User talk:Cloverleaf II

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

Page inauguration, 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Cloverleaf II (talk)

Fiat 1200 Spider/Cabriolet[edit]

I can't see any evidence for "spyder", this being a name only used by Porsche AFAIK. See the relevant Italian entry for instance. Spider would be ok, but Cabriolet seems to be the name used by Fiat themselves at the time. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I agree that calling the Cabriolet Pininfanina a "spyder" would be incorrect. But the category I created yesterday is for a a different car, the 1200 Spyder which is in fact an update of the in-house styled 1100 TV Trasformabile. Just to clarify:
As for evidence of usage of the spyder term by Fiat: check out this official Italian market printout! I was quite puzzled myself, but since I could not find any instances of the Spider spelling being used officially, I moved the category. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that it ought to have been 1200 Trasformabile. I am mostly basing this on what owners call their cars (it's amazing to me how often owners have no clue what kind of car they have...), and obviously the ad above is pretty unequivocal. Perhaps the "Trasformabile" name was kept just for the US market? I'm still confused by this entire range of cars. Especially once you get into the cars with OSCA engines and bodywork by independents, but still sold through Fiat. I am glad you are paying some attention to these. Also, great work on the Abarths - I just created a bunch of categories as a result of finding one photo in the wrong place, and now we have a much better organization! Cheers. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah, 1200 Trasformabile would have been the logic choice, and it helps differentiating from the later Pininfarina cars. But I've not found a single instance of that name being used in period, officially or unofficially. It's not just owners that have it wrong, even "authoritative" classic car mags. To make matter worse on english-language factory literature and advertising the car was renamed 1200 Roadster. BTW just to be sure I've now double checked on the Illustrato Fiat factory magazine (not the most impartial of sources but an interesting document nevertheless), it's 1200 Spyder here and here. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Alfa Romeo logo 1945-50 - 6C 2500 Turismo.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!

Stefan4 (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giugiaro[edit]

chiedo venia allora, quando misi mano a questo argomento, che non mi è molto familiare, la categoria Giorgetto Giugiaro non conteneva nessun veicolo disegnato, neanche raccordato tramite altre sottocategorie, quindi mi va benissimo se adesso è collegato alla categoria dello studio di design --Sailko (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capisco, effettivamente quella categoria é mezza orfana (tanto che non sapevo esistesse). Dovrebbe essere meglio integrata con quelle dell'Italdesign, magari vedró di farlo io. Buon pomeriggio! —Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat Palio Weekend...[edit]

Hi!

I saw you moved somes pics to Fiat Palio Weekend (2007) or I think they are Fiat Linea, for Brazil, but I don't know if Linea Weekend exists... I moved many pics of Category:Photographs by André Gustavo Stumpf and some was named Linea in the desc. of the pics. So what do you think ?

Have a nice end of Sunday. --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 16:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm quite positive the cars in the pictures I moved are Palio Weekends (post 2007 facelifted model), see for reference pic1pic2. It's easy to mistake a 2007-2012 Palio for a Linea, but as you said there's never been a Linea weekend. These other pictures from the same author labeled Linea are correct, these are certainly not Palios. Cheers —Cloverleaf II (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK for me if you're sure. Thanks.
Did you cat all the Palios of this user's cat ? I've started to but there's more than 1200 files and I've got a lack of knowledge about europeans models made for South (or North) America... Some have the same name but not the same shape...
See you . --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 16:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint[edit]

I am not a Sprint Speciale!

Was also the name used on the 1600-engined 1962-1965 successor to the Giulietta Sprint (tipo 101.12). Mostly looks the same from the outside, some interior changes and, of course, the engine. Please don't delete it's category again, I'll try to find a few more pictures to add to it. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 05:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right, I've no idea what went through my mind at that time. Sorry —Cloverleaf II (talk)
No, it's understandable - Alfa made it incredibly confusing! And then they started building the tipo 101 Giulietta Sprint 1300 again in 1964, just to really make things truly complicated (and to use up an extra 1,900 bodyshells they had laying around). mr.choppers (talk)-en-

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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:

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]