User talk:Deltasquared/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
Re:Signatures
Hi there Deltasquared, nice to have you around on Wikipedia! :) For my signature, I've just got a little bit of code to change the colour of different words. To make the one I have now, I used the code: [[User:Seaserpent85|<font style="color:#488AC7">Sea</font><font style="color:#2B547E">serpent</font><sup>85</sup>]], and placed that in the code box under "my preferences". If you search for hex colours, you should find the appropriate codes for whatever colours you want. Let me know if you need a hand, Seaserpent85 03:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers! thanks very much, I think I'm getting the hang of this now :-) δ²(Talk) 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Supercar term
The reason I reverted the addition of the term "supercar" is because it has been deemed too subjective and should be left out of an encyclopedia. Please discuss on WP:CAR before adding it back in, thanks. Relevant previous discussions:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11#Supercar eradication
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Return of the Supercar category
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11#Category:Supercars
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22#Category:Supercar
swaq 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for links. Regardless of these, I refer simply to this and this. The first shows that the CCR is still classed as a supercar (and why not?? I personally don't understand the discussion, surely supercar is as important a category as "luxury", "family", "sports" and such like?), and the second relates to the category of supercars being protected for 2 weeks until the discussion has concluded. Therefore until the decision to delete the article definition, I think that the CCX should retain its category, hence why I reverted your edit. Surely in your own mind (forgetting the subjective discussion) the CCX embodies everything about a supercar?? the high cost, the exotic non-mass produced materials, the exclusivity, the performance, the aesthetics, the badge...? δ²(Talk to me!) 16:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree that the CCR/CCX is a supercar in my mind. However the problem is with the fringe cars. Do you classify an F430 as a supercar? A Corvette Z06? Ford Mustang Cobra? You have to draw the line somewhere and no one agrees on where that line should be drawn. A consensus has already been reached that the supercar categories and classification should be removed as being too subjective, impossible to define, and changing over time. Thanks for the response. swaq 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, yes interesting with those cars you posed. The Ferrari F430 Scuderia = YES, the F430 = NO. the Corvette Z06 = NO. The Mustang Cobra = brilliant, but alas no. There are reasons for that. And i understand about drawing the line. In my mind, supercars have to have all the features desired, surely its simple enough to define those attributes? So, all we have to do is draw the line! and that can only be done by comparing the cars on a scale, with definable attributes, much like the ones already answered. you cant just delete a category because you dont know where to draw the line. so how about leaving the supercar description? δ²(Talk to me!) 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- The supercar article will stay, as it is a common term. It is just too subjective to be used in encyclopedic classifications. One of the problems with defining the attributes that make up a supercar ourselves is that it would then represent a Wikipedia view of the subject, and not necessarily be a good universal representation. Wikipedia has a policy relating to this, see: Wikipedia:No original research. So if we want a definition for what concrete attributes make up a supercar then we need to find multiple reliable sources to show it is verifiable. If you think you have a solution for this then you can bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. By the way, I personally would not call the F430 Scuderia a supercar. swaq 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond, and explaining that POV. The issue of contention seems a lot clearer now. And fair enough about the F430 Scuderia, like the supercar issue it contentious. What a a wonderful word, eh? contentious lol δ²(Talk to me!) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- The supercar article will stay, as it is a common term. It is just too subjective to be used in encyclopedic classifications. One of the problems with defining the attributes that make up a supercar ourselves is that it would then represent a Wikipedia view of the subject, and not necessarily be a good universal representation. Wikipedia has a policy relating to this, see: Wikipedia:No original research. So if we want a definition for what concrete attributes make up a supercar then we need to find multiple reliable sources to show it is verifiable. If you think you have a solution for this then you can bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. By the way, I personally would not call the F430 Scuderia a supercar. swaq 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, yes interesting with those cars you posed. The Ferrari F430 Scuderia = YES, the F430 = NO. the Corvette Z06 = NO. The Mustang Cobra = brilliant, but alas no. There are reasons for that. And i understand about drawing the line. In my mind, supercars have to have all the features desired, surely its simple enough to define those attributes? So, all we have to do is draw the line! and that can only be done by comparing the cars on a scale, with definable attributes, much like the ones already answered. you cant just delete a category because you dont know where to draw the line. so how about leaving the supercar description? δ²(Talk to me!) 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree that the CCR/CCX is a supercar in my mind. However the problem is with the fringe cars. Do you classify an F430 as a supercar? A Corvette Z06? Ford Mustang Cobra? You have to draw the line somewhere and no one agrees on where that line should be drawn. A consensus has already been reached that the supercar categories and classification should be removed as being too subjective, impossible to define, and changing over time. Thanks for the response. swaq 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Adoption
I'll adopt you, if you want. Look at my user page for more info on me. Reply on my talk page.-- Barkjon 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks, not sure what to do next, but I'll contact you soon δ²(Talk to me!) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Koenigsegg do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. swaq 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, firstly, the link I provided was not being used for advertising nor promotion, nor was it trying to alter rankings! It was simply a link to a fan-produced page that contained relevant up to date information about Koenigsegg. Much like any other links to unofficial fan pages on wiki articles, how is this any different? I wasn't breaking any rules, simply supporting the articles. btw, have you used a template to talk to me here, as you have written in a very formal way to me...?? I am a human being and would appreciate if you talk to me like one! δ²(Talk to me!) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's just a generic warning. I used the template which assumes good faith though, as I'm sure you weren't intending it as spam or promoting the sites. However, it still violates WP:EL, see "Links normally to be avoided", #10 in particular. If there are other links to fan pages or social networking sites in articles then those probably need to be removed as well. swaq 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
WPF1 New Member
Hi. Welcome to the WPF1. It has a range of aims and has a Newsletter for anyone part of WPF1. The aims are to do-up any F1 related articles and update all the tables to now. Thank you. Chubbennaitor 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Picture Uploads
Images of living people are quite simple. They must be licensed in one of two ways: either public domain or by an appropriate creative commons attribution. The reason for that is since the subject is living, there is a reasonable expectation that an editor could take a picture of the person and release it under an acceptable license to appear here. Unfortunately, most publicity photos, posters, magazine spreads, of famous people are copyrighted, and usually cannot appear because of the copyright issues and fair-use. Copyrighted images can be released to be used here by having the copyright holder contact OTRS and releasing the image for use. Hope that answers your question, because I'm not well-versed on these such things.-MBK004 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome.
I could tell after I had placed the template. You're a member from WPF1 and I had already left you a message. Chubbennaitor 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Catbox
Hi, Delta! I got your question...basically the box I added is a link to free photos on the Wikimedia Commons. There are a couple of different ways of organizing images on the Commons - either by galleries or by categories. So there are two different boxes for use here on Wikipedia to linking to them. Using the {{Commons}} template like this:
...links to the gallery page. But using the {{Commonscat}} template:
...links to the category. Personally I think that when there are only a few pictures, like with Lucy Pinder, it's best to link directly to the category. But when there are many images in the category, like with George W. Bush, it's best to put a sample in a gallery page there and link to that.
I'd be happy to help you with any photo uploads - the important thing is that, since Ms. Pinder is a living person, the image not be copyrighted and/or be under a free license. This is due to item #1 of our non-free content policy. This can be a complex area for users to understand, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Kelly hi! 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

