User talk:Charles01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Image Tagging Image:Ingatestone_Die_Hauptstrasse.JPG[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ingatestone_Die_Hauptstrasse.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

In fact I described the image as selbstgemacht which means that I took the photograph myself. I'm sorry if I didn't put that in the correct box and / or the anticipated language, however! Charles01 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 09:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moreton_Panorama.JPG[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deidesheim_Feuerwehr.JPG[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:VauxhallOpel_Senator_Cambridge_1988.JPG[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 13:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Citroen BX Break UK.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Citroen BX Break UK.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much for[edit]

Thank you for appreciating my work on the Italian Wikipedia! I'm very glad that you like my pages about ancient cars. It's a very hard work, because Italian wikipedia is not as rich as the anglophone one, in automotive field. But I enjoy to fill as many gaps as possible, and I'm so happy that there are people like you, who appreciate my efforts.
I also read many english, german and french pages to have as many informations as possible about some arguments (and many automotive magazines that I regularly buy).
Thank you again and go on with your work... it's very very useful...

Bye bye!!! Luc106

Picture colors[edit]

Hi, if you are intrested try the Picasa program it is free and easy to use, it has all basic fixings, like making picture straight, automatic colors, scratch fix and so on. see here http://picasa.google.com/ --Typ932 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I might. Till now I've been using various programs including, more recently, GIMP which my son says is wonderful and which I can use for replacing shadows with grass, and occasionally for covering over the odd scratch. I can also auto balance the colour but sometimes, when there is a lot of reflection or the background is simply the 'wrong' shade of sky-blue, things just don't work out. Ditto sharpness. I think there's much much more I could do with GIMP if I had the patience and intelligence to understand it better, so I'm not sure that setting out on yet another program is the cure for my particular ... issues ... here. Probably I just need to fix on one program and little by little master its techniques! Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep reflections and overexposured photos are the hardest to fix, I think gimp is also good program when you know how to use it and have maybe some plugins. --Typ932 (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet Impala mfd 1960 283 cin.JPG[edit]

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 09:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead statement[edit]

Yes are quite correct that was an error.Geni (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting![edit]

I am inviting people who might be interested to a vote on how to subdivide the disputed Škoda 742 categories here: VOTE

Best regards, Mr.choppers (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this, Mr Choppers.
Since I have uploaded quite a lot of my pictures of cars to wiki commons over the years, I do from time to time watch in bemusement as one or other set gets recategorised. I think we genuinely have the problem that different folks group things differently in their minds. It's very clear how the writer of the Czech article sees these Skodas. He (or she, but I doubt it) has a lovely tidy mind. But in the anglosphere you won't find many people who think in those terms, and of course if you make the Rahmen too fixed, you risk losing contributions from contributors who have something useful and / or interesting to add but can't quite work out where to fit it. I think that applies with pictures as well as with text.
If you have more categories, it may encourage people to upload more pictures. If you accept that some of those pictures will be good, then that's a good thing.
I suppose, stepping back to the question "why" you group pictures into categories so that people writing an entry can more easily locate suitable pictures. I don't think that precisely how you group car pictures terribly matters in that context unless you do something really wacky. But in fact, many people starting a new car model entry tend - like me - to go to an existing entry in a language they know and summarize it into their own language. And when one does that one often simply copies the picture across.
The horrible truth is I do not place an instant vote partly because I'm not sure what I think. And would I think something differently if we were discussing a car with lots of permutations despite the fact no one in an english speaking country knows what they were (eg Syrnea) or they were branded quite differently in the west from the way they were branded in their home markets - even to the point of being differently decorated in terms of lamps and grills (eg Moskvitch 408 and its many relations) or something that sells in such prodigious quantity and variety in the US that its hard to expect any categorisation to "stick" that does not follow the US palette, regardless of significantly different ranges at different times in Japan or Europe (eg most Honda sedans) because of the overwelming preponderence of US residents among anglophone wiki contributors?
The whole point of a computer database (I remember being taught a long time ago, possibly when trying to understand MS Access) is that you can make all sorts of overlapping groupings that do not have to be mutually exclusive. Given that that seems to be a reasonable reflection of the disparate ways people group car models in their minds, both within a given country and (even more) between different countries and language zones, I think that if I felt sufficiently committed to vote at all I would vote that we exploit this database characteristic and remain content to let different folks - some of whom clearly feel a whole lot more strongly about this than I do - set up different overlapping groupings. Is there any reason why that should be considered offensive? I know it must offend some amongst the most incurably tidy minded!
I'm really just thinking on paper here. I guess I might come up with some more coherent version of it for the discussion page in a few days. Meantime thanks (again) for alerting me to it. And I hope your local infrastructure is holding it's own against what scientists call "winter". Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Lancia Type[edit]

Hi, I've read your question about the Lancia model. Effectively it's not easy to distinguish the Ardea model from the more expensive Aprilia model. In fact, I think the picture you have uploaded is showing an Aprilia model. The major exterior difference with the Ardea is in the wheelbase, which is longer in the Aprilia. In that picture it seems that the wheelbase is not as short as in the Ardea, so I think that it's an Aprilia, the first monocoque Lancia. However, to eliminate any doubt, you can take a look at the front: the model in the picture has a radiatior slightly different (thicker borders) from the one mounted in the Ardea, expecially in the first. Another difference is in the front pair of of blinkers: in the Aprilia they are at the sides of the engine hood front end, while in the Ardea they are on the bottom of the front end, near the front bumpers.
I hope to have been useful. Bye bye! Luc106

Many thanks, Luc. Useful, helpful and educative. Saluti Charles01 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Improving photos[edit]

Visit this page to see the before picture...

Hello Charles, I saw your improved version of the Charade G10 - just a hint: for slight technical improvements such as these, you can just overwrite the existing file, which helps since you won't have to run around renaming it around the various projects. See this one, for instance:

Mr.choppers (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I knew that and have often used it in the past. But - whether experimentally or permanently - someone has just changed all the pages for uploading replacement pictures on the French language Commons upload (to which, for some forgotten reason, I default) and I didn't have the patience/time to figure out what was going on. The Daihatsu picture in question only features on two pages, so it was quite quick just to redirect the affected links. But if you've now done the genuine replacement, then than you. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
PS I still find that Datsun Ute ugly, but I like the way you've got the rust off the door and side panels.
Yeah, the rust removal took a while but is quite satisfying work in its own way. And the upload page is all screwy in all of the Commons - all the while pretending to be an improvement! I always found your readiness to mix languages quite interesting. Mr.choppers (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Charles01. You have new messages at Eddaido's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Charles01!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


For the record
Two of these images were categorised since many weeks on the receipt date (2 Jan 2012) of this bot message. The third (uploaded yesterday) had also been categorised since a few minutes after upload. What is it with these dysfunctional "bots"? Charles01 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Auto Union 1968[edit]

Hi Charles, My knowledge about cars is almost none. I got the date from the Dutch registration. I leave it up to you to change whatever you think fit. Regards, Alf

Thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Daimler Sovereign Series III March 1983 4235cc[edit]

Daimler Double-Six Series II April 1978 5343cc.jpg

Hi Charles01. Because you wisely left the licence number on this car I, having doubts, went and looked it up and the DVLA says YBC 897S was first reg 7 April 1978 and has a 5343cc engine. This is so different from your description I wonder if a computerist has mis-matched something? Apologies for re-categorization without recognizing the discord. Will fix following my receipt yr advice. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I usually reckon it's not worth the candle renaming a file simply because I've mis-spelled the name, but this is a bit more than a simple mis-spelling. I'll try and upload it with a new name and apply to have this one deleted. I guess I'd better make sure the brain is re-engaged and the other bits are more or less where they should be first, however.....
Thank you for the e-nudge. Best Charles01 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cit GSA break[edit]

Hello Charles, I went ahead and moved File:Citroen GSA Break Cambridge.jpg to its proper name. Best regards as usual, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 08:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I still haven't worked out why it wouldn't work for me, but the objective I had anticipated you have now achieved. Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Tax horsepower[edit]

Hi Charles 01, have been fiddling with this article and it may now contradict the journal of the Inst of Adv Motorists which I'm unable to view. Is there any chance you could check and amend as necessary? Very best regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Message received and listed for action. I'm afraid I've not had as much wiki time as I'd like recently, but I guess that's nothing new. I do remember finding the British tax horsepower thing very complicated, and the IAM article didn't necessarily clarify things for me as one (ok, I) would hope. But one needs better sources than distant memory of what my father told me forty years ago. I don't see how calculating the area of a circle and then multiplying by the number of circles should be so complicated. If you've succeeded in simplifying the entry, I'll be happy and wikipedia should be grateful. Brain (mine) not quite in gear yet. I spent too much time in the sun Saturday AND Sunday. A good cause - photographing cars at an old time show - but the today world still swims a bit before my eyes. Charles01 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, much clearer. And still, as far as I remember the thing, true. Good. Charles01 (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz 219 Schaffen-Diest.jpg[edit]

Hello Charles, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on this designation. Judging from the short front end, the turn signals position high up on the front fender by the windscreen, the chrome strip under the side and rear windows and the wide radiator grille I would say this is a Mercedes-Benz 190b or 190 Db (W121) from 1960 or 1961. I have taken the liberty to move your image to the W121 category. Best regards -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not the world expert on this. Other things being equal I would expect you to be correct. My only slight reservation is that I thought I saw a 219 badge on the back of the car. I have never noticed a 219 badge on the back of any Mercedes before so I was surprised. Anyhow (1) if I ever see the car again I will try and photograph the back of it and (2) I appreciate that it is easy to put the "wrong" badge on the back of a car. Anyhow, you clearly have more relevant expertise than I do and for that reason I am about 90% convinced! Thanks for putting in the corrections. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I just took a closer look at the German wiki entry on the 219. I am now about 98% convinced that you are right! Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again Charles! There’s a great web site called mbzponton.org, covering almost everything regarding the Ponton model. If you want to really “dig deep” into MB Ponton history, that’s the place to start. Best regards -- Herranderssvensson (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Thank you much. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Roofless Marcos[edit]

Homespun?

I found this picture of a Spanish-registered Marcos GT, sans roof. Is this a factory car or did someone have the (probably expensive) rear windshield smashed and simply cut off the roof in response? Any clues? Cheers as usual, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 05:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: I don't know.
But speculation is free. It is certainly very rare. I've lived in England more than not in the last 50 years. These Marcoses first appeared (with a Volvo 1800 engine) in the 1960s and since then they've been back on the market off and on whenever someone has come along to dig the business out of insolvency. They're eye catching and when one goes past I notice it. But I never noticed a cabriolet one. So I would GUESS it's a one-off. However, if the thing is built around a steel frame, I'm not sure any of the external body panels is load bearing. Certainly at the front the bonnet/hood comprises the entire front section of the car and tips forwards as on a Triumph Spitfire. The Triumph had a separate chassis: as far as I know the Marcos didn't, but if it had a meccano-style steel frame designed to carry non-load bearing fibre-glass body panels as a sort of skin on the outside, maybe it wouldn't be such a massive job to cut a hole in the roof and fit a strong metal horizontal bar of some sort somewhere near the back window to address any loss of rigidity in the sub-frame.
Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a cool car in either case. I just looked more carefully at the Marcos rear window, is that a front windshield from some other car that is put to work at the wrong end? Hm. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Cool? Yes, I think I agree. There's something appealing about a design where one gets the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the design was penned and finalised fairly early on, and after that the engineers were told to adapt the working parts to the style rather than vice versa. And of course with these small volume cars there's much less pressure from the production engineers to change things so the car is easier to produce as you push it down some production line. And moulded "fibre glass" (or similar) panels could readily be formed into a much more diverse range shapes than sheet steel using heavy presses, especially back then.
There’s a link at the foot of the English language Marcos entry to the UK Marcos owners’ club website. I tried before to send them a question (your question) about this picture, but I don’t seem to have uploaded/installed the appropriate kind of Outlook Express since the last time (courtesy of a hard disc failure) I upgraded and I can’t send wiki-emails and I couldn’t be bothered with all the cutting and pasting and…. But they might have an answer on all this if you are sufficiently moved to contact them.
I think it slightly unlikely that a front windscreen would turn up as a rear window at this time, though as ever I reserve the right to be wrong. Windscreens presumably needed to be made of harder glass which, especially with the recent arrival from the US of a trend for curved windscreens, would have involved extra cost and weight. I don’t know if laminated screens had been invented back then, but if they had they were horrendously expensive to fit in cars, even in the early 1970s when I remember they started to appear on the options lists of mass market models (well, Volkswagens…). Windscreens on mainstream cars in the UK instead had a “toughened zone” which you could see as a slightly discoloured large section in the centre of the screen if you looked sideways and the light was in the right place. The idea was that when a stone chip shattered the windscreen the cracks on the toughened bit were further apart from each other than on the rest of the screen so you could still see through it enough to coast inelegantly to the side of the road before pushing the shattered glass out, trying to avoid too much of it landing in the footwell. Too much info? Probably. But I’m just wondering why you’d pay extra for a toughened glass front screen in the back window at a time when money was still (after the bankrupting effects on the UK of the Second World War) very tight and in a car where weight was to be minimized, especially above waist level. A lot of heavy glass high up in a car body can have a seriously disturbing impact on the handling, as they discovered when they had to widen the track, as a final pre-launch modification, on the nice airy cabined Volkswagen K-70 after they’d decided to abort its launch as an NSU. Best wishes Charles01 (talk)
I was thinking that using a perhaps more expensive front windshield would still be lots cheaper than making a special window. Anyhoo, a close reading of page 5 of this document (interesting) I reckon it's a fairly simple piece of glass made for Marcos - so much for my theorizing. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 07:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this. I agree it's interesting.
I couldn't remember why I thought the car was built around a metal frame with non-loadbearing light weight most likely "fibre-glass" or sim panels on the outside. I still can't (remember). Guess I must have read it somewhere. Anyhow, the diagram of what the assembly manual calls a chassis looks to me more like a fully fledged subframe than anything I would think of as a chassis. So I guess I was broadly right.
As you no doubt spotted, on page 11 (well, there are no page numbers printed on the document, but this is the page than my pdf document ended up calling Page 11) there's a little para headed "Hood fitting details (Spyder only)" which I guess points to the most likely explanation in respect of your original question on this. (Tho of course there's nothing in the availability of a factory built cabriolet kit to rule out the possibility of other folks simply doing a retro-fit conversion on an originally standard - ie closed coupe - bodied version.) These days the mass marketeers sell quite a lot of cabriolet versions in the UK of their Fords and Peugeots and Vauxhall/Opels, but back then the Brits of that generation had spotted that most of the time they suffered from lousy weather, and cabriolets here were pretty rare (aside from designs unashamedly targetted on the US exports by MG and Triumph) in the 1960s and 70s, so maybe the reason I never noticed one in the UK is simply that they shipped the ones they did make to warmer countries. When was "back then"? I didn't get all forensic about it, but I didn't find a year of publication on the assembly instructions document. BUT to my subjective eye it has a rather quaint old fashioned look to it from here in 2012, and (less subjectively) the way the UK telephone numbers are set out suggests that it was produced before 1990. I would guess quite some time before 1990. Best Charles01 07:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The Mantula was introduced in 1984, the Mantula Spyder in 1986 (but that's a full convertible, no door frames). The telex number (oh-so quaint - I work for a lady who had to fire all the telex operators in her company in one day, after switching to fax machines) on the front page would certainly imply mid-eighties. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 19:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Image Cropping

1939 Opel Kapitän, Owner Arild Nilssen who, as his lady companion wear matching attire cropped to highlight the car[edit]

In principle I agree to cropping the picture to emphasize the car, however, I do not like the cut-off spectators' heads. There is plenty of space in front (lower part of picture) of the car with no information content whatsoever. Don't worry about the "privacy rights" of the spectators. They are in a public place and constitute a crowd (by local, i.e. Norwegian standards), so they cannot object, and I need no waivers. Regards Stein_s (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2012 (GMT)

Yes, I guess it would be better with a bit more of the people and a bit less of the road. I'll take another look when time permits. You are correct that - without really thinking about it very much - I do tend to avoid human faces of folks I never met when uploading pictures of cars. (Though I don't remember anyone ever having complained about appearing in the background of a car picture I'd uploaded.) That's a bigger - or at least different albeit related - conversation, though. Regards and thanks again for contributing a super picture of the Opel. Charles01 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:In pursuit of knowledge[edit]

Hi, I've read your message and I started to search which kind of Fiat could be the one you have sent to me. I think that, if it is really a Fiat, it should be a 50/60 HP, also known as Fiat Tipo 5, and built between 1910 and 1916 in 457 units. It featured a 9 litres engine and the maximum power was 75 HP at 1500 rpm. I think it's that model because I've seen some characteristics in common between the picture you have sent and the pictures I've seen on my book. That's all. Bye bye. --Luc106 (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Charles[edit]

Patting myself on the back here: over the last two days I organized all of the Allard photos, often renamed misidentified cars, and also uploaded 30 new pictures I found on Flickr. I would now like to create entries for all of the various Allard cars on WP, but am a bit daunted. Anything I can interest you in? You might also have lots of nice sources lurking on your shelves. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you organising the Allard pix. Back pats well deserved. I don't really have any inside track in terms of knowledge. Somehow the UK motor magazines from way back when that might form the basis of my "knowledge" didn't ever seem to have a lot to say about Allards. Maybe Allard marketing efforts were more fixated on the North American markets, and one of us needs to try and get hold a a job lot of old Car and Driver mags? Still, I see that Allard do get a couple of pages in Culshaw & Horrobin.
I think some years back I did start one Allard entry which is maybe why you thought of me in this context. I think that arose from photographing a car, wondering what it was, finding out, and thinking it sad that such investigatory effort should not be shared around - in this instance - the wiki community. I guess I might become seduced by a spare few hours into starting another one, but if someone better versed than I in the Allard basics were to get in first, I should not weep.... Meantime the next priority is getting the kids to school, so I need to get dressed. Happy days. Charles01 (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Big Brother[edit]

I'd no idea you were writing things all over My photographs! I was going to write This is The Uploader speaking and get into it but I couldn;t find anything worth saying. Now on reflection I can confirm from my own memory that until the 1950s there was a tradition for high performance pur sang cars to have their steering wheel on the (correct) right side of the car be the car's source Spanish, Italian, French, Austrian etc. Date of first registration. Would you please take up the matter of fraudulent statements to DVLA with a Mr Clive Barker aka Austin7nut. Once you join Flickr its easy to email each other. Clive's always been friendly and I'm not going to tell him he's made a mistake at the local DVLA terminal or whatever. Talk to you later, Eddaido (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

On writing all over your photographs, you're welcome. Or am I missing something?
Thanks, that's nice of you. No, nothing.
On Big brother, he's only a great big database, and ALL databases are vulnerable to the rule of Gi-Go (Garbage in - Garbage out). ANY line in the database may be wrong. (Though I know that there is some feeling in wikipedia that it is more important that something has a source than that it be true: me? I think it should be true AND have a source.) The highest risk of error arises with the older cars, because the data all had to be input from manual records. I've no idea how this was organised, but they probably recruited a lot of temporary agency typists for the job (so as to avoid having to increase the reported headcount of the civil service) and I imagine they were all nice girls, but even nice girls are not immune to the risk of the odd stray finger thumping on an inappropriate button/key. Maybe the data were copied over between different sets of record more than once, especially for the older cars. At one point the work of first registration was probably delegated to local offices across the country (as it still is, in those European states where "federalism" is seen as a good idea rather than as a term of abuse) and in the precomputer days it would have been hard to enforce standard procedures. I have a strong impression that some clerks simply asked the car owner for the year of manufacture and the engine size and wrote down what they were told. For cars from before the 1950s you get plenty of examples of (presumed) roundings in terms of engine capacity, especially if a car is imported back to the UK having thirty years earlier been sold somewhere else. So if a man importing a 1955 Vauxhall Velox in 1995 ends up with the engine capacity on the database as 2300 cc, it may mean that he has a unique engine, but it may just be that in his mind he has rounded up from the "official" 2275 cc in the hand book. Or maybe he remeasured the insides of the cylinders at the last decoke and got to exactly 2300 cc.... Given the large tolerances applied in the UK auto-industry back then, I imagine that there will have been some variance between the official 2275 cc and many of the "actuals" in any case. I'm sure I remember someone saying that on the assembly line if a piston cylinder didn't want to fit easily into a cylinder bore, you simply went to the parts bin and grabbed another cylinder, anticipating that the misfit cylinder would fit just fine in another block. Or have I been victim of a wind-up? Ach, time for a meal. Happy days. Charles01 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
mystery
Thank you too for this short article, I am afraid we (you and me) remain (as beforehand) of the same opinion on this matter. Going back to the Vauxhall described as a 20-60 (and wearing that kind of body) but with an engine that is from the following model, I don't see why it might not have sat about in a showroom for some long time and anyway maybe when they put it together they put in the new bigger engine (because they'd run out of the old smaller one) or just thought it might sell faster. I expect they will have been prodded from Detroit with something very sharp. The photos seem to have been taken at some VSCC gathering. I thought Clive might have taken the detail from the owner and then again he might not have. Have you thought of putting pictures in Flickr? Breakfast next, Eddaido (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Image problem[edit]

Rolls-Royce 10HP de 1904
Rolls-Royce 10HP de 1904

Hi Charles01. Please tell me what you think about these two images, I think they are not of a 1904 car and I also doubt if the car in the pictures is really a Rolls-Royce but then I can be very cynical. What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

First reaction: I agree it looks a bit odd. The proportions at the front are seriously not what one would expect. And yet, going back to a period when every man could be his own body builder. And bearing in mind the amount of rework that might have gone on in someone's back yard.... authentic faithfulness to the way it looked originally might not always have been the Number 1 priority throughout more than 100 years. (Same style of comment for the boxy number parked next door if you ask me which I appreciate you didn't.)
The license plate says Darmstadt, but after that I can't see what it says. IF the final character were an "H" it would qualify the car as an official "oldtimer" under German law, which translates into seriously favourable tax treatment and which would tell us, if we need to be told, that IF it's a replica then it is a replica at least 30 years old. The absence of crudely wide late twentieth century wheels tells us that IF it's any sort of replica, then at least it's not that sort of replica. But I'm tending to think that it may have started out as a real 1904 Rolls-Royce, but have undergone a level of subsequent reworking that nasty purists like me (us) might think in doubtful taste.
The English cars do not change license plate every time you move house, so the English license plate under the German one at the back could well be the one with which the car was born (first registered). I tried checking out P1266 and R1266 on the English car tax office website (that's at ...https://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/app/enquiry?execution=e1s5... ) but that didn't take me anywhere. Hardly surprising. Why should the fellow wish to pay car tax in two countries? Still, from memory (not totally reliable in this context) the configuration of letter and number MIGHT be consistent with 1904. The Brits started with license plates (it says in wikipedia) in 1903 and I know the first one was A1. I guess they'd have got to P1266 quite quickly, though I've not idea how they ran their sequences.
I wonder if an expert on Rolls Royce suspension configurations might be able to look at those front leaf springs (I think that's what they are) and form a view.
MartinHansV (who uploaded this picture) contributes a large quantity of material to wikipedia. Lots of entries on old cars (in German wiki) and lots of pix. I guess we could try asking him. As far as I remember he comes from somewhere near Ulm, but I might be completely wrong about that. Last time I asked him something in my rather artless German he came back in fluent English which is what those Germans love to do. Trouble is, if he knew more about the car than appears in the picture, I suspect he'd already have provided the information in a note on the image file when he uploaded it. Still, I don't have a better idea (except that it's lunch time half an hour ago). If I acquire one (a better idea, that is) I'll come back and share it here.
Success Charles01 (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
MHV Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost 1913 01.jpg
Here the same editor and photographer gives a more credible id to the same car in shots taken 2 years later so I have re-categorised the older pair to match. Maybe I don't mind very much if 40/50 is also wrong because there are so many others labelled Silver Ghost. So I now stop complaining. I see I may have damaged yr lunch, sorry. Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

More images[edit]

Healey Westland?

I see you have been busy again (migosh how I wish I could follow you along and see the vehicles in the flesh / metal). I liked the Healey Tickford (from both ends) a lot. As part of that I changed the category system a little bit and was left puzzling about an image you uploaded a while ago called Healey Westland mid-Atlantic woody. I read the note that 106 chassis (you feel it is necessary to be ecumenical and let them roll out loud) were sent to Southampton. You say Westland, is that not the name of a coachbuilder? Wouldn't these cars be Healey Dobbs or Healey estates? I see in the Donald Healey Motor Co article there is mention of a Sportsmobile. What is that, do you know? PS what about the numbers in the table in that article - no category is big enough to contain the 106 estates by Dobbs. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I fear you have found out the extent of my ignorance. Here I simply copied what appeared to be the relevant bit from a wiki-conversation which was initiated by me in an effort to find out what I had photographed. It's here: en:Talk:Donald Healey Motor Company. To which I can only add that this is not the only time that Chief Tin Cloud has come to my rescue with pieces of information, and I think of him as reliable. But of course he is not a citable source of the kind you could put in a wiki-source note: he's a wiki contributor like thee and me. So on how the image should or could be further categorised...I resist the temptation to opine. When I took the picture I assumed it was simply a fellow with a rather superior carpentry workshop who had purchased a chassis and used his imagination, so I was pleasantly surprised when Chief T C came up with the reassuring news that actually it was an identified body type with a named body producer. If your researches do lead you to a more positive and certain identification, I shall be interested. Meantime, your questions are outside the scope of what I am pleased to think of as my "knowledge".
On the basic mathematical inferences from the Donald Healey page, (1) it doesn't say anywhere (that I can see) that ALL the chassis/cars produced during a given period between 1946ish and 1954ish are included in the unsourced table. I'm not obsessive about source notes, but sometimes it would be of practical use to have a clearer idea of where bits of wiki-stuff come from and (2) I don't see any suggestion that 106 Riley powered Healeys were all delivered to a single coach builder in rolling chassis form. And might there have been another lot that were delivered in what a Bedford CA / Ford Transit maker might see as front-cab only form? - ie leaving to a coachbuilder the question of what happens beyond the B-pillar.
I'm glad you spotted the more recently uploaded pictures I took of the Tickford bodied Healey. I couldn't decide if there was a seriously loose panel fit at the front or if the bonnet/hood had simply been left not quite closed as a marginal contribution to preventing an overheat on the drive home. (It was a very hot day: we evidently rediscovered summer in England a week or two back). It is a seriously elegant car, and partly by luck I seem to have got a picture of it from a good angle. It's the sort of car that when we were at our most impressionable ages we would have wandered over and wondered about. Maybe also drooled over, though that sounds rather disgusting from the differently sober perspective of late middle age.
Need to go for that shower. Daughter got into the bathroom ahead of me this morning. School holidays. Best Charles01 (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I need help with this page, I've banged in some more images and destroyed the layout and got short tempered. Can you do a bit of level-headed reconstruction, please. I need to apologise for not comprehending that there were just 16 Breaks not 106, typically careless. Happy school holiday weekend. Eddaido (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I just took another look at the page. I'm sorry to report that I've still not been able to work out what you think is wrong with it. I'll happily jump in if you can spell out in appropriately idiot-proof words where there's something that you think I can usefully do, but speculatively messing around aimlessly with it I'm unlikely to make it a whole lot better. (I don't bring any special knowledge to the subject of Donald Healey, though I agree that from the perspective of sixty years later, some of the cars are seriously elegant.)
On a separate matter, I've made a start on Georges Richard. I think it's looking a bit more coherent and the nature of the Unic link is suitably harder to miss. Not sure about the Unic entry itself, but I guess there's scope for converting aspects of the bullet point format into something slightly more conventionally wiki-encyclopaedic Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
My trouble with the Donald Healey page is just that I have added more images and now when the window size is 15 inches they form the letter T and take up a whole screen. A part of the reason for this and it is only a part is the long caption to the Woody. I thought a fresh mind to that layout problem with all those images might come up with a solution to please visitors. Will now have a go but would be pleased if you would adjust to suit the wider community, and that's nice about Unic too. Eddaido (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, that’s interesting. You set up various thought triggers which I’ve been crunching through with breakfast. It’s Sunday, so breakfast this “early” (8 o’clock early?) is almost guaranteed to be a solitary feast. Donkerbrood met kwark en kaas. Met koffie en enige stukje kersen. Heel gezond… I guess that might be pumpernickel with kwark and cheese. Healthy or what? With coffee and a some chunks of cherries. Too much info? Like you I value succinct. I’m just not very good at it.
I did NOT get the same issue as the one you report on my screen. And I did NOT (despite much temptation) go into my control panel and start messing with my screen defaults in order to try and recreate it. Because what if the wind changes and I get stuck with something unfamiliar? BUT you describe the issue very clearly. So I wonder….
Why do we give pictures captions? To tell people (where it isn’t obvious) what they are of. Why do we give pictures longer captions? Because if you want to describe an aspect of a subject (aka motor car), you can often do it more succinctly AND more clearly with a well chosen picture and 100 words of caption than you would achieve with no picture and a 1,000 word paragraph. But is there a risk that a lengthy caption will end up dominating the picture rather than elucidating it (if you see what I’m trying to write)? And yes. That’s a particular risk where the wiki-layout-default format – as in the gallery format – tends to give you a very small version of the picture at the best of times. SO, especially where the picture is one of a series in a gallery, you need a better than usual reason to put a loooong caption under a “gallery picture”.
Why does the Woody Healey Wagon picture get such a long caption. I don’t know. It is a text that I pasted into the image file itself because I did not want to lose it. I thought it was interesting and might one day support better support text in a wiki entry. Might even support a good informative caption. BUT as far as I remember (and of course I might misremember) it was not I that pasted the text over again as a caption when installing the Healey Woody image in the gallery on the Healey page. So I have no “pride of ownership” in the positioning of that caption in the caption in the gallery in the Healey entry. (I know pride of ownership is at best a questionable motivation in the context of wiki judgement, but hell, I’m human too.)
SO I am intending to remove or massively truncate the caption on the Woody Healey.
I will be interested to learn if this remedy addresses the lay-out issue which you describe (and presumably would affect lots of people whose screen defaults are set in the same way.
I MIGHT try reducing the number of gallery images per line as well, to be sure to change – preferably improve – the way the gallery looks. I’ll see how that works (albeit using MY screen configuration defaults) and think about it.
Meantime the info currently in the caption is still accessible for anyone (1) interested enough in the Woody Healey picture to look at the picture itself in full screen format on the wiki-commons file and for anyone (2) thinking that the Healey entry needs a full para on Woody Healeys (or some equivalent subject) into which the info I’m removing from the caption might usefully be incorporated. That is NOT a hint that such a para should be composed. I don’t know too much about Healeys, but I suspect that there may be other paras of more mainstream information that might need to be introduced before getting down to the level of detail that would justify a para dedicated to the Woody Healey Wagon. BUT I repeat, I simply don’t know enough about the subject to judge this.
So much thinking before half-past eight feels a bit excessive. Family still unanimously asleep, to judge by the continuing silence from the water pipes. Long live Sunday. I’m off to do what I wrote before I change my mind. Feel free (as ever) to reverse or improve upon my wiki-deeds with this. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry the last week(! I see) has been awkward and distracting and flashed past but I'm here now and sorry about that. There are signs I'd like the chance to graze on your family's 'frig (should that be fridge?). Anyway, Please put back the long caption for the Woody, my concern was that I'd moved it to a position the author might not like and I did not want to seem to have been offensive. May your summer continue so very warm and pleasing and may your Sunday water pipes stay peaceful for every bit as long this coming Sunday! No dashing about and getting heat-stroke or anything. Eddaido (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Knebworth House Classic Motor Show 2013[edit]

Hello Charles, I wanted to let you know that I've created Category:Knebworth House Classic Motor Show 2013. So you might want to add it to your new uploads. I like the shots you took at Knebworth today, and thanks a lot for sharing them immediately. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you much.
I've been going to this oldtimer show at Knebworth for several years so that I have already, in previous years, uploaded to wikipedia many of the pictures of old English cars that were previously "missing". That means that this year I really am in most cases able to limit myself to cars that were painted in clear colours and were well positioned in relation to the sun (and in most cases well positioned in relation to the other cars), so it's more about trying to improve the quality of what is there (always a VERY subjective matter!) than about filling in gaps.
I see you've also picked up on the pictures I took last week at Schaffen-Diest. (Schaffen is a Vorort of Diest.) I got many more pictures at Schaffen-Diest in 2012, when the light was more consistently good (though 2013 the light was quite good some of the time: kept changing though....) In my file names I concentrate on identifying the car in the file name and I am not consistent (though I guess I need to be) about whether or not I include "where" in the file name of cars I photograph, but any picture of a car that I uploaded between 12 August 2012 and 27 August 2012, especially where the license plate is Belgian or Dutch (and NOT where it's an older picture which I simply changed by cropping it more or something) probably deserves to be in a Schaffen-Diest autoshow 2012 category if there will be one. That classification can be a job for me for the long winter evenings, though of course if you do get in first I will be grateful and happy!
Thanks again for noticing - and noticing so quickly - the batch I uploaded today, and for bothering to let me know and categorise the pictures.
Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think including the location in the filename is not that important, and it would only make them longer and unhandy. But I see you've found Category:Schaffen Fly and Drive In 2012 Cars. That said, do you also happen to have photos of planes from this year's event in Schaffen? De728631 (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Sadly no plane pictures 2012, no. That would need several of me (and I don't really have much of an eye for the planes, nor a fast enough repeating camera to photograph them coming and going on the bumpy grass strip on the north side of the car park).
On file names, I guess my priority is (1) to describe what the file contains and (2) to avoid inadvertently using a name someone else already used. That's the thinking behind preferring "Ford Escort May 1995 1098cc.jpg" over "Ford Escort.jpg". I'm afraid I tend always to use image file names with "copy and paste" so I'm not really aware of the "longer and unhandy" issue. Maybe I should be.... Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ownership and change of license on File:Vauxhall Viva HB cropped.jpg[edit]

Hi again,

I notice that you added some licensing and attribution information (*) to File:Vauxhall Viva HB cropped.jpg, which is apparently a straightforward crop and minor contrast tweak of File:Vivahb.jpg by GRAHAMUK.

As far as I'm aware, very straightforward changes like these fall under the threshold of originality and are very unlikely to confer any additional ownership or copyright to the person making the changes. Thus, though you specifically disclaimed these rights anyway, I don't think it's necessary in this case. :-)

However, I notice that the license on the cropped version was changed to "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication" rather than the original work's dual GFDL-1.2/CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensing terms. I assume that this was only meant to refer to your changes (since, of course, one can't change the original's licensing without permission from the original owner), but it was misleading since no mention was made of the original license.

Since this wasn't necessary anyway, I've removed these to avoid confusion and copied over the licensing terms from the original.

I'm sure this was done in good faith, so please don't take this as a criticism of your work or your decision to crop the image. On the contrary, I'm in agreement with the latter- having separate cropped versions of images is good if it helps us make substantially better use of limited space, e.g. for Wikipedia thumbnails.

(*) (See here for original version of these).

All the best, CarbonCaribou (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I feel a bit uneasy cropping other peoples' images, but this one just screamed to be cropped - at least with my screen set up, and given that people now try and look at websites on a little telephone (must be mad....). BUT I have now got into a more systematic routine for when I do do it (I think), and I always try and simply copy the copyright category used in the original shot by the original uploader. If I didn't do that here, it was a mistake. Which you say you have corrected. So thank you. And best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
If it was a mistake then no problem- I just felt it was something I should point out.
Personally, I usually add the creditable author's name to the existing license templates- by default those normally refer to "I", which is okay for the original upload by the author, but somewhat misleading if the uploader of the derived version isn't that person. This normally makes clearer who should be credited (and I've still seen images incorrectly attributed to me or "Wikimedia Commons"!). This is something that even the 'derivativeFX' upload facility doesn't do, though IMHO it should...
Anyway, like I said, I've no problem with your decision to crop itself- quite the opposite, if the cropped version has a clearly worthwhile purpose- as it does here.
I also meant to say last time that if you feel a crop- or other change- alters an image to an extent the original uploader might (conceivably) disagree with or want noted, you can still point out that fact that it has been cropped, even if this wouldn't otherwise warrant a credit. (Like I added your name to the derived version).
All the best, CarbonCaribou (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that makes sense to me. I'd not really meant to launch a long discussion about this, but cannot resist adding a link the the last time I "improved" someone else's image. It's here or (from slightly earlier) here. I think the annotations I added "do the job" but if you think anything I did here is plain wrong, maybe you could let me know of any suggested improvement(s) for next time I do something similar. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


You can see my suggested changes for the first here. I'd say:-

  • (i) you definitely need to change the author field to include the original photographer's name- while your changes are certainly an improvement, you're not the main "author" as such.
  • (ii) I also updated the license to reflect the fact that the uploader (you) is not the original author (note that this now displays Berthold Werner's name and not "I"), and
  • (iii) I added the optional "derived from" template, though that was more to show its use- it's not essential here as you already acknowledged the source.

You can see the changes made to the second here. Again, I changed the author field and attributed name in the license. Note that (annoyingly) that license template doesn't support the "author" field, requiring "attribution" instead. I tend to just put them both in (i.e. ...|author=BLAH|attribution=BLAH|..) anyway, so I don't need to bother remembering which template requires which. :-)

Perhaps you could also clarify what retouching was carried out.

I think "neighbo(u)r" in the first filename is unnecessary; either "neighbour" or "neighbor" would be fine. Commons allows almost any language to be used in filenames as long as it's meaningful (e.g. Arabic), so IMHO you don't need to worry about pandering to US vs. British English. :-) Perhaps even "cropped and modified" is enough for the filename anyway- you can include the rationale with the rest of the file info (as you did).

IMHO the most important thing is that the original author is credited and license retained, though- via the "author" field (at least) and the license template (preferably). If you think your changes are major enough to warrant crediting yourself, you may also wish to add that- to some extent whether this is justified this is a matter of judgement when one goes beyond simple crops and brightness/contrast/colour fixes.

Sorry, that was definitely a long answer. :-( CarbonCaribou (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Language difficulties[edit]

Hoping to find something useful I looked up monoglot and the dictionary gave me this recent example of its use:1991 Personal Computer World Feb. 4/2 The day someone invents a car alarm that actually stops vehicles being stolen, I'll learn Latvian. I expect to die a monoglot.

There's enough personal remarks about and by me. I am concerned I may have not understood properly in this discussion about Bentleys and some pictures of an old car with Jean11. I would be grateful if you would cast a diplomatic eye over proceedings. I would hate to learn too late we are talking past each other's shoulders, specially as i'm relying on Google translate. Here's wishing you and yours a sunny summer Saturday. Best, Eddaido (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Bedford TA or TD ?[edit]

Hello!

(This is about the comment you put in the description of your Bedford TD Tipper truck 4927cc picture)

TA before TJ or TD before TJ? Or was the TD a "single shot"?
As WP is not really clear about the 2 models and Commons has no image of the TD, I had the same problem to ID a similar truck which I suspected to be miscategorized (it was in the Chevrolet Advance Design category). I did some researches (this is how I discovered your pictures), and I think I found the difference between the TA and the TD models. As you said, they look pretty similar to each other but the grille is a lot different. TD front fascia seems to be that way:

(sorry, there is no TD picture on Commons, and no one seems to have one with a Commons compliant licence)

A contemporary advertisement corroborate the TA grille of "your" Bedford:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1954-Bedford-TA-Truck-Sales-Brochure-Dutch-wd4244-7S4G2C-/290876087232

So I think you may delete or rename the "TD version" of your picture, as you already have done the "TA" one Clin
(Why is there a 28Ko difference between the two files?)

Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bedford TA it is. Many thanks for sharing the fruits of your researches.
I'd really been depending, in this case, on my memory which is dangerous at the best of times, and this one I remembered simple as a "Bedford Truck" - or more likely "Bedford Lorry" because I grew up in England and back then the word "truck" was reserved for railway wagons here. Anyhow, I remember when I took this picture I started googling around and being still pretty unsure after I'd finished about what this one was called, so I am more than happy to accept the fruits of your own more systematic researches. Interestingly all the TDs to which you provided links were photographed outside the UK, and I don't remember that slightly more elaborate front treatment at all. I wonder if they simply badged it as a Bedford for markets (such as Australia, NZ, Rep South Africa...) where truck buyers found the "Bedford" name more friendly than "Chevrolet" but actually shipped these TDs direct from Detroit (where, as you say, the design for all these things originated courtesy of the Chevy division). Sorry to inflict my mental ramblings on you and thanks again for the clarification/correction.
Lots of possible reasons for file size difference. Different pictures? Differently cropped? Now that we use digital cameras and don't have to count the cost of the film, I'm afraid I tend to take 3 or 4 pictures the same and then (if good enough and filling a wiki-need) upload just one of them. Light conditions, level of hand shake, the precise direction in which the camera is pointed ... and at these old timer shows the unplanned appearance of unexpected people into or out of the frame can all make a difference.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the American words I use: it's hard for us, non-English speakers, to know which word will fit, depending on who read our "prose"... And I must also admit I use the words I read the more often during my researches, as I'm a bit lazy Clin
- About the TD lorries, it's hard to find pictures and specifications about them. Typically the problem one can have while searching for "Export" vehicles, indeed, and I thank you for that hint. But for the moment I won't search further for it: I tried just to find the good category for what was first thought to be a Chevrolet Advance Design. But be sure that this idea is now stored somewhere in my mind, which means it won't get out of it without a solution. That's my curse! Face-grin.svg
- I thought the two pictures where exactly the same one, but with a different name. In fact, they are made from the same shot, but you gave more light to the TA one (or more darkness to the ex-TB). Hence the 28 Ko difference...
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

French plates[edit]

Hello!

“It is indeed a source of sadness for me that with Italian and (more recently) French cars you cannot simply look at the license plate and know where in the country it is registered.”

Well, if you look at the new French plates, there is still a (smaller) number for the department on the right of the plate:
French car registration plate
For at least most of the vehicles it's mandatory to have the region logo and the department code, but they're not part of the registration. Only the central AA-111-AA is important: you can choose any department you want! One of my uncle lives near Paris, but he bought a plate with 23 as department number. He finds it very funny... Facepalm

(Me too - tho actually I guess wishing to be associated with somewhere where you DO NOT live is not unique to French people, and on a slightly serious note you cannot condemn politicians and bureaucrats exclusively for the widespread retreat from rationality, both in public administration AND more generally across western Europe, during the last couple of decades. It's part of us all Charles01 (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC))

So with this department number, we have a mandatory (fine of 135 € if not present) and useless gadget. French administration proved once more that it doesn't recruit with intelligence as first criterion...

“In terms of getting to the age of the car from the license plate, the Netherlands and Great Britain are both unusual - at least at this end of Europe - in that the same license plate (usually) stays with the car throughout the life of the car.”
—Charles01

Same thing in France, now. The new system is supposed to last 80 years (with more or less 278 millions possible numbers), and it's a life-long registration number the cars have now. In 2075, Wikipedians will be able to identify easily the model year of 2009+ French vehicles lol
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That will be useful - maybe before 2075. (I guess it probably applies also in Italy, where the new system appears to be driven by similar thought patterns parmi les "Enarchs d'Italie".) Thank you.
BUT from looking at cars in France I am pretty sure that older cars with older license plates - eg a 2005 car licensed with 999 XXX 75 or indeed 9999 XX 66 - are still getting issued with a new-style plate, presumably when the car changes owners. Or should I be looking more carefully?
Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that older cars with older license plates - eg a 2005 car licensed with 999 XXX 75 or indeed 9999 XX 66 - are still getting issued with a new-style plate, presumably when the car changes owners.
—Charles01
I'm not sure to exactly understand what you mean (sorry, I'm not a native English speaker Smile): some plates with old numbers look like the one with the new numbers, or the plates seem to change from old system to new one?
  • First case: last plates of the old system were almost similar to the new ones, at least in color:
    French old registration sytem plate
    French new registration sytem plate

    But they won't last because:
  • Second case: old plates (depending on the owner AND his location) are/will be changed into new ones on the next "move" of the car.
    • If the owner move to another department, he must declare it to Prefecture, and thus will have a new system plate for his car;
    • It the car is sold, the new owner will have a new system plate number for it.
Oui. C'est comme ça que j'avais compris les modalités actuelles en France. Donc, nous sommes d'accord. Aussi en Allemagne ou en Suisse, un changement de région déclenchera un changement de numéro. En Angleterre, ou même dans les Pays Bas c'est fait autrement. N'importe les changements d'adresse ou du propriétaire, la voiture gardera normalement le même numéro pendant la vie de la voiture (à l'exception de "vanity plates" acheté). En NL ça n'a rien à faire avec la région du domicile pour la voiture, parce que le numéro ne te donnera aucune information sur la région du domicile pour la voiture (comme maintenant en France). Mais en Angleterre, avec une voiture d'occasion, ça te donnera beaucoup de voitures qui habitant à Londres, muni toujours avec le numéro d'origine soit de Birmingham soit Ecossais.... Clear as mud? Hmmmmm Saluts! Charles01 (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case, the old system is scheduled to disappear in "normal way" (selling or moving of the cars) until about 2020.
For the record, historical cars (i.e with the official special administrative status) can have black plates with a new system number:
French historical cars registration plate: AA-111-AA system with silver letters on black plate
Of course, this new system is said to simplify things lol
Ha
BarnCas (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Kinda weird, these answers inside the answers like in mails. But the last ones were more obvious than the first one about the "joke" of false department lol
So to summarize, if the registration number is:
  • already a new system number, it will never change again, even in case of department/region move, as plates are now nation-wide and related to the car. It's the SIV / Système d'Immatriculation des Véhicules, used since april 2009;
  • an old system number (FIV / fichier national des immatriculations - 1950-2009): it will be changed into a new system one on the next move (new owner or new location for the same owner), and thus become a life-long number for the car (and will no more change);
  • FIV numbers are expected to be seen only until 2020. So we just have to rack our brain over this only for the next 6 years Clin
See you!
BarnCas (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

SS Cars and stuff[edit]

Please would you run one of your fresh discerning eyes (synced of course) across my contributions to Jaguar, SS Cars and Swallow in Commons. I may have offended many other editors and its better I find out early. Why does the category Jaguar vehicles contain things like Jaguar vehicles in Baku? Regards and best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jaguars in Baku does look like overkill. Then again, place can be important, and I was intrigued to check out Jaguars in Hong Kong. Maybe we need a sub-grouping under "Jaguars by country/city/location"? - but not unless we have a MUCH more widespread emphasis on place than we yet have for Jaguars in my judgement.) I have never been to Baku but I do occasionally include the place on my own pictures in the file name or in the rubric. It may be interesting for people in 2014 to see how a particular Cambridge street looked in 1975. There was something maybe pleasingly ironic in a picture of a Bentley S3 - quintessentially an English for many English readers - looking at home in the car park of the French national automobile museum in Mulhouse, quite apart from the fact that I could see myself, if still alive in 20 years, coming back to the picture I took of a Bentley S3 in Mulhouse, wondering where the hell that rainy street in the background is.
The Commons categories for SS Cars and Jaguar cars all make sense to me. Thanks for sorting them a bit. But grouping random items or events into patterns is what humans do, and you should not expect the self evidently logical (your version and, in this instance, also mine) to make sense to everyone.
It seems The Union lives to fight another day, hacked away but not yet rent asunder. Not sure what I think about it all, but staying together seems, on balance, a whole lot less dangerous for security and economic survival than the other thing. Lack of imagination on my part? And/or lack of confidence in the undertakings of snake-oil salesmen? All three, no doubt.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, mind on other things and we have just finished a truly weird general election. Thanks for your thoughts. I am never sure if no complaint means what it says, if you see what I mean. This world is full of angry silences. The Scot I hear most from (barber) told me months back he was all for independence and I just thought he was cranky. Now it isn't outlandish at all. Next time perhaps. Australia seemed close to becoming a republic then backed off, Scotland could be like that. Why are we (pop. 5m?) apart from Australia? (Its a Big Country next door) We've always been rather (usually secretly) proud of our indigenous lot, even if until the 1920s we assumed they'd be extinct by 2000 and their artefacts must be preserved. The neighbours not the same. Fighting talk but it has been said there is nothing more racist than a Maori in NSW. Maybe all that's in the past. I did want to point out UK's current first minister was named Cameron and his immediate predecessor talked very funny - for a Londoner. Historically, in the British Isles, David is a Scottish name. Best, Eddaido (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Look what I found![edit]

Corre

More in the category. Happiness! Eddaido (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Stylish. Good discovery. I used to think that where they put the radiator behind the engine like that it must be a Renault, but if you go back before 1920 or so there are lots of automakers doing it, not all of them in France. Now I will find out (presumably from wikipedia) what a Corre is, and whether it has to do with Corré La Licorne a few decades more recently about which I am sure I remember reading somewhere. Yes, seems it does. Though I was wrong about the acute accent. Happy days. Charles01 (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

de:Siddeley Autocar[edit]

Just reporting an anomaly. There is an article in De WP — Siddeley Autocar but none to match it in En WP and there it should be Siddeley Autocar Company (Limited). Nice pictures. Currently swamped. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. I never heard of Siddeley Autocar, but I'm not THAT old.
Actually, there are lots of British (and indeed French) automakers with their own entries in German wiki that don't have equivalent entries in the language of their homeland. They're mostly started by the same person, Buch-T, who often has started with just a couple of not unfamiliar sources. I think Nick Georgano's compilation may have been translated into French at some stage, and of course many German speakers are reassuringly unself-conscious about using English ..... Some of the entries are more interesting than others, and where they SIMPLY rely on a single source - Nick G isn't always right, but then none of us is and anyhow, often he's the only source to hand - well, I think one needs to proceed with a certain amount of caution. Culshaw and Horrobin trigger the same sentiments, wonderfully commendable project though it is. But yes, there's plenty of scope for going through the German categories covering French and British automakers, trying to cross check with additional as far as possible trustworthy sources where available, and building British wiki a bit in the good direction. Actually, I've done a bit over the years....
Swamped sounds good. I hope. But we all get quieter days. Success Charles01 (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Help![edit]

Huh?

This rather awkwardly modified car was photographed in a Film Studio in Changchun, China. It looks British, any clue? Cheers as always, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion: See this image by well known photographer.Regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to add except "yes". And good year to you both. And did you spot that some clever fellow repositioned the windscreen wiper? Charles01 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)