wants the two cars to be seen differently. Back when they had a Camry V6, it didn't have much sales, so they're trying this strategy, with two very similar cars, that look like completely different cars to the normal consumer. It's been a pretty successful strategy in my opinion, as the costs have been minimised (as two different cars do not need to be made) and also, together, the Camry and Aurion now take the place of the second best selling car in Australia. (If you count them as one model). Furthermore, they made sure that a Camry is only available with a 4 cylinder and an Aurion with a V6 to minimise overlap and to reduce the level of competition they have for each other. As for the original topic, I already voiced my support for it being a large/full-size car. Ford and Holden claim otherwise as they see the fact that its indeed pretty much a rebodied and engined Camry, and also, as competing manufacturers, you would tend to criticise the competitor's product. It may seem the general public is getting 'fooled', but in my opinion, they should do their research if they don't want a rebodied and engined Camry, and also, either way, an Aurion/Camry is a pretty solid, good car. As for the issue being resolved, it won't become a candidate for that lamest edit wars as we haven't been having an edit war in any way. None of us has really been editing that part at all, as we haven't gotten the agreement of everyone else. I think all of us have been contributing to the discussing the 'issue' in a good way. However, I hope OSX doesn't mind us using his talk page as a discussion area. Tell us if you mind. :p Alphabeta777 09:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Time for an indent reset. I agree Toyota wants the Aurion to be seen as a large car—a competitor to the Falcon/Commodore according to the ads. I also agree that the Aurion can be classified as an Australian large car (primarily because the definition for a large car in Australia is extremely loose). However it would be wrong to classify the car using the American term 'full-size' because it doesn't meet the requirements so I believe an alternative has to be found. The Aurion article shouldn't mislead and has to be judged in an objective way regardless of the intentions/wishes of Toyota. As for the Aurion being a part of an edit war, it was short lived thing. It started out as full-size but changed here, 2 half-edits here & here, then here. But yeah, since then it's been a good discussion on the talk page, although I recognise this should really be on Talk:Toyota Aurion (but since we've come so far already...) VectorD 10:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you judging an Australian car by American standards? Surely the only relevant criterion is that where it is sold, and the only relatively neutral, reliable source is the FCAI, which classifies it as a Falcon/Commodore competitor. I very much doubt you'll be able to find a more reliable source that overturns that classification. The fact that it may not be as large inside should mean that it will be penalised in the marketplace, IF it is smaller, and IF customers care. I'd say the evidence thus far is that it is competing fairly well. From a practical point of view there seems little difference between a Commodore and an Aurion when accomodating 4 people and their luggage for a 4 week holiday. Greglocock 12:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a direct competitor. Is it not possible to put 'large car' in that infobox? As for that last comment you made Greglocock, it's mostly true. The Aurion also has a larger boot than the Commodore by 8 litres. The Ford Falcon is classified as a full-size car. However, as mentioned above, the Commodore only fits the 'official criteria' by 4 cubic feet. Surely the Commodore which is 35mm wider, 32mm taller and 86mm longer in wheelbase has far more space than a Falcon. If the Commodore only clears 120 cubic feet by a mere 4 cubic feet, I would doubt the Falcon would reach the requirement. However, I disagree on using the American 'full-size car' term, as none of these cars mentioned are sold in America, with the exception of the Commodore, which has its own Pontiac G8 article that can be made appropriate for American readers. If you ask me, most viewers of the Aurion article would tend to be Australians and/or New Zealanders. The other countries where the Aurion are sold may have different car classes as well, but however for the sake of simplicity, I think the article should refer to the Aurion as a large car, the way it is classified and described by all in Australia. I don't really see why American standards must be followed for car conventions. Alphabeta777 07:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are missing the point here. You cannot classify two vehicles of almost equal dimensions (and origin) in different categories, just because Toyota wants to market one of them in a differently. This would be the same as classifying the BMW 5 Series as a full-size car just because Holden compares it with its Calais on television commercials. This would then force the Mercedes-Benz E-Class to be classified as full-sized because it competes with the 5 Series and so on. If we applied this very same strategy to every article on Wikipedia, we would end up with a mess. Please remember that the Aurion is more or less a 'tweaked' Camry. Only the front and rear ends remain changed. The interior has only slight changes, even the door trims are carry-over components. What Toyota wants the Aurion to be, and what it actually is, are completely different ball games. There are many vehicles that are in different categories that compete with each other, such as the higher specifications of the mid-size Subaru Liberty and the compact Mercedes-Benz C-Class. The 'official' grading is rendered irrelevant when purchasing a vehicle; the line is ultimately drawn at how big the vehicle is perceived to be. A compact car with excellent interior packaging could be more spacious than a mid-size car with poor interior packaging. In this case, I think Toyota has done well with maximising the interior space, but it stills falls short of the level given by the Holden, hence the mid-size grading. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to avoid judging an Australian car with American standards, but the term "full-size" (as used previously on the Aurion article) is a solely American term and therefore you have to judge the car using the American classification system if you want to use that particular phrase in the infobox. The alternative is to use "large car" in the infobox as Alphabeta777 says, but no such dedicated article exists on Wikipedia. In fact, there's very little info at all on the Australian classification system. What is clear though, is that you can't use the term full-size. VectorD 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly the Toyota Aurion should be classed a mid size or a large size by Australian standards, after all it is an Australian car. I don’t mean to be aggressive but let’s cut the crap. We should take a vote once and for all to determine what the Aurion is compared to Australian standards.

• All in favour of naming the Toyota Aurion a large sized car -
• All in favour of naming the Toyota Aurion a medium sized car -

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

Bear in mind that any 'vote' is non-binding and will be overturned as soon as someone points to an authoratitive source, such as FCAI, which (incidentally) says it competes directly in the same segment as Commodore and Falcon. End of story. Arguments based on comparisons with Camry are against WP:OR, and sources other than FCAI would not beat it due to WP:RS. Greglocock 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting on this isn't going to help much. The issue here is that even if everyone agrees the Aurion is a large car and the FCAI agrees, there's no large car article on Wikipedia. All there exists is one small paragraph on Australian large cars that someone's forcibly shoved into the full-size car article. And even then, that one paragraph confusingly points to another car classification large family car. Also, as I've said numerous times, you won't be able to wikilink directly to full-size car but have to use the redirect large car if you want to classify it as such. VectorD 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass Holden Commodore

Congratulations that the Holden Commodore article is now listed as a good article. Are you planning for it to be a featured article?Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I don't have any real aspiration to get the article to FA status. But that is not to say that it won’t ever happen. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Congratulations on raising Holden Commodore to GA status and also tirelessly working on a wide range of other Australian car articles. VectorD 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar VectorD, I really appreciate it. I will also use this as a chance to thank you for all your hard work you've done around here. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Caprice pic

The picture you added to the Holden WM Caprice article is a really great image.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Senators, but the credit should really be given to Chris Keating at Flickr. I only uploaded it from the website, because it was relicensed as Attribution Creative Commons 2.0. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Nissan

The359 already moved the page back to Nissan Motors, also the edits made by Ddgonzal (talk · contribs) can be reverted using the rollback feature (for admins that is). It's marginally faster than reverting with a script like Twinkle or popups, but generally disapproved of in cases like this because it leaves an automatic edit summary. I'll undo the changes with AWB unless there is a piped link, so I leave an edit summary and don't make unnecessary changes. This way Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. can remain as a redirect, I'll only change the ones with the full Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. actually visible in the article. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

task collaboration

Hi OSX, eventually I want the Toyota Aurion article to be classed as a Good article so on the way there I have started this thing that list the tasks that need to be completed on a article it will look like this. So I need your help to list just below here, to list tasks that you think need to be done on the Toyota Aurion article. I will then add the to do template to the Aurion discussion page and your comments to it. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made some alterations to the to-do list started by HarrisonB, and can be found here. Quite frankly, I do not see the need for such lists, given that it is usually relatively obvious what needs doing. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To most people it is not obvious, it is a better organization technique.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

OSX, I would like to questio you why you reverted some of my previous edits on the Toyota Aurion article. Why? Both Senators and I agreed that it we should have a Toyota Avalon photo in the article, and in my opinion the 'Design' should have it's own section, and not be a part of the 'History of Development' section. Why do you think otherwise? HarrisonB Speak! 09:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the Avalon image serve an essential purpose? The article is about the Aurion not the Avalon, why confuse people by including both. Also, the image depicted is the US version, not the Australian version. The only reason why I have included the Camry image is to show the similarities between the two models. Even now, I'm beginning to regret that decision. Secondly, the "Design" section should be a part of the "History of Development" section, because it discusses the development of the design, and how it differs from the Camry. I would also like to add, that two people's opinions do not have enough power to warrant a consensus. You really need about four people agreeing before you can say a decision was made. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 09:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with OSX, but because the car is rare would a picture of a Australian Avalon Taxi be appropriate because they are common.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess so, and I apologise for taking a bit of a tone with that but I do believe that there should be a photo of the Camry and the Avalon on the article, so the reader can get an idea of what the roots of the car's history is. Anyway, at least you know about it now. HarrisonB Speak! 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FA Status

Rather than getting the Aurion to GA status, I would like to get it to FA status, for the purpose of having 3 or 4 FA aticles for the portal. What do you think? HarrisonB Speak! 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

that is a big taskSenators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, getting an article to FA is the equivalent of getting three articles to GA status. However, if you are prepared to undertake such a task you have my full support. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Thanks for helping us at GAC backlog elimination drive OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler 180

Hi, I've just popped in to say I am most grateful for all your work on the Chrysler 180 article - I guess it really needed it. I see it is currently, apparently, being reviewed, so I am really hoping your efforts will be rewarded by a GA promotion. I am thankful either way! Gracias, PrinceGloria 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm sure you'll be glad to know that it has been listed as a good article regrettably by myself. I just didn't check the WP:GAC page beforehand, to see if it was already in a partial review, my bad. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoopsie... I guess you could notify Laxplayer to see whether he'd be of a different opinion/have some comments... PrinceGloria 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I did already, but thanks for the advice anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

Do you live near a Toyota dealership? HarrisonB Speak! 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, about five minutes or so away. I take it that you want me to go down there and take pictures of the Aurion, is that right? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah if you could; because I don't even know where one is near me, and I can't contribute with photos really. Could you get a couple of photos of the Aurion's interior, and some photos of the Aurion that look like the Holden VE Commodore's photos? HarrisonB Speak! 10:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to make a promise, but I'll try. By the way, I've just uploaded some images of the TRD Aurion 3500SL from Flickr, so theres the issue obtaining photographs of the TRD versions solved. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 10:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good photo. I agree with Senators, the TRD Aurion will probably not be successful. You can by a Subaru Liberty GT tuned by Sti for that price, and the Sti would easily beat a heavy car with a supercharger attached; especially around corners. You could also buy a Holden Commodore SS, which is more 'bang for your buck' in my opinion. HarrisonB Speak! 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The TRD Aurion

The picture you uploaded to Wikipedia looks really good, but unfortunately I don’t think that the TRD Aurion is going to be a successful car for Toyota. Having a supercharger in a car is really impressive even to people that don’t know much about cars but 241kw of power is simply not enough considering you have to pay $58,000 to get the base model TRD Aurion. You can get a turbocharged Ford Falcon for less then $45,000 that has 245 kw of power. Toyota claim that it is trying to target the Asian sports cars, like the Nissan 350Z and the Skyline but these cars are GT not family cars. The TRD looks good though. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Statesmans v Holden Statesmans

I see that you have just undone the actions taken to redirect "Statesman" to "Holden Statesman" and it got me thinking that perhaps the HQ to WB Statesman text should be moved from "Holden Statesman" to "Statesman" leaving only the real Holden Statesman model details on the "Holden Statesman" page. It may cause some drama initially but should improve matters in the long run. What do you think? GTHO 10:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. I've actually considered it myself, but thought better of myself to avoid conflict. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 10:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in (due to the Chrysler 180 thing I still have your talk page in my watchlist), but I believe this is a contentious issue. I am not Australian for sure, but first I hear the original Statesmen weren't Holdens. To the outside world, it didn't appear so, but I guess it's just a matter of accounts not being detailed enough. Am I to understand the situation is similar to Chrysler Imperials being promoted to a separate make in the 1950s? Or was it a more fine-tuned approach?

Anyway, I guess there isn't THAT much to be said of the Statesman marque alone apart from what there already is in the article, if you don't count the stuff on the actual vehicles. So, I guess for the sake of not creating additional articles that would only confuse readers, I would keep ALL the content @ Holden Statesman, instructing the reader of the marketing arrangement for the first Statesmen. PrinceGloria 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right in that Statesman was a seperate make (ie not a Holden model) from it's introduction in 1971 through to it's demise in 1985. The name was revived by GM in 1990 for a new model within the Holden range, ie the Holden Statesman. The original Statesmans were based on the 1970s Holden Belmont/Kingswood/Premier platform whereas the Holden Statesmans were/are based on the Holden Commodore, so they are quite different cars. The very fact that you had never heard of this before is all the more reason why we need to make it crystal clear in our articles. And what better way of doing that than having a Statesman page and a separate Holden Statesman page, suitably cross-referenced of course. Cheers GTHO 10:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you're right. As long as there is no content overlap, this sounds fine. That said, we certainly do not need a List of Statesman vehicles! PrinceGloria 14:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who redirect it , sorry for that, I saw both have the same picture & name, I Didn't know that it was seperated from holden at first. MJKubba —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've merged all the information over, but there are going to be some long-term issues. And that is referencing. I've searched the web for sources, but information is scarce. Would you GTHO, be willing to reference the article for me? I ask this of you, because in a previous discussion you proved to me that the Statesman brand actually existed, with multiple sources. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks OSX! While we are at it, wouldn't you think Holden Caprice could be merged with Holden Statesman - there is excessive content duplication if we keep them artifically separate. PrinceGloria 08:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) To be honest I don't know. I can see your point with all good intentions, but there may be some objections and other contentious issues. But then if you look at the opposite end of the spectrum, the two vehicles are like specification levels, so a merge would be more than suitable. I personally would like to hear the opinions of others before we rush out and merge the two. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as ungrammatical as General Motors–Holden's sounds, it was actually the name of the company back then. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, it DOES sound so... Is it mentioned anywhere in the Holden article? Concerning the Caprice - I of course just wanted to start the discussion, not to push for merging ASAP. That said, we're doing fine without a separate Holden Calais article, and I believe this is a very similar case... PrinceGloria 08:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is mentioned in the Holden article under "Early history". Anyway, I do see where your coming from, I don't think we've sent anyone to an early grave by not having a Holden Calais article. So I guess it could be done, thats said it would have to be done properly. Not copy paste, copy paste, save, done, end of story. Basically, in each of the article's current state, they could all do with a major overhaul, so it is not like we are going to stuff-up any first-class articles or anything. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the referencing issues for the Statesman article. I think we still need the "List of Statesman Vehicles" as it plugs the gap that some may think they can see in the "List of Holden Vehicles" but perhaps it could be be merged with the "Statesman" page. Cheers, GTHO 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I somehow didn't notice there is a list of Holden vehicles, but I don't think we need it either. There is a category already, I believe all the info that is there can be found elsewhere, it is pretty redudnant for me. As concerns the Statesman list, I don't see a reason for which any salvageable content couldn't be merged back in to the Statesman article... PrinceGloria 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. Happy holidays, OSX :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceGloria (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that both Lists are well worth keeping whether they are part of the main articles or otherwise. Some people find tables more informative than lots of words. Some don't. Let's have both. GTHO 08:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people also like trivia listings and such, and some people would prefer the articles to be written differently, and we do not provide them with different versions for their reading pleasure. I believe redundant content needs to go. PrinceGloria 09:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No big deal

I had meant to pass it and totally forgot about it, it's probably better that you took it over. Thanks. Laxplayer630 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GA for Toyota Aurion

Do you think it is time for it to be nominated? HarrisonB Speak! 09:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I will let you know when the article is up to standard. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done? HarrisonB Speak! 09:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Content wise, it's fine, but it needs to be rewritten in places and to be run over with a fine-toothed comb. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For example... HarrisonB Speak! 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I am not going to write out a list. I'm sorry to say that your going to have to work that one out for yourself. Maybe this recent revision of mine may give you an insight of what I mean. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought that you had some changes in mind. HarrisonB Speak! 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Aurion really assembled in that many places?

I never knew about it, where did you find out about all those locations?

Cheers, Alphabeta777 10:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the locations came directly from the Toyota Camry article. To confirm that the locations stated produced the "Aurion" Camry, I visited each of the respective official websites. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, another thing. Why did you change the table of the month Australian sales into years? I based my table off what was done in the featured status VE Holden Commodore, and that has it by months. Another similar vehicle, the Ford BA Falcon also has it by months too.

Alphabeta777 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sipmle reason, the table was too long. It probably won't to long untill I do the same the VE Commodore article as well. As for the BA Falcon, I haven't a clue what your on about. Form what I can see, it utilises the same style that the Aurion article does. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Issues with the Toyota Aurion article

Well then, what can we do about it? HarrisonB Speak! 11:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Message replied to on HarrisonB's user talk page. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see User Talk: HarrisonB. From now on messages that are sent to me will be replied on my talk page. HarrisonB Speak! 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Aurion GA now

• Ok; I think it is of GA standard now. HarrisonB Speak! 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your right. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's a good thingSenators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Aurion interior shot, OSX. I was going to go to the motorshow this year, but I have a HSC exam coming up, so no. Did you get any shots of the TRD Aurion, that could be better than the one already on the page? Alphabeta777 00:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos OSX. I suppose that some of you were lucky enough to go to the motor show this weekend, I am not one of them :(. I will put it on the GA nominations page.HarrisonB Speak! 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I got quite a few pictures while I was there, including interior shots of the Sportivo. However, the TRD image I took is not better than the one already there. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 09:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Aurion now a GA nominee

Congratulations, the Toyota Aurion article is now being considered for GA status. HarrisonB Speak! 05:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Aurion

Hi OSX, I know I am being unfair and unprofessional, but I don't have enough time to give you a full roundup now, which I duly owe you. I guess I will offer a full review in due course - could you hold on until the weekend (Saturday/Sunday CET)? Thank you for your understanding... PrinceGloria 07:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. One of the more major reservations, for starters, is how the Aurion's other role as the "Asian Camry" is sidelined in the article, whereas I believe it is at least as "important" as its role in the Australian market...

PS2. Please also check for NPOV issues resulting from quoting manufacturer's promo stuff and journalists'/enthusiasts' opinions as fact. More specifically, I would be very careful about the size/class issue and "competition". Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceGloria (talk • contribs) 07:20, October 19, 2007

I do see your point about the role of the "Asian Camry" being sidelined. I brought up the issue before I gave the all-clear for the GA nomination. However, HarrisonB and Alphabeta777 disputed my claim stating that the argument (see archive) was a waste of time and that "sidelining" the information would be been more than adequate. So I decided to do just that, hoping that it would be enough. By looking at your response, you have reinforced that it is not.

As for the NPOV issues, there are not any sources directly from Toyota, but there are some from third-party journalists. However, do I think that myself and the other editors have kept the article fairly clean of opinion, but if you can point out any specific cases be sure to let me know. You also raised concern over the competition. In Australia, it is pretty much accepted that Holden and Ford are direct competitors, just like the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and BMW 3 Series are in Germany. It is also accepted that Mitsubishi and Toyota are competitors to Holden and Ford, but to a slightly lesser extent, so I think we're covered there too. Finally the size/class were sorted ages ago by simply following the official dimensions that dictate the vehicle classless. End of story.

Anyway, I appreciate your brief review and look forward to seeing the rest of it in the coming days. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to OSX for inviting me into the discussion. Well I have to say, as OSX precedingly said; I believe that the infomation regarding the "Asian Camry" is while still important, not as the information about the Australian Aurion and does not need to be mentioned as much as the Aurion. Regarding the NPOV issues; I think they are fine as they are. The journalists have to state fact don't they? If I am misconstruding the issue, please tell me. HarrisonB - Conributions 10:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I now feel compelled to deliver a review of the article, so I would like to inform you that I find my reservations valid (otherwise I wouldn't've made so much fuss about it) and therefore the review would end in failing the article (or at least putting it on hold with listing issues to be offset - but I guess we are kinda discussing that now). I believe this should be considered then ;)

Again, please allow some time for me to get down to it and deliver a more thorough review - but I believe you can start thinking about offseting the above issues now, if time allows. Secondly - some "information", while factual, is rather unencyclopedic (either as such or due to being inherently POV), which makes including it rather inadvisable. I believe you have put a lot of work into creating a really comprehensive article and while doing so, inadvertently crossed some fine lines, such as OR (there are instances in the article). I know you probably feel rather uneasy about somebody nitpicking and demanding changes to what you find a complete work, but unfortunately that's the nature of GA. Have a good weekend, PrinceGloria 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aurion Photo Revert

What was wrong with the image!? It wasn't cropped too tight; it needed some of the background to be taken out and maybe it would be a little courteous to the owner of the car to blank out the rego. HarrisonB - Conributions 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with the image? Numerous things. For starters, the crop was way too tight, so that on the thumbnail view it looked as if the roof had been cut off - not good. There needs to be some background around the image for it to actually look good. Secondly, the whole rego issue is pointless. It could possibly be a violation of Wikipedia is not censored, but more importantly, I could walk out onto any street in my neighbourhood and be greeted to huge supply of vehicles with number plates. Also, how often to television shows blank out number plates? Not too often, unless of course the vehicle(s) were driven by someone involved in some kind of criminal action, even then they don’t always do this. And finally the colour adjustments must have been very minuscule, considering that after comparing the two carefully I couldn't see a difference. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well over the time of leaving the message and now I have thought about it and I apologise. I just thought it would be of courtesy to the motorist; I wouldn't like it if my car was on some website with the rego showing. HarrisonB - Conributions 02:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I don't see the issue of the number plate showing. It is not like you can identify the owner because you know the license plate. Every car that is certified to travel on public roads must show a valid license plate for all to see. Now what is the difference if you can see it in person or through another medium like a photograph for example? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Holden Suburban

Hello OSX, I was just reading the Holden Suburban article which has compelled me to ask some questions about it, I chose you because that you have contributed to it quite a bit. Why would they let such a 'gas guzzler' into the country? 159L fuel tank and 5.2m length? For example a 55L tank costs around $70 dollars to fill with 98 Octane fuel, so it must cost over $200 to fill (I know it would be a little cheaper using regular 91 Octane or even 95 Octane) but it still is expensive. Also it has terrible fuel consumption (roughly 20L per 100Km); so why would anybody buy it? HarrisonB - Conributions 02:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question, but you must realise that the Toyota Land Cruiser uses around about the same amount of fuel as the Suburban, and plenty of people buy them. I am not sure if it still is, but the Land Cruiser used to be in the top twenty most popular cars about two years ago. The rising fuel costs have probably tarnished its annual sales these days. Also back in 1998, petrol was dirt cheap, so it was less of an issue.

As for the for length which you incorrectly stated as 5.2 metres (it is 5.5 metres), it does serve its purpose. The vehicle is also capable of seating up to nine people, and would have a huge luggage compartment. Along with this, it would have decent performance for a vehicle it’s that size. By the way, have you ever seen one on the road? When I saw the example shown in the article it was the first time that I had seen Suburban with Holden badges, hence why I took several photographs. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. as for "why would anybody buy it?" That is simple. It would be the same reason why people choose to drive vehicles like the Daihatsu Move and the 1991-1998 "bubble" Mazda 121. This would be because they like them, it fits their demographic/lifestyle, or because that is simply all they can afford. I personally would dread having to drive either of them, but people are different. Coming back to the Holden Suburban, people with large families who like four-wheel driving may see it as a perfect car for their profile, despite the fact that spare parts and servicing costs a motza due to Holden's decision to stop supporting the vehicle. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow what a comment, I can see you know what you are talking about! This is one of the cars that I have no idea on, but I know a little about the Land Cruiser. The Cruiser like all four wheel drives will always be populat as long as there are people who tow boats (I know someone who goes scuba-diving every so-often and carries around 300Kg of equipment with him), and soccer mums (many of the mothers that you see dropping off their kids drive four wheel drives); but that dosen't mean it is right and eco-friendly. And yeah, I remember when petrol was dirt cheap, it was 60 cents a litre or something then I can remember earliest. I didn't realise that my facts were wrong, but I can understand why it didn't sell well in Australia though, it was a wrong marketing ploy for the reason that this was car designed for Americans, who like cars that are big. Australians are a little more conservative (to a degree) and don't really like massive cars rather than wanting a car like a Falcon or Commodore (not to say that these are the only cars that we like, that would be stupid) but anyway, thanks for shedding some light. HarrisonB - Conributions 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Partial Reverts

Do you spend your time here watching my contributions, waiting for someting to come up to 'partial-revert' my edits? I don't know why I bother, the only thing my work counts for is you making me look stupid in the article history, for example on the Toyota Aurion article. HarrisonB - Conributions 07:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are the one who is determined to get this article along with every other Australian car article up to GA and FA status. I don't think you realise how pedantic the reviewers at FAC and GAN are. They will most certainly fail articles the violate fundamental MOS rules. If you want help in getting the Aurion article up to such standards, I suggest that you accept the fact that these articles have to be perfect or reconsider your ambitions here at Wikipedia. I am not going to leave poorly justified edits purely “to not offend you”. Maybe you should take the time to read MOS and you will have a hell of a better chance of passing your work through the good and featured article processes. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to make excuses, but I didn't realise that the reviewers were so anally retentive with the GA nomination process. I apologise, but it seems pointless reverting edits like this 2006 --- 2006. HarrisonB - Conributions 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It didn't offend me, I just found it frustrating. HarrisonB - Conributions 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To me it just seems pointless to edit an article and add links that are discouraged by the rules stated in WP:MOS. As I said before, maybe you should invest some of your time in reading the guidelines, because in the future they will help you. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Already done. HarrisonB - Conributions 10:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Already done what? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I meant that I have already read the Manual of Style at around 6:30PM EST. HarrisonB - Conributions 10:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Aurion pic?

I personally think it should not be a sports model, but I think it should be at least a picture of the Aurion and not the ASEAN Camry. (main difference being grille design) This is because the article tends to focus on the Australian side of things.

Alphabeta777 09:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100 percent, but unfortunately we don't have an image of sufficient quality to substitute the main image. WikiProject Automobiles also makes no mention that the lead image has to the model by the original manufacturer either. I was reluctant at first to use the Camry image, but after I brightened-up the front end using Photoshop, I felt that it was the most suitable image for the infobox.

AIL Storm

All this time searching the archives for a trace of the reference that I used the same information was repeated in the existing references! Anyhow, I've renominated AIL Storm, so if you still remember and want to review that would be great, else I suppose I'll queue with everyone else. Tewfik^Talk 02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Aurion photo

OSX, do we have to use the Camry photo, rather than the blue AT-X photo for the main picture? HarrisonB - Conributions 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have to use the Camry picture as the main image, but it best conforms with the WikiProject Automobiles guidelines. The guidelines say that images must be a front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person, and must be taken under good lighting. Unfortunately, the blue Aurion AT-X is overexposed, so the Camry image should be preferably used. I would rather use an Aurion image myself, but there is no rule saying that the lead image has to the model produced by the original manufacturer. I would also like to repeat what PrinceGloria stated earlier in another discussion, and that is that the Asian Camry is just as important as the Aurion, and that it should not be side-lined. Remember, Toyota has sols a lot more Camry’s in East and South East Asia than it has Aurions in Australia, New Zealand, and the Middle East. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 03:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Also, I noticed that you reverted an edit on the Aurion article recently. I was thinking of doing the same thing, but I was waiting for you to do that yourself so I could discuss it with you. Remember the massive discussion that took place about the size of the Aurion? Why would it be given a 'large car' award when it is a mid-size car? HarrisonB - Conributions 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the mid-size classification is a US standard, and differs from the small, medium and large segments in Australia. Europe also has it's own system that differs from the US and Australian standards as well. Secondly, it's all about marketing. Toyota produces cars not for the love of it, but to make money. Thats the same for all companies, you don't get any thing for nothing. They may tell you if you buy now, you will receive a free accessory, but you don't. It is just bundled in with the cost of the original item. Just remember, companies will do anything to get your business, and Toyota is no exception. Back to what I was talking about earlier, it makes sense to market the Aurion as a large car, rather than a medium car if Toyota want to eat into some of Holden's and Ford's business. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Just a suggestion, I think that your page needs archiving because it is getting quite long. HarrisonB - Conributions 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)