User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 2

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Bugatti T57 Stelvio

Dear Mr.choppers, thank you for creating this category. I wonder if you are aware that Stelvio production, although a "factory" body style, and and a Jean Bugatti design, was "outsourced" almost completely to Gangloff coachbuilders, at Colmar. Very few bodies were built by other than Gangloff's, and, to my knowledge, none at all was built at Carrosseries Bugatti. I ask this because you obviously found a picture (ore more?) of a very rare Letourneur & Marchand Stelvio. Do you agree that this category should be categorized under Gangloff rather than L & M?
I already "cleaned up" the Gangloff category, as I'm re-working presently the Bugatti T57 article in German WP as well as preparing a new one about Gangloff in each German and English WP.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in your hands. I believe I simply based my grouping on this photo, which was not uploaded by me. As long as that single photo also appears in the L & M category, I think everything's fine. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As it's possible that more L &M Stelvios appear, I'll change this category to Gangloff (Colmar, add a short explation, and add this photo to the L & M category. As Jean Bugatti liberally gave away his sketches (but not blueprints), there might show up Stelvios by other coachbuilders as well. I hope you agree with this procedure?--Chief tin cloud (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. Thanks for your consideration. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 23:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2003 Infiniti M45 rear left side.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 13:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Shuguang DG 1021 pickup, Lhasa.jpg

Hello Mr.choppers ! I asked Erik from Chinese Car about your picture. He wrote me this : "I think it is right. Before that Huanghai bought Dandong Shuguang Axle Joint Stock Co; Ltd., vehicles from Shuguang were called Shuguang DG1020, etc ... In my archives, I didn't find the name "Smoothing", but I found a 2003 model year pick-up, which is called Tiaozhanzhe DG1020A / DG1020B which is same." If you have any questions about old Chinese vehicles; don't hesitate to contact Erik on his website : http://www.chinesecars.net/ Erik is THE bible for Chinese vehicles ! Navigator84 - talk 11:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC+1)

Erik is indeed the bible, I used to see his photos in German magazines when I was a kid. I send him a mail every so often and also own a few of his books - goldmines of information. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

About 1960 Beijing luxury sedan

Hello, Mr.choppers.

I think that the "Beijing" sedan's style is more likely copied from 1957 Chrysler New Yorker, as you can see in these pictures.

P.S.There's a picture of the Beijing sedan's rear view(link). I didn't upload it here because it's not clear--the car's boot is so close to the wall that I can't get a complete and distinct picture. ChengH (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was quoting from Erik Van Ingen Schenau's book "CARS and 4 x 4s from BEIJING and TIANJIN". I feel that aside from the prominent grille, the shape of the car's body does indeed look a lot like the 1956 Buick. In any case, I just wanted you to know I didn't just make it up myself! It's particularly noticable in the side view, with the greenhouse being very true to the Buick. The truth is obviously that the car is a bit of an amalgam of several period US designs, and since they themselves also look very similar it's all a bit of a crapshoot. Thanks for the great photos btw! mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 14:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hongqi CA774. Right of it is Beijing CB4

You're right, it is based on a Buick. But this car has only two rows of seat, not three, as you can see in the picture and here.

I'd appreciate it if you can share more information about this car--since it's very rare and not built in Changchun, I can get little info here, in JLU. Plus, do you think it worthy to create a page in Wikipedia about this car, or add it to en:Beijing Automotive Group (or en:Automotive industry in the People's Republic of China, if you think BAIC is no longer what it was back to the 1960s)? ChengH (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, I would like to but even Erik doesn't have much info beyond what I already added to your photo. The limos were handbuilt and didn't lead anywhere, so there is not much to say about them. If you add content to en:Beijing Automotive Group I will be happy to add on a source or two. The CA774 is a very intriguing design to me, I should really add more info to the Hongqi article but am currently busy with other affairs. I look forward to some amount of collaboration in EN:WP. See you around, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't think its an amalgam of a 1958 Bel Air and a 1958 Bel Air, i.e. a straightforward copy? Eddaido (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Datsun 620 622.JPG and "modified" template

Hi there,

It looks like you did a fantastic job removing the rust on File:Datsun 620 622.JPG. Given the amount of changes, it's impressive that the new version *doesn't* look obviously retouched- nice one!

In cases like these where the original has been significantly retouched or modified- however well- it's definitely a good idea to note this by including the following template in the description:-

{{modified|NOTE CHANGES HERE}}

I've already added it to this image ( {{modified|Significant photoshopping to remove bad rust.}} ), but I thought you'd find this useful.

Once again, thanks for your great photoshopping job. All the best, CarbonCaribou (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will make sure to use said template in the future. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 19:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - I am not particularly active over there but it's good to know that I can be trusted! Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 14:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Model Wiesmann

Hello! You asked for the model of the Wiesmann Roadster shown in Wiesmann Roadster. I really didn't know this. The photo is taken April 10th, 2005 at the old location of the Sportwagenmanufaktur Wiesmann. It's the car of a visitor. I suspect, however, that it is a MF30.--XRay ^talk 07:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I believe, too, but it's hard to tell with these small series manufacturers. I'll have to do some research and see if there are any distinguishing characteristics. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 18:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 1990 GMC Vandura school bus NYS.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2009 Spyker C8 Spyder rL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Tuxyso 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User problems report

Hi. Please pay attention to a new report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Liamdavies and trams in Prague. --ŠJů (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing note

Hi. Thanks for your work improving identification and categories on automobiles! Please note not to remove license info, as you did I presume by accident in this edit. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I'm glad it was noticed before there was any mischief. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 23:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your new photos

Hi Mr.choppers,

Just dropping by to say hi ! I like your new DSLR car photos very much. The quality is simply impeccable ! Please do keep up the excellent work. :]

Best regards,
Aero777 (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded! Great work, really appreciated. Your photos are easily the best these days. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, all due to the Canon EOS 6D. However, it will mostly be used for baby pictures for the next few years, so don't expect too much for a little while. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thirded, on all the pics really, and congrats on babb. 86.167.208.148 09:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I've now solved the redlink issue with the new vehicle-by-year navigation templates. You can have a look at Category:1973 Imperial vehicles to see for yourself. Hopefully this resolves your concerns. Now, we can use the standardized navigational templates for all makes of cars and selectively use the "displayredlinks=no" code to make sure that redlinks to nonexistent categories for model years that never did (and never will) exist are not displayed. Please forgive me for any stress, anger, and/or aggravation that I have caused you. Thanks, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mazda6

Are you sure this is a hatchback [1]? I'm almost certain that US models were sedan-only, and this looks very much like a sedan to me (e.g. no rear wiper, etc). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right - changed it back. The rear of the Mazda6 is very amorphous... mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar

Thank you so much for the large number of excellent photographs that you have uploaded over the years, especially those you have taken of automobiles. Please accept this barnstar as a small token of my appreciation. Photographers like you are a big reason why Wikimedia Commons is such a great resource. Thanks again for all your hard work and great photos, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you! Now, if people could only stop driving around in really booooring cars. Would make my photography more fun! mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wolseley automobiles

Hi MrC. (I know I'm) At the risk of seeming unbelievable rude yet again but do you truly believe that Morio's system of categorising old cars is right? See his changes here and the correspondence here

If you do think Morio is correct in his changes I am strongly inclined to toss any files I find back once again in yet another mindless heap - it does seem I'm the only one that actually (used to?) cares but then it would seem like that wouldn't it.

Such squirrels plant nuts apparently intending them to be lost. I refer to my sock drawer comment to you when you wrote to me on a similar matter.

Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't quite tell what is going on, all I know is that Wolseley pictures are currently in a state of flux. Reading you guys' conversation also doesn't help elucidate what the problem is. Happy to lend an eye once I know more, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 05:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I see there is a later message about categories on this page, I don't know about that / those matters.

"Wolseley pictures are in a state of flux". Yes I suppose that is fair comment, To simplify things, please would you point me to an example of the correct way of organising these things. I can only show how Wolseley used to be (i.e. as arranged by me) by reverting Morio's edits which even at more than six months delay seems unnecessarily offensive. So please, an example, an ideal for the main page.

In order to be confident and before I wrote the last phrase, I just had a look at Wolseley's here Instead of as usual diving for what I want I also went and flicked below that main page and found things much much fluxier than I knew! Oh dear! and like that since November . . .

Sock drawer. If the sock drawer has but one layer and it holds 120 socks say in 12 columns each of 10 rows, one may see at a glance or faster just what's available. Cars are a very visual item to categorise, too often their pictures have almost no, or no, clue to their identity. Find a picture of a partly identical car and you can get started on the i.d.

proposal

If the sock drawer is arranged to hold ten layers of 4 columns and 3 rows no-one is going to bother to scrabble about hunting for remote possible solutions 10 layers down. Well, are they! For old slightly mysterious cars keep the categories as shallow as possible or (generous) photographers will continue to dump in new subcategories they've specially made in a moment for the purpose. Shouldn't this be off your talk page? Please shut me down by sending me off to look at the current ideal so I can try to learn to love it or at least (it seems) not smash it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that I largely agree with your notions of making pictures findable rather than hiding them away in subcategories. Having once been embroiled in a six-month argument with an off-his-rocker Polish dude over his completely insane categorizations, I attempted to make a map of what I envisioned, so as to make him comprehend why I was arguing with him. Since categories are time consuming to change around and it is hard to compare them since only one model is available at a given time, I recommend that you make a similar drawing. Sometimes, making a sketch actually helps clarifying ones own thoughts. Perhaps Morio (I've dealt with him in the past w/o any troubles) and you can then come up with a collaborative effort which will make everyone happier still. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm working on it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Car classification

Hi, may I have some explanation concerning your massive deletion about car classification categories. Is it possible to discuss?

These classification categories are mentioned in Wikipedia infoboxes. This information is relayed by Wikidata and used for data structuration. What's the problem concerning Commons? A1AA1A (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your categories are senseless and arbitrary. I think that your additions are negative, as they only add confusing categories which do not help in the least. "Standard City Car" is not a recognized anything and your grouping is arbitrary, which then opens the gates for tons of arguing whether the New Mini is this or that, etcetera etcetera. Feel free to bring up your feelings where it can be further discussed, just make sure to notify me if you do. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 21:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr.choppers, « Mysenseless and arbitrary » categories are defined by European authorities as the following:

• A: mini cars aka city cars
• B: small cars aka supermini, subcompact or polyvalent city cars
• C: medium cars aka compact cars or small family cars
• D: large cars or large family cars
• E: executive cars
• F: luxury cars
• S: sport coupés
• M: multipurpose cars
• J: sport utility vehicles (including off-road vehicles) (cf. en:Euro Car Segment)

You have the right to consider purely subjective the differences between these categories or between blue and red cars, nevertheless these categories are commonly used and very useful to describe the market or characterize different models of manufacturers. They are used here or there, there again and even there. When manufacturers propose a 108, a 208 and a 308, corresponding to a i10, a i20 and a i30, they clearly refer to the three first categories, giving them all their sense. I observe these categories are well documented and useful to identify a model and its challengers, and consider there was no reason for your authoritarian deletions. Don't hesitate to improve these categories or their denomination but don't be negative. A1AA1A (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And in the US the categories have different names, as do they in Japan and in other markets. They are not set, they are often arbitrary, and many cars straddle categories. Having seen the ongoing mess of car classifications in English language WP, I don't want to expand it to the Commons where we also have an even wider range of editors. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mr.choppers. You have new messages at Navigator84's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Navigator84 -- Talk 01:24, 03 September 2014 (UTC+1)

My Ride My Girl

Mr. Choppers,

I came across my car on this website. You took a picture of my car 1990 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight Royale in Oct. of 2012 in Harlem. Had I wanted my car displayed on the web it would have been my choice to do so. You invaded along with violated my privacy literally. If I didn't want anyone to know my location you made my location public and I am totally appalled. I would appreciate it very much if you'd take the image of my car down from the website. Just because you can shoot something doesn’t mean you can publish it.

It's a nice car. Alas, the US has freedom of panorama which means anyone is free to take photographs in public. As a token of respect for the owner of the car, I blanked the plates. I think that will be sufficient. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! :) Keep up the good work. Regards Alfvanbeem (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:Abarth

Hi, sorry for my answer on late, I was left for holidays. Talking about the Abarth model you have shown me, it's very difficult to say with absolute precision if it's a 850 or a 1000, because these models often used to interchange parts from a model to another. It's not rare to find a simple Fiat 600 tuned to resemble an Abarth. But I think that the picture you have shown me it's a real Abarth. And I think that it's a real 1000, more precisely a 1000 TC Corsa (Corsa means Race in italian). You can distinguish the Corsa version from a normal 1000 TC for its big front radiator. But if you want to distinguish the 1000 TC Corsa from the 850 TC Corsa you have to take a look inside the car, where a new bigger dashboard was mounted. Outside the 1000 differs from the 850 only for the lateral stripes, so it's not a sure way to distinguish the two models. I hope I have help you in same way. Bye bye! --Luc106 (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as always you were very helpful. Thank you, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 01:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

From ChengH

Hello, Mr.choppers. You have new messages at Navigator84's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Navigator84 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

volvo 244 gasoline engine station wagon

Hello sir am interested in volvo 244 ,i can be reach on my phone thanks

The station wagon is called a 245. This is an encyclopedia, not a used car market place, however. I removed your phone number, you dingbat. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 00:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fiat motor

I was wondering where you took the shot the fiat 128 motor cut away that you posted on wikipedia. Can you please let me know where this is from I own 2 1977 fiat 1/9 cars and would love to find out more about the location of it and maybe include that information on my site that I am building about my fiats with information about them.

Thanks James.

You mean this one? At the Rahmi M. Koç Museum of Transportation in Istanbul. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues

Hello Mr.choppers. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

little grey truck

This one?

hi my name is Kenny I am very interested in your dodge d50 truck. please call me at xxxxxx.

If you're referring to this photo, it was shot by a Canadian man called Dave7 many years ago, and either sold or scrapped. The photo was then uploaded to the Commons by a Swedish guy called Liftarn (in 2008), and then I cropped it few years later. I have very little to do with it, and be careful where you post your phone number. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Chery Skin GL 2011 (A3).jpg

File:Chery Skin GL 2011 (A3).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

OSX II (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Saturn abandonado.jpg

And also:

• File:VW Saveiro em Avenida 23 de Maio.jpg

Yours sincerely, Rodrigolopes (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:1954 Riley 1½-litre RME Saloon.jpg

Hi Mr Choppers, how did you get the details from the Victoria registration authorities? I would very much like to be able to do that myself. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Flickr photos

Hi, I found all of your Flickr files that were not categorised under your personal category and placed them in: Category:Own work - files by User:Mr.choppers. OSX II (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@OSX II: - Too nice! I have been doing them in a scattershot fashion, this will save me a lot of wasted time. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 00:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:1940 Chevrolet automobiles

Hi Mr Choppers. What do you think about this because I remember you have an interest in this kind of thing. Yesterday I was looking at late 1930s Chevrolets. To my astonishment I found that for 1940 there were images of 24 modified cars but just 12 unmodified cars. Just now I decided to do something about it and so it is easy to see I made a new category (which can be removed if necessary) for modified cars. Do you have any thoughts about this? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Eddaido: - very useful, I think I did something similar with a Ford Mustang, as it became nearly impossible to find a useful picture amongst all of the chromed wheels and sidepipes amd airbrushing garbage. Cheers, lemme know if any reaction should take place. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 01:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That's good. Should I take it to Wikiproject Automobiles talk page or just go ahead and make more? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say make more, but only when it's truly necessary. I reckon that if the majority of images are of heavily modified cars, then go ahead and "hide" the useless ones. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 05:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Categorising images

This past week I have been working on a French gent to let me have his photograph of a spectacular Rolls-Royce by Arthur Mulliner. He has consented. He permitted 2 pictures of the car. I have told him several times how difficult it is to find images of Arthur Mulliner cars.

Imagine my embarrassment when having done some tidying in the category I discover a total of Eight other images of the same car on the same occasion by two other photographers and now we have Ten. Each of those other photographers had secreted their images away in their own little sub-category. Why? ((forgivable) laziness?) And why do this when it makes it impossible to scan through and find images because the category has been broken up into so much minor detail. Again categories should be flattened out so images can be Found! Or an uploader can find out if they are duplicating. Or an uploader can see samples to identify the item in their new image.

Do we expect anyone to actually Look at these pictures we gather up? Thank God its Friday, I'm out of breath with all this yelling. :) Grumpy Eddaido (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The line between correctly organizing and making things findable is often hard to find. The worst are a couple of Polish editors, who have made pictures of all Polish-made cars nearly impossible to find. Check out Category:FSO Polonez for a horror example. Hope I didn't help hide the Mulliner Rollers! mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I have often been a bit annoyed with Supermat creating subcategories. Sometimes it's useful, as when he uploads thirty pictures of a single car - pictures which would otherwise swamp a category entirely. But yes, I agree. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

But it does seem to be preferred. I'd like to work towards having it changed and I would like to know your opinion.

See these two pictures and look at the way they've been categorised.

Ford

Chev

1. The Ford has been given these three categories: Category:1930s Ford automobiles in the Den Hartogh Ford Museum : Category:1936 Ford automobiles : Category:Ford Model 68
2. The Chev has been given these three categories: Category:Red Chevrolet sedans  : Category:1938 Chevrolet automobiles : Category:Chevrolet Master

And if you look you can find a complete page of images under each category

Now look at these two pictures:

Rolls-Royce

Bentley

1. The Roller, for the moment, has been given these two categories: Category:Rolls-Royce Phantom III : Category:Arthur Mulliner coachwork. I have set up no new category Category:Rolls-Royces by Arthur Mulliner while the matter is being aired
2. The Bentley is permitted just the one category: Category:Bentley 3½ Litre by Arthur Mulliner.
   It cannot be viewed under Category:Bentley 3½ Litre or under Category:Arthur Mulliner coachwork. This is to my mind quite wrong, this is squirrelling away from readers' sight isn't it?

Why is it the European cars are not permitted the equal "luxury" of three separate categories just like GM and Ford? On top of that certain European cars never had a standard manufacturer's body so they are entitled to a fourth category (like Red Rolls-Royces?)

We need

1. a page for all Phantom IIIs,
2. a page for all Gurney Nutting bodies and
3. a page for Rolls-Royce by Gurney Nutting

not, as it is supposed to be at the moment, with the page for Gurney Nutting bodies just showing a link to pictures of any on Rolls chassis

The famous coach builders had house styles, a number of them running at the same time and some kept only for particular dealers. Have a look at these shapes and note they are not all for the same brand of car (the reason for the request for item 2. above so this can be viewed by a reader)

A Gurney Nutting House Style, 1930s

• 
  Gurney Nutting PIII
• 
  taller Gurney Nutting PIII
• 
  Gurney Nutting Lagonda
• 
  Gurney Nutting R-R 20-25
• 
  Gurney Nutting Bentley coupé (with roof in de ville position)

Maybe the Bentley isn't a good example but Until (if ever) I go through all the (to my mind) **** misfiled or under categorised bentleys hunting up coachbuilders just the one comes to hand.

Does it save electricity to squirrel things away like that? I don't think so.

Thanks for your response and your patience in this matter. I would like to take this to Categories for Discussion but if you know it would not be favourably regarded please say so. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how it would be received, but I doubt that additional categorizations would be desirable. Personally I find a category such as Category:Bentley 3½ Litre by Arthur Mulliner very useful. It is clearly named, and I think it makes the car easier to find in a whole pile of 3½ Litres that aren't always clearly labelled. I know you do a lot of sorting with the help of sortkeys, but still. Adding junk categories such Category:Red Ford sedans is to me pointless, an utter waste of time and data. I think the problem is those Supermat-style categories, created just for a single set of photos. I think that Category:Bentley 3½ Litre is an example of an exemplary category - I can easily and quickly find exactly what I am looking for, without facing a wall of 83 photos. I think that placing all of these photos in several categories would only be confusing. I guess my desire is for granularity, not atomization.

The only reason to have several US car categories is because of the whole model year thing. I have been adding those here and there, such as to post-war Volvos, where the model year is actually somewhat relevant, but adding it to the kinds of cars you like seems a bit plebeian and also pointless as they changed in a much more stately and gradual fashion. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 14:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The point of the Gurney Nutting (or whomever) house style is indeed a useful one. You could actually create a page for J Gurney Nutting & Co Limited with such a gallery - perhaps even one gallery per decade. As for additional categories for Rollers and Bentleys and Daimlers and such, I could see them being categorized by bodystyle. Not every single style, but divided into major groupings by coupé, 2-door convertible, sedanca, whatever is useful. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 14:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to see I've not made myself clear enough! Currently on a domestic overload and will be like that for another 3 or 4 days. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I see what you're saying, I just believe that a well curated category such as the "Bentley 3.5 by xxxx" is the best way to display all contents. Doubling up and having cars in as many categories as possible is also, IMHO, not useful. Categories such as those created by Supermat, I would opine, actually only hide what's available. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories of Alpina automobiles

Hello Mr.choppers,

Thank you for categorising precisely the pictures of Alpina automobiles. I already began to do this a long time ago but I didn't have time to finish it.

However, I think some pictures are in the wrong category.

• Firtsly, these pictures: File:BMW Alpina 3 Series Touring E91 (8526679456).jpg and File:BMW Alpina 3 Series Touring E91 (8526679514).jpg. How do you know this car is an Alpina B3 and not a D3? I deliberately did not put one of these two categories on these pictures because I can't be sure. It would be better to create a category "BMW E91 (Alpina)". Note there is the same issue with File:BMW Alpina 5 Series Touring F11 (12620315625).jpg and File:BMW Alpina 5 Series Touring F11 (12620315595).jpg, it is impossible to know whether it is a B5 or a D5.
• Then, these pictures: File:BMW Alpina B10 Biturbo Touring E34 (8844002941).jpg, File:BMW Alpina B10 Biturbo Touring E34 (8844002741).jpg and File:BMW Alpina B10 Biturbo Touring E34 (8844003121).jpg. This car is a Touring. But Alpina never produced a Touring B10 Biturbo, all B10 Biturbos are Limousines (saloons) [2]. That's why I did not put the category "B10 Biturbo" on these pictures. The category "Alpina B10 (E34)" is more appropriate in this case.

Best regards, Nemesis III ^(discuter) 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

@NemesisIII: Thanks NemesisIII. My bad about the E91s, I don't care enough about newer cars to know such details. Please revert. As for the "B10 Biturbo Touring", I thought it was maybe a special order and didn't worry unduly. I since looked it up in the Norwegian registration records and found the following:

Vehicle registration enquiry results
Jurisdiction	Skien, Norway
Registration	NE61755
Chassis code	WBAHG31050GK11715
Engine code	360PS, petrol, 3430cc
Compliance date	1994-11-04 (first reg)
Year of manufacture	1994
Weight	1795 kg (empty)

First registered to its current owner in May 2013 but untaxed since July the same year, so a brief window for the photographer to catch it out! It is a faithful creation of a B10 Biturbo Touring, based on a 518i 5-speed built 1993.10.25 in Dingolfing and originally delivered to Scandinavia. The BMW chassis number (WBA...GK11715) is also missing the usual Alpina deletions. I have amended the descriptions and recategorized the three pictures. Thanks for the heads up, but now I am sad that there is no B10 Biturbo Touring to dream of... I wonder which B10 Biturbo gave up the parts? Also: thread on the car. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the thread and the information. As you said, there is no B10 Biturbo Touring to dream of anymore... I'm a little bit sad too, but I think the saloon is better looking :) Nemesis III ^(discuter) 10:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

1950 or 1958

Hi. Do you agree with this edit by an anonymous (IP) user? If so, please put rename on the file, or ask me, ik can rename too. If you don't agree, please only revert with a reason mentioned. Kind regards, - --Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi: Honestly, I can't remember. Will check my original photo once I am back at my computer. I wouldn't be surprised if the IP knows better than the Rahmi M. Koç museum curators. Thanks for the heads up, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2CV...

Hello there !

Instead of uncategorizing what I've done why don't you create a subcat for those types of 2CV ? It'll be better for Commons to sort them, just because of the banner of this cat'. I'll thank you a lot if you do that .

Have a good week.

--Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 19:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Llann Wé²: - they are well sorted they way they are/were. Customized means altered after they were built; the Citroneta, FAF, and Bijou are all official Citroën products. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 21:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I undestand what you say but I really don't know what kind of sub I may create to sort them... "Other Citroën 2CV bodies" or something like that ? Do you know if there's some examples of this kind of "dérivative work" ? "Modified", "Replica" or "Tuning" are not really good terms... If you have an idea... Thanks. --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 15:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think that they need a separate grouping, to me they seem fine where they are. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked on the french Bistro and the french automobile portal too. Let's see...

 Thank you. --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 15:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Great photos

		The Commons Barnstar
		Thanks again for the uploading of extremely high quality photos. These two really caught my attention. Keep up the excellent work! OSX (talk • contributions) 04:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! As long as people keep parking in nice areas and pedestrians stay away, I'll keep snapping. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 06:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC in red, front left.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality thoug the rear wheel perhaps could be sharper -- Spurzem 06:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

More IP vandalism caught and reverted

Mr.choppers,

Just to let you know, I have caught (all of, I believe) and reverted more IP vandalism relating to the removal of "by year" categories for various cars and trucks, this time by 90.217.232.108. Once again, the edits seemed to largely target Fords and (to a lesser degree) Volkswagens. I think I've taken care of everything, but you may wish to double check my work. All the best!

Michael Barera (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Volvo

1945 Volvo PV54  ? ?

Hi Mr C. I'm always in trouble with the local authorities. Please would you correctly identify this vehicle made of very high quality steel. I have made a stab at it which is bound to be wrong and as the misidentification is in the file name I wondered if you would mind sorting the i.d. out and changing it. It certainly does seem to be in very nice order after at least 3 score years and 10. The other pics are there under Category:Volvo PV5X. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Eddaido: , in this picture, the board states that it is a 1937 Volvo PV52. I don't have the time to do any further research, sorry! Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

And so it does! I spent a lot of time on the sign in the window, the board looked like photos of brochures. I don't mind fixing everything but I can't change the filenames. Thanks for your help, Eddaido (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just left a note for Matthias v. d. Elbe and he shows on his user page how to nominate files for a change of name. I go to Volvo to do it and it is done. Thank you! Eddaido (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome @Eddaido: , sorry I didn't give you a heads up. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 19:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I have been unfair to Eddaido?

Mr.choppers,

I have recently had a disagreement with Eddaido regarding categorization on Commons, specifically the relationship of Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus to Category:Alvis 12/75. From my perspective, the matter in dispute appears to be a simple case of properly applying the Commons:OVERCAT policy. Because of your experience regarding automobile-related categorization, I greatly value your perspective and (in this situation) your neutrality. In your opinion, do you think that I have either been unfair to Eddaido in this discussion or am in the wrong regarding my interpretation of Commons policy? Thanks so much for considering my request. All the best!

Michael Barera (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't much care for creating categories for individual cars, unless they are of real historic importance such as a Ferrari P4. However, there is some justification for the ZeitHaus Alvis to have its own category; for one thing there are likely to be many many photos of it. Haven't seen your discussion yet, but I know that Eddaido doesn't always respond very well to differences of opinion. In short, I don't imagine you were at fault. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 05:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic, but as a point of information, the folks at Autostadt do appear to "rotate the exhibits" in the Zeithaus a good deal. I was back there earlier this year hoping to use my new camera to get better pictures than ones I had taken on a previous visit. Sadly, most of the cars I'd been hoping to see were no longer on display (though several unanticipated interesting ones were in their place). So if you're planning to go back some day to get further and better pix of that Alvis ... please don't bank on it! I don't think it was on display this year.

As far as categories are concerned, I tend to avoid those discussions. The human brain is for ever creating patterns and categories out of apparently random collections of items and events, and we all process that stuff differently from one another without, under most circumstances, needing to find out the differences at a detailed level. I always figured that a computer database ought to be able to handle overlapping candidates so that - in this case- those wanting to categorise cars individually could do so without causing distress to those wishing to classify according to the colo(u)r, the shape of the front grille, the name on the boot/trunk .... whatever. And vice versa several times over. It's part of my conviction that computers exist to work for us, as opposed to ... the other thing. But for whatever reason my suggestions for endlessly overlapping categories never seem to catch on: it's not just a Wikipedia thing either....

Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone wants what you're after, it just doesn't seem possible yet. Meshing categories would be lovely, I'll be happy when the boffins have worked it out. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	All the best for 2016 !!!. --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits from IPs on Commons

With respect to your comment here: Whilst I agree that the this particular user are definitely either malicious or incompetent, I would disagree with the sentiment that IPs are generally non-beneficial to Commons. If you look at recent changes by non-logged in users, the vast majority are good edits. This is a typical recent example, picked at random. (Of course, just to prove me wrong, the first I chose wasn't!). Yes, I would support a block of the user in question, but it would not be beneficial to Commons, or any other project, to paint them all with the same brush. Afetr all, most of us started as IPs before we created accounts. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: - I agree for language projects, but here I rarely encounter useful work done by ips. Registering is easy, and also stability (of categories and so on) is much more important to the Commons as it is a depository used for all of the other projects. Now I will go to my watchlist and spend the next half hour undoing more ip nonsense, instead of making worthwhile contributions. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 18:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The most recent change was this and then randomly I picked this one. Look, I know there is very little chance of anyone listening to me, but I would be curious to see what proportion of spurious/damaging/senseless ip edits would convince you otherwise? I can't say for sure what the proportion might be, but it would be interesting to find out instead of us just talking about our gut feelings. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Daimler hearses or Category:Coleman Milne vehicles based on Daimler

Hi Mr C, Happy New Year. Apparently this firm made very few XJ Daimler hearses so it is unlikely we will pick up a photo but better the page disappears altogether than have the strange redirect to Mercedes. OK? cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eddaido: - go for it. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Dacia Lastun picture

Thx for your message, you are right, the copyright is not clear. Maybe I will find a free picture. Greetings -- Bernello (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Campagna T-Rex 14-R

HELLO! MY BOSS SAW THE AMAZING YELLOW CAR IN https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Campagna_T-Rex_14-R_rear_left.jpg WHAT IS THE PRICE OF THIS PIECE OF ART, HE ASKS?? SERIOUSLY

THANKS PATRICIA FROM GREECE--62.1.82.105 12:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Πατρικία (Παναγιώτα?), the vehicle is a Campagna T-Rex 14-R (as implied by the title). Here is their website, I suggest trying the internet next time. Cheers. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 00:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Talbot

Please contact me. dawnraces@gmail.com There are issues you need to be aware of concerning the T23. Many people were misled. Either you were duped or are part of an effort to publish false information to misrepresent the Talbot T23, for the purpose of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, on a felony level. If you want to give me a note stating that you were mislead and innocently placed false information on the net, and where you received that information and from whom, it might be in your best interest. Sooner rather than later. Regards, Dawn Spears — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.220.44.6 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're going on about. Also, bwahahahahahah. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 07:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, I don't know why, but you always manage to attract society's deranged onto this page! OSX (talk • contributions) 20:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@OSX: Better here than on the street. I'm so curious too, I could almost email them. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:1997 Metrocab.jpg

Yours sincerely, –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

My car

Hey Mr.Choppers! I wanted to let you know under Oldsmobile Cutlass and the 1975 section you posted up a car that was mine 10 days later from the date shown. I actually own that car in the photo. I was wondering where you got the photo and if you took it. Please let me know or email me.

Hi GD, I did take the photo - through a fence, IIRC. The geo coordinates are in the photo. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Photos of road cars

Hello, Mr.choppers ! How are you doing? I went to my local autodrome last weekend and took some photos of road cars. Sadly I couldn't find any Peugeot 408 or Mahindra Pickup. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@NaBUru38: - thanks for the heads up, will checout your photos right now! mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 08:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Chrysler Imperial

Hi Mr. Choppers,

I came across a photo of yours of a Chrysler Imperial. Do you own this car, and if so, is it for sale?

Rob Gilmore

I'm carless at the moment. Best of luck! mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 05:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rochester Chamber

Hello!

I am writing to ask permission to use your photo of a Cunningham automobile in a Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce publication. We are highlighting the fact that Cunninghams were made in Rochester. Unfortunately because of space restrictions we are unable to attribute the photo. Please respond to communications at GreaterRochesterChamber dot com. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.9.24.66 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Volvo identification

If you get a moment, would you mind checking my identifcation of this car, please? I find Volvos this far back confusing. If you're busy doing something (even more) important, no problem. Either way, thanks for having thought about it. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

File:1981 Bedford HA 110 Van (British Telecom).jpg

File:1981 Bedford HA 110 Van (British Telecom).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Leoboudv (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Freightliner FLA/FLB

Hello!
Could you please ask for a renaming of your file Freightliner FLB low cab car carrier.jpg? it shows an FLA, not an FLB. Among differences which help to differentiate one from another, you can note the small grille (FLA) / the kind of scoop (FLB) under the windshield, the external (FLA) / recessed (FLB) blinkers and headlamps and the height of the main grille
Regards, BarnCas (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@BarnCas: Done - I spent some time trying to find out which was which, and as you could see by my original description, I didn't quite believe what I had read elsewhere. Thanks. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 19:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Same problem for me, but about the FLT/FLA change. I thought the change took place in 1984 (new square headlamps and small grille above the main one, but still with the large windshield separation), but I found a 1986 brochure with a FLT mention, which would postpone the FLA name to 1988 only (as 1989 model year), when the thin windshield separation, the SBFA (along with the SFFA) and the aerodynamic bumper were unveiled... Investigations are still ongoing
BarnCas (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Travelalls

Yes, they will come out in the wash as Travelalls. Please leave these things be and discuss them first. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts

It is a big job that will take many weeks if not months. Your concerns are noted. A very large volume of images is being handled in bulk. They can Very Easily be bulk moved to lower level categories after the main switches are over. Please think about the problems you are causing. Thanks for all your efforts. Eddaido (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss this calmly Eddaido (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

the name

You know it is about the brand name. You can stop it with a single short post. I wish you would, so things can move forward. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sammy D III: - well, it's about a little bit more. Again, I think that if you focus on the Wikipedia articles (and invite interested parties) you will have more success. Personally I see it as a lot of effort for very little payoff: I think that the International/IH divide is a very good way to delineate the IHC and the Navistar products. The talk about the IHC logo is obviously a red herring, agreed, for a while the Triumph logo just read "Leyland." mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I am. I'm proud of the Project Trucks thing. I think it will bug you. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. From outside POV, not informed, it looks like the same truck is "Line" in US and "Series" in Aus. Maybe you already knew. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that IHC themselves didn't know, and didn't care. Some years Line predominates (US R and L lines, for instance), some Series, but I don't think they strongly cared one way or another. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Permission to use still image for documentary on Nissan

Dear Mr Chopper,

I write from MAKE Productions, a television production company based in Singapore and London.

We are producing a series of business documentaries, “Inside the Storm: Back from the Brink” for Channel NewsAsia, a broadcaster based in Singapore, which highlights the success of four internationally recognised companies in responding to and overcoming challenges.

One of the companies we are featuring this season is Nissan.

As part of the episode, we will be covering Nissan's history. We would like to use the still images of the Nissan 300ZX convertible in black, front right.jpg and Nissan 300ZX Z31 2-seater T-top.jpg in the programme as they would greatly help to enhance this section of the narrative.

We note that the rights for the image is under creative commons 3.0. Please do let me know how we should credit you for its use in the programme.

Thank you and I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards, Syahirah -- <hidden addresses etc>

MAKE PRODUCTIONS London | Singapore W: makeproductions.com F: www.facebook.com/MakeWorldMedia T: @makeworldmedia — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 115.66.178.161 (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I sent you a mail, thanks for the notice. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Abarth 750 vs. Fiat-Abarth 750

Hello there!

In 2014 you created the category "Fiat-Abarth 750" (which had the sub-category "Fiat-Abarth 750 Berlina") additionaly to the already existing category "Abarth 750" (which had the sub-categories "Fiat Abarth 750 GT" and "Fiat Abarth 750 Spider"). Furthermore you made "Abarth 750" a sub-category of "Fiat-Abarth 750". At last, "Abarth 750" was no sub-category to "Abarth automobiles", whereas "Fiat-Abarth 750" was - to the effect that "Abarth automobiles" led the interested users to "Fiat Abarth 750 GT" and "Fiat Abarth 750 Spider", but not to "Fiat-Abarth 750 Berlina".

In my obinion this was redundant, confusing and unlogical. "Berlina", "GT" and "Spider" should be sub-categories of the same mother-category. Compare the situation with "Abarth 1000" - it contains all the sub-categories "Fiat Abarth 1000..." differentiated by body style; there's no additional "Fiat-Abarth 1000".

I cleaned up the situation with the effect that "Fiat-Abarth 750" now is empty and could be deleted as redundant. If you agree, please nominate for deletion. If not, then I'd be glad to talk how to give a logical structure to the categories.

Kind regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Purzelbier: It is confusing to even try to describe, as I am sure you just noticed. I believe that most categories were already there; I tried to clean it up but probably didn't take it far enough. It looks good now, thanks for the effort and thanks for the heads up. If anything, I think we should pick "Fiat Abarth" or "Fiat-Abarth" and not swap back and forth. I like the dash, but even Abarth themselves probably couldn't tell us which is correct.

As a side note, I discovered this function: <categorytree>Category:Abarth 750</categorytree>. It comes out looking like this (expandable) and allows you to grasp larger categories at a glance and in one place:

Abarth 750

Fiat-Abarth 750 Berlina

Fiat Abarth 750 GT

Fiat Abarth 750 Spider

Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 05:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Thanks for your fast reply. I'm glad that you appreciate my edit. At first, I wanted to keep "Fiat-Abarth 750" (I like the hyphen, too) and skip the "Abarth 750" but in the end I changed my mind because of being homogenous to the already existing categories "Abarth 1000" and "Abarth 850" and because the category "Abarth 750" already exists much longer; that's the reason for my swapping back and forth, sorry for that.

So, what to do with the now empty "Fiat-Abarth 750"? Do you agree to redirect it to "Abarth 750", so that no one uses it for further images? Or should we instead redirect/rename "Abarth 750", "Abarth 850" and "Abarth 1000" to "Fiat-Abarth 750", "Fiat-Abarth 850" and "Fiat-Abarth 1000". That there is already a "Fiat Abarth 500" (for the classic models) as opposed to "Abarth 500" (for the 21st Century models) is a point for the latter option...

Best, --Purzelbier (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: On my journey through the Abarth images I stumbled over "Cisitalia 850 GT Coupé 1963.JPG". In 2015 you categorized this as "Cisitalia Abarth (Allemano)". I believe that this is wrong in two ways, but I don't want to revert before discussing this. First of all, I believe that this is no Abarth model whatsover but a plain Cisitalia 850 GT (the very last Cisitalia model). I found more detailed images of this very car (it is in a museum) on: https://360carmuseum.com/en/museum/32/exhibit/1671 - they not only show that the car doesn't sport an Abarth front-badge but the regular Cisitalia badge, they also show the museums description, which in no way mentions Abarth; maybe it has an Abarth-tuned engine (54hp), but in my opinion the brand is nevertheless simply Cisitalia. Second, even if it IS a "Cisitalia Abarth" by brand, it surely is not "Allemano" bodied. As far as I know, the last Italian Cisitalia-model (750 GT / 850 GT) has bodies built inhouse - the Allemano-bodied Cisitalias were different cars and in fact the Argentinian clones of the Fiat-Abarth 850 Scorpione / Riviera. Just compare the body design of this very car with the other car in the category "Cisitalia Abarth (Allemano)" (it's one of the Argentinian Rivieras) - it's a completely different design; the Italian car also doesn't sport Allemano-badges on the fenders + last but not least: https://360carmuseum.com/en/museum/32/exhibit/1671 says it is "Cisitalia-bodied". Conclusion: This category cannot be the right one for this file - either it should be removed from "Abarth" altogether or it has to be in a superordinate category "Cisitalia Abarth" (without "Allemano"). What do you think?

Best, --Purzelbier (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I vote that all should be "Fiat-Abarth XXX". Stability is good, but so is a uniform naming structure and precision. You are definitely correct about the Cisitalia 850 GT, I probably didn't look carefully enough. I remember trying to make some sense out of the mess Abarth photos were in when I started, triggered by the purchase of some old Quattroruote magazines. I appreciate your politeness too, but you must certainly don't need my OK before you revert something. In the end, I love being wrong because every time it happens I learn something new. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Thanks for your kind reply. My caution before reverting / editing in cases that perhaps may be discussable comes from not too pleasent experiences with other users that reacted rather sensitive... I have removed the Cisitalia from the Abarth-category - on the other hand I found an image of an Allemano-bodied Argentinian Cisitalia-Abarth Scorpione coupé, that wasn't yet categorized as Abarth. Maybe you're interested to have a look at.

Regarding the appropriate naming of all respective categories as "Fiat-Abarth" I share your opinion. But this would mean to rename for example "Abarth 1000" as "Fiat-Abarth 1000", "Abarth Monomille" as "Fiat-Abarth Monomille", "Fiat Abarth 500" as "Fiat-Abarth 500"... I just read "Commons:Rename a category" and I must admit that such changes may be "controversial fixes", which would need a thorough discussion on each talk peach to reach consensus within the community. And there are completely unsolved questions on the way to a uniform naming structure - what about "Fiat Ritmo Abarth 130 TC"? Should this become "Fiat-Abarth Ritmo 130 TC"? Where did the brand "Fiat-Abarth" start - and where did it end?? Therefore I decided to not start this enterprise - for now it's too big a task. At first, I will redirect "Fiat-Abarth 750" (which is already empty) to "Abarth 750". Cheers, --Purzelbier (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: Just realized that "Fiat-Abarth 750" is already gone for good. So no need for a redirect....--Purzelbier (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be more work than it's worth. Another benefit of discussing before changing is that it makes edits more permanent. Now I shall find the Scorpione. I reckon "Fiat-Abarth" would mostly end as a brand with the Fiat takeover in 1971. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 07:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Fiat takeover 1971 seems to be quite logical as an end for the brand - but then look at:

The Ritmo/Strada even sports a distinct "Fiat Abarth" badge on the rear which in my opinion would qualify for a brand name in its own right... Well, Abarth simply is no easy topic. --Purzelbier (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome finds!

Hey Mr.choppers, I have been to the same road as these three Pintos. Nicely taken! I think there was also some old Mercedes, with the old NY plates, and a Galaxie 500. I've also photographed them but the pictures are on my hard drive and some how my laptop cannot detect my hard drive. But I managed to connect my new camera onto my laptop. So I'll be uploading more pictures of cars I spotted. Hope we meet someday :) --Kevauto (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Kevauto: , I hope we do meet! I carry a beard (always) and a Canon EOS 6D (if I'm photographing). The Mercedes is a 190E 2.3-16, super cool but already plenty phtographed for WP. Didn't see the Galaxie, but a guy ten blocks away has a Lada 1300 that can be seen on my Flickr account. I'll look out for your pics and see where else our paths have crossed. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 14:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've seen that Lada too! Making it the second Lada I've seen in New York. :) --Kevauto (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:1977 Mercury Capri II S Le Cat Black.jpg

And also:

• File:1986 Pontiac GP 2+2.jpg
• File:1986 Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2.jpg

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Red Barchetta image

Sorry I didn't respond sooner; I had a busy weekend and only now have I sufficiently recovered from it .

Alright, the magenta posterization is on the parts of the car closest to the camera (along the top of its passenger side). Look at the image at full size and you'll see that that part looks sort of pinkish, and changes to that tone abruptly, like someone spraypainted it there. Read the linked article ... while it's sometimes a desirable effect, usually the idea is to avoid it.

It looks like it could be fixed in Photoshop—I'd be willing to try if you're OK with that.

As for the blurred background ... well, IMO, the car stands out enough to not need it. The whole thing doesn't have to be in focus, of course, but if you were willing to shoot it with a narrower aperture (higher f/stop), you could get more and probably even get more detail on the car (some people would even go as far as shooting the background without the car, then bringing the car in, shooting it and then combining the two images. Or focus stacking several different images. It's not the totally casual way to do it, and you need to have the camera on a tripod, but it's far easier than it used to be). Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: - thanks! Not my car and taken in the seconds before it was moved by staff, so no time for any tripod work. Do feel free to make any edits you like. It's uploaded with a free license after all, if I was possessive I would be in the wrong place. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 18:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do any editing ... my decline was overridden through the consensual review process. So, congratulations all the same! (I may yet see what I can do about the posterization). Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: - I realized after I wrote that, works for me. I welcome editing. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 23:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

My edit

OK, here's my edit. I realized the problem wasn't posterization; it was basically the blue sky reflecting strongly off that part of the car. So, instead of the usual tricks for dealing with posterization (basically, desaturating the affected area slightly), I fiddled around with the tone, making it a little redder, and upped the saturation slightly; the result is a shade of red closer to the lipstick that women slap their 13-year-old daughters for wearing. There's still hints of the sky, which is realistic, but at the same time it doesn't look like someone spilled some glaze there.

I decided to upload it as a separate image as you have already gotten the original to QI and I consider my edits to be a substantive enough change. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Darn sky... Looks nice. Do you use masks to only work on the selected areas? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 21:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You could ... I had tried to just select the area, but I couldn't get it narrowed in enough. There's a way you can do this with just the color, but I was too lazy to figure out what it was. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2001 Ferrari 550 Barchetta no 135, front right side.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)