User talk:Eddaido

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

Contents

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, Eddaido!

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) 10:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

I have just noticed you have made a croped version of my image File:1903-Daimler-AA11-1198 crop.jpg which is a copyright violation as you should attribute the original uploader image File:1903-Daimler-AA11-1198.jpg as per the licence. I still hold the copyright of the derived imaged and should be credited, please take car in future, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for help (identification)[edit]

Daimler mfd 1937 first registered UK Jan 1999 New 15 four-light sports saloon.jpg
Daimler mfd 1937 first registered UK Jan 1999 New 15 four-light sports saloon 02.jpg

You have been kind enough to express appreciation of some of the Daimler pictures I’ve uploaded to wikipedia. Your “reward” is another one, but it comes with a request for help. I do not recognise the car.

I took the picture at an oldtimer fest here in Essex, England. It was surrounded by the most infuriating collection of mini-bollards which made it almost impossible to get a (bollard) free view. So I had no mental space left to wonder what it was and was in no mood to hang around trying to find someone to ask. Pity.

But I was confident that the tax office would tell me the engine size and with that information, Culshaw and Horrobin’s complete catalogue of British cars from Yr dot to 1975 would enable me, from that, to infer what it is.

Alas, the engine size is 1998 cc. The tax office might be wrong, but on this occasion there is no obvious reason why he should be. I would hazard a guess that the car is powered by a Ford engine (this is Essex), probably the V4 unit that fits into the Ford Corsair, the Ford Transit van, and as far as I can make out from people who know about squeezing engines into small places, almost everything else.

Which leaves the Daimler unidentified.

Any suggestions available for sharing, in your own time, would be gratefully received.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Charles! Just brilliant, what this cold and wet midwinter day needed! I suspect you are well ahead of me. First problem is the library found another customer who has taken 'my' reference book but I will get it back in due course. I've little hesitation in saying it is a 2¼-litre New Fifteen, Not the standard saloon six-light with fastback £475 shaped very like a differently blunt-nosed Snipe but the four-light sports saloon £485 - less passenger space (close-coupled) and a good large boot (profile very like the later Austin Sheerline) both announced mid-August 1937.
The standard six-light body rapidly morphed into the unfortunate-looking back-heavy DB18 with added boot.
The full factory range included a four-door (sic) true, see drop-head cabriolet by Tickford £590 which I suspect became the Dolphin.
The New Fifteen's engine: six-cyl, 2¼ litres, 16.2hp, wheelbase/track 9ft 6in and 4 ft 4in. e. & o.e..
But there is the hesitation, that engine size and those door hinges which are just too prominent to be original I think.
The coachwork looks identical (but in fact on a twelve inch longer wheelbase and wider track) with the very pretty Lanchester 14 Roadrider four-light sports saloon £340 announced a year earlier. The Roadrider's engine: six-cyl, just over 1.5 litres, 13.4hp, 43 @ 4,000 rpm, wheelbase/track 8ft 6in and 4 ft. Adjustable front seats(!) and independent front wheel springing were standard (why the engines and radiators suddenly moved forward).
Wonder if this car's engine was sleeved down as a wartime repair job when spares may have been unavailable or a Lanchester block bored-out as much as the engineer concerned dared?
In any case in my opinion your photograph should go on display identified as a 1937 Daimler New Fifteen four-light sports saloon
Source: The Times, Thursday, Aug 19, 1937; pg. 14; Issue 47767; col C
Cars Of 1938 Daimler And Lanchester FROM OUR MOTORING CORRESPONDENT.
and display advertisement in same issue


Many thanks. I’ll upload it with that name and we’ll see if anyone has a better idea. I slightly doubt that they will, but life and Wikipedia are full of surprises. Sad to think that if we’d had this conversation thirty years ago, there would have been so many more people around to tell us “what” based on their own detailed memories of 1937. Still, that was a scarey time here in Europe, as everyone saw a rerun of the First World War on the horizon and no one had figured a way to prevent it (though some thought they might have done). The brutal truth was that too many of the pressures and real-world rivalries that had existed in 1914 remained in place and / or had returned to the agenda 25 years later, some of them arguably more intensified than the last time round. Back to cars.
What I had not mentioned - I think, now, that I should have done - was that the car I photographed appears to be in regular use as an upmarket hire car for summer weddings. So if you needed to replace the door hinges and could not get hold of fittings of the original grade(s) of steel, safety and reliability (and not getting sued) might very well be a higher priority than authenticity of hinge dimensions. I think this also favours my suggestion of an “off the shelf easy to service” Ford engine, though the idea of a “sleeved down” original (or even previously bored out) unit is an intriguing one. And then sitting down with appropriate measuring gauges and getting into the old familiar fights with the Great God Pi.. But still running like that 65 years after the war ended? Hmmm.
"...A bit like a [more brutally cut-down] Rover P1 sports saloon I photographed last year..."
Anyway, thank you for giving this so much soundly based thought. Certainly the back half of the car did look a bit like a cut-back version of something originally designed to take a more bulbous/spacious back end. A bit like a Rover P1 sports saloon I photographed last year. Then as frequently in the intervening decades, mainstream UK automakers followed one another pretty mindlessly in matters of car design.
Risk of further digression beckons. But again, thank you much.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't know how to do it but here is a sign of someone who would know, or claims to. How to make contact? http://dlcentre.com/forum/pop_printer_friendly.asp?TOPIC_ID=9375 .
Maybe I'll try a bit more googling.
Isn't two a better pic? Might I try bollard extraction with Adobe elements?
Yes, I could have got several better angles without those bleeping bollardlets. If you think you can improve the better angled picture in respect of those things, please (time permitting) do it and I will not object. However, when I tried it with the shadow of a lamp post on another car
Alpine A110 Cortina d'Ampezzo 1972.jpg
(image attached) I gave up. Ditto an experienced wiki improver of images with whom I was in touch at the time. Wheels are difficult things.
Wedding car. The mascot's quite acrobatic. Yr thoughts re hinges v. sound. Wondered about the carefully placed brochures. Until they decided to copy (very nicely) the 1955 Plymouth all Rovers were, er, distinctive weren't they. I believe the 2000TC was meant by the Wilks to have a nose like a DS19 but their board would not wear it.
Need to discuss multinationals and feelings with you and here might be a good place to do it, later when I have sorted some things out. It takes a full century to forget things. The US civil war was still a recurring subject 40 years ago. Eddaido (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure where this leads, but since my great grandmother was born near Charleston SC, and once you get back to the early settler families at the end of the seventeenth century there were relatively few pink skinned families in the area, so we all tend to be inter-related from those parts, I therefore have lots of mostly fairly distant cousins with SC connections. I had not spotted, however, that the backwash from the civil war had gone away. It was a horrible thing, regardless of what you think the issues are now / were then, and the consequences endure. As far as multinationals are concerned, I'm not sure my feelings are particularly well honed. Except that I have worked for them in my time.
Heckles inserted above. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hullo both, according to dear old Michael Sedgwick there were no Fifteens after 1936, which is why I originally suggested that it was either a DB17 or DB17/1. From what you both say "New 15" seemed the better answer and I was ready to bow my head in shame, but then I found a quote at the Daimler and Lanchester Centre (here): "2166cc from 1937, but by then it was the "New 15",aka DB17/1" - which would make it seem that we can all be right. Upon closer reading, Sedgwick does mention that the DB17 was indeed called the Fifteen (even though it was of 16.2 tax hp). In either case, Daimler did like to confuse matters at the time. Mr.choppers (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As for bollards, the best would be to take two or three pictures from very slightly differing positions, which would allow for easy photoshopping using elements from the various shots. Mr.choppers (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you people haven't used my new software. Stand by but don't hold the breath as it is now too long past bedtime. Eddaido (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
positive i.d. I may have lost the duvet for a moment but there was something about hurtling round and through high passes in my blue Alpine Eddaido (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a seriously impressive piece of evidence. Well done (without wishing to sound in any way patrinising) and thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I am very sorry, I have overwritten your image file, can you fix it? A more massaged version to come in a moment, I shall try to understand better before I do it. Eddaido (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Arm, well, maybe that is what is supposed to happen? I see they are all equally accessable, very much hope no offence taken. Glad you liked the old ad. Nice to hear about S.C. My BWI lot lost interests in Carolina - Loyalists you see. Must look at the Alpine image. Many thanks for your assistance. Eddaido (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what happened, so don't take too much notice of any diagnosis implicit herein. But I can be very bad at letting others have the last word.
Yesterday (I think it must have been yesterday) I noticed the first image of the Daimler 15 that I had uploaded appeared to have disappeared. At the time when I noticed, I had already decided I wanted to upload a new version with a better name; so I was about to apply to have the earlier one deleted. So as far as the image is concerned, then, no harm done. None at all. That is ... assuming we are talking about the same incident. Which I think we must be. My first image had half (approx) a lady looking determinedly summery in shorts on the right margin. The second image, apart from having a more descriptive name, had this half lady cropped out. I hope no one minded. I also cropped out the tips of a couple of mini-bollards. The only thing that disappeared with the disappeared image that I had wanted to look at again was some helpful remarks from Mr Choppers on the discussion page. I did feel a bit bad about having lost these without having sufficiently digested them. But he has kindly summarized them as part of this present discussion, so after 24 (might be 48) hours, nothing is lost, even from the discussion. Clear as mud? Don't worry if it doesn't make total sense. I am easily confused by things computers do, with or without input from members of the human race. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it comes down to you to make the decision as to which version is to be displayed.
I'm looking forward to reading the new article on the Daimler New Fifteen. Eddaido (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
What happened wi'dem bollards? You seem to have mastered that debollarding software. Don't let me stop you if you want to get in first with a wiki-entry on the car. I'd probably get round to it eventually if you didn't, but you sound as if you may already have the bit halfway between your teeth on this one? I'm not sure I have too much text at my finger tips, tho the table on page 115 of Colshaw & H provides at least a starting point for an info box. Also this seems to have been the first Daimler with coil springs at the front which is consistent with the guff in the wonderful identifying ad you found, and does mark the car out a bit from the common herd.
Incidentally, have you noticed that the ad appears to describe the car as a six light saloon, whereas the car in the picture looks like what I would think of as a four light saloon? OR have I spent the first >50 years of my life with a private bordering on unique opinion of what a six light saloon looks like? Ho hum Charles01 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
No, no. Here's an ad for the six-light standard super-staid version here. Anyone can see why any Daimler exec. could have seen a need for a 'sports saloon' version and with "Toughened Wood". Someone should tell NASA and send a core-sample from YSJ407 though it is probably what holds it all together. Anyway I think they put the (new design) (Military) Scout engine into this same (6-light) chassis/body combo and called it DB18. Something new every day, I see close-coupled comes from animals with a short loin / short back.

And certain royal cars of the time had their grilles painted black - which may account for the wholly original condition (yeah hinges). I suspect that if the docs are lost (and plate?) one is obliged to re-register the car from scratch. The dreadful rust does not suggest Malta but well-salted winter roads. I don't like the bent badge-bar and you don't like licence numbers... Eddaido (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't hold off for very long. But you can see (1) I really don't know too much about the car and (2) I'm pretty hazy about the timelines. Additions and probably corrections from someone armed with knowledge and sources are needed. That's you. I guess I'll ask Malcolm, too. He knows a lot about cars from this period when he has time to add to an entry, though as far as I know he doesn't have any particular specialism regarding Daimlers. As you may know, somewhere round 1933 the British auto-industry became the largest national auto-industry in Europe. Then as now currency devaluation while desperately trying to talk about something else didn't do too much for the nation's savers and pensioners, but it did encourage investment and consumption which provided the UK government a short term credit-cushioned recovery that enabled the British economy to outgrow the French for a bit. French wiki isn't, for the most part, so interested in cars, but often with English cars from the 1930s there are German entries one can copy from a guy called (I think) Hans-Martin who lives near the western frontier of Bavaria, and there's an Italian called Luc from whom I sometimes translate Italian language text, but on this car I couldn't find anything from any of our enthusiasts on continental Europe. So for now we, the anglophones seem to be on our own as regards this model! Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Charles, that is Marvellous. Still amused as I had indeed read your comment as indicating enthusiasm! No Need to choose that image. Europeans. Yes, I sometimes have a look too. Google translate seems wonderful, but only at first. re planned consultation. On Ford of Britain (The associated companies) I came to a halt with the involvement in Ford of Germany 1932-1945. My proposed note is gestating but I thought I would put the draft here for you to edit first before I added it to the Ford of B article (rather than any mention on Ford of G which can be someone else's job - if it needs to be on record). Did I tie up Ford France OK (on F of B)? Might go a little further into that. I'm not going to forget but it might be a while before I 'get it out on paper' and will leave you a note when have put it here for your perusal etc. Eddaido (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I ran an eye over the Ford of Britain entry which was interesting. Living much of my life in Britain in Essex, I've been aware of the company for as long as I can remember. It's fun to see other people coming at half remembered facts and background from different angles. Even now, they seem to be one of the best employers locally in Essex in terms of the apparent newness of the cars and clothes of the people who work for them. I've started a couple of entries on their plants, but you've - at least I think it must be you: I've not "audited" each change - really got to grips with the way the company ownership structure evolved. Big subject. And there are so many english speaking people around who used to work for Ford that almost inevitably the entry will lose coherence over time simply because of the large number of people all (well almost all) of whom will have interesting stuff to contribute, but all of whom will in their own minds structure the overall entry differently. Thus a strength and a weakness of the wiki-project. But right now the entry is looking uncommonly coherent. Thanks. Probably (in English) an entry of Ford of Germany or Ford in France would receive much less editing, and so to the extent that it's fun to come back after five years and find stuff one wrote still, broadly, intact, work there might be less frustrating. But this is speculative as I haven't looked at either recently. Probably soon will. The problem that screams to me on Ford of Germany in English language wikipedia is the Ford Taunus entry. It really screams (I think) to be broken up into separate entries for different models. I see (on a brief glance) that German language wiki provides a more useful structural model than it did last time (probably a couple of years back) I had these thoughts. Though I have the sense that even in Germany and even at the time successive Ford models weren't as clearly differentiated a successive Opel models, and today there seems to be less warmth concerning "classic car period" Fords than contemporary Opels. I guess in Germany the Opels at almost every level and at almost every stage in time outsold the poor old Fords even at the time. Ford from Cologne were having to compete just on price far too much of the time. Ach, just rambling. Time to leave the wiki-screen. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Daimler Type TB22-9½ 1909[edit]

Daimler TB22-9andahalf 1909 or 1921 3568cc.jpg
Jowett Ten style says late 1930s.jpg

Definitely not with disrupting the day jobs or even the morning's second cup of coffee. But I've just been to an unexpectedly interesting classic car show, and though it had none of the cars I'd been hoping to see it did include some interesting ones that I hadn't.

This car (the Daimler) has already been photographed and the image uploaded by someone else. But I thought the profile shot was maybe still worthwhile. However, there's a problem as you can see. After your miracle working with the Daimler New 15 I thought there could be no harm in trying to tempt you with this one. But if it's not worth it, feel free to resist any temptation.

The Jowett I think is a Jowett Ten. It just could be a Jowett Eight. Either way, I'm only about 85% sure of my ground. I remember, I think, you have a particular thing with Jowetts. It would be reassuring (or not) if you do recognise it if you could tell me whether you agree over what it is.

Like I said, not urgent. I have to collect one of the kids. But thanks for any thoughts to share and best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Daimler 22hp
Daimler 20hp open tourer
torpedo-style body (1913 example)
The profile shot of the Daimler is worthwhile but I cannot adequately repair the finned top to its radiator. Perhaps another time a long arm might be a little officious and extract any obscuring flagstaff for the briefest moment? Curiously enough, concerned at the way your picture of a 20 hp Daimler differs so much from the car in discussion I phoned the owner of the red car a couple of weeks ago to see if the wheels were unusually large - they are, so I noted that below the pic. And then I got to enlarging the tyre size in the grey car and they are almost as large! Why are the cars so different in proportion/scale? Incidentally the 9½ is because it is on a 9ft 6inch wheelbase. Useful data, just unexpected. I must get back that Daimler book.
I must revive my interest in Jowett too. I have had the material (from an expert) for an embarrassingly long time and been distracted. Am trying to get back into the almost too hard basket. I must post up a draft of Ford too. So much to do and on WP too. There may not have been a lot of models available at this time Eddaido (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm I think it has to be a Jowett Eight but the leading edge of the front mudguards seem to be different from the car in this photo Eight and that little badge in the hole for the crankhandle would be so easy to lose/swap and I would hate to have my life depend on this opinion. I'm only going on ideas from doing lots of Googling. (I should have noted, the blue car has flappy electric signalling arms, the beige car does not). Best. Eddaido (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the sharing of information and thoughts. On the Jowett I follow (most of) your logic. ("Most of..."? Well, I think when new any 1930s English (any European car with any turn indicator) car would have had flappy electric signalling arms (I think when I was young we called them "flippers" though the word "semaphore" also crops up sometimes.) The flashing lights will, I suggest, have been retrofitted because (1) the flippers stayed out if you switched off the ignition with one of them raised, and then you knocked them off when you got out of the car looking forwards, flipper directly behind you and (2) even if you didn't knock them off they were always going wrong and (3) other drivers no longer look out for flippers.) I don't think I'll change the name of the picture quite yet. Now the owner has it running I might even get another chance for a closer look at the grill-badge or word with the owner at an Oldtimerfest later in the summer. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Going back to the red and grey Daimlers. I think the red car's springs are slung under the axles, whereas the grey car's springs are above the axles. I'd be very grateful if you could take a mental note to confirm/deny this if you see the red one again or notice similar vehicles about, I can't get certain from the photos. I see flippers are very much older than I knew. Eddaido (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Noted. Both these cars seem to be "regulars" on the classic car scene round here so I might indeed get a chance to observe and / or photograph how the springs relate to the axles. Writing this reaction increases the chance that I'll remember, too.... Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rowland Brotherhood image[edit]

Hi, I see you've edited this en:WP article; there is an image here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RowlandBrotherhood.jpg

if you'd like to add it.

Cheers.

PS Would have emailed this but there was a problem.


Thank you. Two things, which Rowland Brotherhood is it and where did the image come from?
My interest was in Stanley Brotherhood who had an association with Humber Limited who made cars.
Why don't you just add it at the right spot.
Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It's this Rowland Brotherhood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowland_Brotherhood, the engineer, as the source makes clear. I have no original provenance for the image but since it must be out of copyright due to its age, that shouldn't matter. I'd add it myself but I am currently banned from Wikipedia, so I am reliant upon the goodwill of others to improve it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. There is both a father and a son of the same name on that page. I didn't know you are in the Wikipedia dogbox but you'll be out soon no doubt and you can add it then. I have photos of this period and older and they are often amazingly clear. Can't you get a scan of the real original? Eddaido (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ford of Britain[edit]

Hi Charles01, Briefly and from memory (so pretend this is in Wikipedia). When the tariff barriers went up in 1932 Ford promptly got on the right side of the local government. The biggest block of new shares were issued to I G Farben and Farben's chair took the local Ford chair (no public issue because Germany then diff in these matters, other shares were issued to some dealers). Ford in 1937 accepted the personal award of their highest civilian award from Hitler but in Sweden. Hitler unabashed admirer of HF. Interesting outcomes; when US troops (in the field) met German troops in 1945 they were angry to find the Germans using "their" transport. Ford was very unwilling to enter into (US) "Defence contracts". The works at Cologne survived the war miraculously unscathed (!?), just the admin block had been damaged (by I think retreating troops) in the last days (obviously by terrible accident demanding full compensation) and some of the machinery had been re-located within Cologne. France? I don't remember but of course they had been well organised and went straight into the right kind of production the minute France fell. Essential concept is International Capitalists are above politics and its petty fights. HF avoided personal gross post-war US public embarrassment by being apparently senile (prob true enough) and Edsel dead. Though of course did get some, just not the full treatment. Can provide here many external links to reports if you wish. Very interested in your thoughts. Must finish with Jowett. Despondent Eddaido (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My brush was too broad. Farben director (Carl Krauch) became deputy chairman. By 1943 shareholdings are said to have been Dearborn 52%, Dagenham 6%, Farben 42%. Hitler awarded HF Grand Cross of the German Eagle (highest award to a foreigner) for 75th birthday July 1938 and consul handed it over in Dearborn. Wonder what was picked up in Sweden. To what extent should this (any at all?) be covered in Ford of Britain? Eddaido (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's all interesting stuff. To begin (as I tend to) at the end, presumably when you write "...[should] be covered in Ford of Britain?" you mean "...[should] be covered in Ford Germany? " Provided that's what you mean, then my answer is "yes, of course". However, as ever with wikipedia, you will need to be able to cite sources. That's much more important here than it usually is, because you are discussing Hitler. Hitler is the only bit of history they study at the schools in England, and we all have strong views because he was very bad, and this helps us to feel very good about England's own history. So I would suggest everything you write on Ford of Germany in the 1930s needs to be heavily sourced to avoid looking like any sort of personal opinion piece - which in any case would be unencyclopaedic.
As for Henry Ford, I claim no special insights. During the First world war I think the word on the street was that he tended towards pacifism which is why, during the First World War, Ford's the bit of Ford's contribution to the British War Effort is specially strong not on tanks but on agricultural tractors. (Though please appreciate that I come at this through the prism of English motor magazines. It might look different from the American mid-west.) I've no idea where you learned your history, but here in England, what we chiefly remember about the Americans and the First World War is that they joined it very late. Once you get to the World War II I think it's important to avoid reading history backwards, even if everyone does. I suspect the east coast patrician radical liberal establishment (read FDR and those who worshipped at his shrine) will always have regarded Hitler with suspicion and distaste. A resurgent Germany meant trouble for other world powers. But FDR's own economic policy was not a million miles from Hitler's or that of Maynard Keynes. We know what happened next. We know Hitler did vile stuff to millions of people. They didn't know in 1935 that he was that rare thing, a politician who actually believed his own propaganda. And there was nothing east coast or patrician about Henry Ford. In the mid-west there were lots of German settlers who were enthusiastic about the prospect of Germany finally taking her place at the top table of nations. If you look at all the people who spoke German at home but had to speak English in public, in the 1930s there were plenty at home and in the factories who clustered round the little radio in places like Milwaukee listening to the Fuehrer's speeches from across the sea. No doubt most were as horrified as everyone else when the extermination camp rumors started to emerge five years later, but you can't expect people to have foreseen all that stuff in 1935. And even if you ignore the millions of folks with German ancestors, there was a lot of anti-Britishness in the American mid-west triggered by the tense state of Anglo-Irish relations in the wake of the Irish civil war. Once you get to the Second World War, the Irish free state was resolutely neutral, but plenty of Irish citizens fought in the British armies against the Germans and were very badly treated by the Irish state, after the war. Loyalties and patriotisms everywhere - and certainly in the American mid-west - were a lot less one-dimensional than they became after 1945 and we all worked out that the good guys had won so it must have been the bad guys that had lost. This is not a mindless ramble. It is pointing out that if Henry Ford was sympathetic to the idea of a resurgent Germany in the 1930s, he was simply representing the time and place where he lived. In England, feeling was very divided about Germany in the 1930s. Lots of liberals and lefties - and of course Churchill and his very small band of supporters in the British political establishment - "saw through" the Nazis from before 1933, but the old political establishment mostly didn't. And it's only after six years of brilliant wartime propaganda that Hitler emerges - helped enormously by his own geneocidal policies - as a sort of pantomime villain, fulfilling much the same role that the Brits had imputed with equal success to Napoleon Buonaparte a century earlier. That's where, in the anglosphere, he's remained ever since, while "our" heroic ally, cuddly old Joe Stalin only slowly sinks to the same level of official "bad guy", despite the Iron curtain and the Cold War. Well, you don't need to follow me down all these tracks. But I do think that condemning Henry Ford for admiring Hitler only works if you read your history backwards. And real history actually travels forwards. Or? No doubt, if Germany had won the Second World War (and if they hadn't invaded Russia and if the Japanese hadn't done Pearl Harbor...) we'd be having this discussion in reverse. Henry Ford was sympathetic to the Brits! Yikes. Of course, Henry Ford was chiefly sympathetic to Henry Ford. He was driven by his own very powerful agenda which involved building a business and making lots of cars. He would have hoped to end up on the winning side even if the isolationists had kept Roosevelt from joining in with the war. No surprises there, methinks. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this where I'm called upon to disagree, angrily?
  • Disagreement one: I did mean Ford of Britain, I just wanted to show that they had some substantial hand in Ford activities on the Continent but it didn't last long did it. Will not consider at all writing anything in Ford of Germany article.
  • D2; I didn't say or mean HF was an admirer of Hitler though he may have been - but the admiration did flow the other way. I'm a sucker for flattery myself, simply can't get enough.
  • And finally D3, the way you cheerfully badmouth Uncle Joe Stalin fair takes the breath away. Only joking.
Otherwise I'd be content to use the same hymn sheet. Trouble with it is though that you are concerned with the why, I want to report what happened. What happened was that HF backed the wrong horse yet achieved a tails he won, heads he won result - he was as powerful as that, "capitalism red in tooth and claw". He had no alternative but to appear badly affected by the death of his unfortunate son(!) and 'they' were soft enough to let him off the treason charges.
Anyway, I want to say something like this in FoB. (Again from memory so it is unreliable) More capital was required and shares were privately issued to some Ford dealers and (biggest block) to I G Farben, the most cooperative of businesses, which then appointed Carl Krauch deputy chairman of Ford of Germany AG. In 1940 Ford Werke AG was incorporated to take over the business, the capital was again increased, Dearborn's shareholding reduced from 75% to 52% and Farben's increased to 42% leaving Dagenham at 6%. Dagenham's 6% was purchased by Dearborn in 1950. Eddaido (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I'd read through the updates from the start of summer on the Ford of Britain entry, but hadn't really absorbed it to my long term memory. Having looked again, I can indeed see where the further detail on Ford of Germany in the 1930s would fit into the Ford of Britain entry (though I still say that a lot of it belongs in the Ford of Germany entry AS WELL). And I suppose having started down this road, there's scope for rolling out more on how the relationships involving Matford (and then from 1940 the Poissy based Ford business and how that got integrated into Cologne towards the end of the war) and involving the Russian enterprise panned out. And then ... I guess there's a whole lot more to be written about what Ford of Britain got up to inside Britain. On the one hand this could go on an awful long time, but on the other (1) we are all steered by our areas of knowledge and of interest - and those of our sources - and on the other (2) there is always a fine judgement on when to expand an existing entry and when to expand it into two new ones. I slightly wondered about splitting the Ford of Britain into more than one chronological sequence Maybe something like (1) FoB as an investee, (2) FoB as an international investor and (3) FoB as an automaker in ... um ... Britain. Tho for (3) as long as one leans heavily on non-specialist journalistic reports we'll get an awful lot in the 1960s - 80s on industrial relations which is valid but also sad, and rather ignores the way that between 1945 and say 1975 FoB really were setting the pace for the (again, sometimes a little sad) entire UK auto-industry. Don't pursue my idea of setting up more than one chronology unless it really "grabs" you. It looks like a lot of work and I'm not sure where it might lead!
I remember a few years ago a BC based friend arranged for me to have 6 months trial access to a Canadian based media outfit's on-line archive which included a massive searchable sub-archive of The Times of London. Can't help wondering if you've plugged into some equivalent deal. I'm afraid I used it chiefly for researching ancestors which feels rather introspective in the present context.
On Henry Ford and his relations with the German government of the time, I had, before replying, done some googling which pointed me to various anti-Henry conspiracy theories of the kind one finds on the web, and in that respect I almost certainly read more into your question than you'd put there. Sorry. Though I DO NOT retreat from my insistence that reading history backwards is something we should have grown out of (but in most cases haven't).
No further thoughts on this. On the Rolls Royce identification thank you for sharing yours. There has been a program on English television recently about Rolls-Royces in India and indeed, this could well be such a car. Like you I have with this been hovering between ghosts and phantoms which sounds a tad unnatural to say (write) the least.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


=======================[edit]
Rolls Royce March 1924 7681cc.jpg
Dear Eddaido
I hesitate to ask you this one, because I think the answer is obvious. Then again....The engine appears to be a non-standard size, (if the tax office have it right) and I think that at some stage big Rolls Royces stopped being called Silver Ghost and started being called Phantom. Any, I think this must be a Silver Ghost. Does that work for you, please? And thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm totally unbiassed - you see I know nothing about Rolls-Royces. I've spent an hour and a half on this without coming to any confident decision. Odd no shutters on the radiator (though I have seen it before) and there are louvres along the side of the bonnet, was it bound for a hot climate? No brakes on the front wheels. Permanent engine crank. I notice the badges on the front (great photo) might be Japanese or Chinese. More work on this tomorrow, I've gone sleepy Eddaido (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
AARGH! Of course it must be a (late) Ghost, I've been trying to make it a Phantom, daft. Eddaido (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It does seem to me that this class of car (where I imagine a first buyer could easily be provided with variations in engine size etc) and which may well have been er restored quite a number of times (so no longer 'original') by now really does need expert knowledge, the kind that members of the owners' clubs will have. I once assumed that my errors in Wikipedia would be picked up and fixed by exactly those persons. Now I know they don't. It is my wish that Wikipedia's car articles improve to a standard where those people can no longer afford to disregard Wikipedia. I see there have been some recent excitements about 1920s, 1930s Bugattis that are not Bugattis, cars with identical engine and chassis numbers. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Park Ward Eddaido (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Park Ward it is. Noted. Thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The Chev was newish, I was 15 (my birthday) and all cars round here are RHD. Time now 12:58 Sunday am. Cheers Eddaido (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Carbodies[edit]

Hello Eddaido, I noticed that you added a few MGAs to Carbodies Coachwork. Were all MGAs built by Carbodies or is there some way to tell? Best, Mr.choppers (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I currently have this book from the library and I am scanning it to come up with a more accurate and detailed answer but so far it does not much trouble this author The Story of the MG Sports Car. Will come back to you here. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

MG Midget series D 1931-32 Airline coupés F2 Magna Sports 1932 sweeping generalisation

this book should provide a firm answer All I need to do is find a copy and confirm it (easier said than done). In the meantime I will take the MGA photos out of the Carbodies article (but for the moment leave them in the Wikimedia category. OK? Eddaido (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm advised Carbodies made all the standard MG bodies to 1933. Post WW2: TC-TF were made by Morris Bodies, then Pressed Steel. I'm off to remove the bad mistakes from Wikimedia Category:Carbodies Coachwork. I hope to gather more reliable information and there may be further amendments. Thank you very much for so tactfully letting me know the error of my ways. I hate my own mistakes worst of all! Eddaido (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I honestly had no clue that you were incorrect, and was not suggesting anything such - if you were indeed misinformed I am glad that we are rectifying things, but I was absolutely not doubting your edits. I was asking because I simply wanted to know more about Carbodies and aid in further edits and categorization improvements. So amend away; I don't expect that you will allow any misconstructions to remain permanently. Mr.choppers (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Vogue / Super Minx estates[edit]

Singer Vogue Estate License plate 1965.jpg
Hillman Super Minx estate first registered June 1966 1725cc.JPG

I don't want to be difficult (well, not very much and not most of the time) but I would have expected that these two either both did or else both didn't deserve a place in the Carbodies category. But, as ever, I reserve the right to have missed something blindingly obvious to other folks.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Charles01, always good to hear from you, my thoughts too. Double check now under action. Will be back. Eddaido (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The book, Carbodies: The Complete Story, has a photo of the Vogue Estates on the tracks at Carbodies. The author holds interview tapes of the then Director and General Manager of Carbodies saying they only converted Vogues and not Super Minxes to estates. Dunno why. Maybe Rootes needed to expand production of possibly only temporarily fashionable estates and decided this was the wiser way to do it? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Yes, I guess that might make sense. You expect the estate version to sell very slowly so you subcontract a conversion job to a trusted subcontractor (just as Vauxhall did/would with the Cresta PC estate) but the thing (Vogue/Super Minx estate) sells better than expected so you subsequently tool up to be able to do it on your own production lines which, above a certain volume, gives you the volume to amortize the additional fixed costs involved in introducing the necessary flexibility into your own in-house processes. BUT (and here I become ever more speculative) you have already signed a contract with Carbodies in respect of the Vogue, so you continue with Vogues by Carbodies even while you can ship the Hillman versions (and presuambly could ship the Singer versions) from you plant at Ryton. Hmmmm. And thanks. Charles01 (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice photos, aren't they. Eddaido (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think so. But then I would, wouldn't I? Charles01 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Peugeot 302[edit]

thummb

You were so kind about those pictures of the Rootes estate cars that I was moved to remember the wonderful remedial work you did on a Daimler picture of mine a few months ago.

Of course a Peugeot 302 is a small popular car whereas the Daimler was a gentleman's conveyance (which sounds more lawyerly than it was meant to). But there's still a whole lot of history in a little Peugeot. The first Peugeot, if I remember correctly, used a Daimler design, with Gottlieb's (paid for) consent. Much more civilised than the Opel:Citroen litigious spat >two decades later.

It's not the best picture I ever took, but the car's current rarity made me persevere. If the sun had been out, it would have been shining from directly behind the car, this being ten minutes after sunrise. But the sun was behind a low cloud at this stage. Also it was raining. So in all the circumstances, I don't think it's such a terrible picture. Though I still don't know whether the headlights, which are meant to be mounted behind the grill, were.

Not worth deferring critical projects. But of you just happened, one day, to have half an hour before the next task, and find yourself tempted to remove the yellow horror, that would be kind. I appreciate I know not what I ask, in terms of easy vs difficult, tie consuming vs brief etc.

Thanks for thinking on it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I just leapt at this opportunity to show off my hard-won skills. Ten hours later I went looking for suitable dog pictures. Hard enough to draw a front wheel for a car that looks like it might be a photograph but this fairly complex wheel and with a mouse - Never! Sorry about my retreat into childishness. I just can't come up with a better solution. Please may I have something easier? If you were really insistent I could try to indicate headlights behind the grille. Let me know. Eddaido (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it'd definitely an improvement on the yellow horror. And it's even stopped licking its bits for long enough to look at the camera. Yellow horror never did that. Maybe I need to take a course in wheel drawing for myself. It shouldn't be that difficult.
Hmmmm Charles01 (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've never known any pug dogs myself but I think this animal must be something like five times life-size - that alone makes it notable does it not? And the pretty car for a backdrop just completes the picture. If you didn't come up with such clear images the job would be easier but as you do one must come up with a Perfect representation of a wheel, not just an indication of what's there. I look forward with great interest to seeing your post-graduate wheels. Wish I could do this for you. Give me a photo of an identical wheel without clamp and from the same angle and then it would be easy to fix. Pug1 Pug2.
Is any one designer credited with the appearance of these cars? Eddaido (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Does the chicken (another early riser) rate as an improvement? Maybe I could reduce its definition or colour or something to make it less prominent? Please provide any suggestions of alternatives for covering the complexities of that unreconstructable wheel! (or tell me to go do something else). Eddaido (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Your chicken appears to be a sort of cut 'n shunt job. You have two chickens written off in separate smashes, but the back of one is ok and the front of the other is ok so you weld the two ok halves together and sell it as a kosher chicken. I wouldn't have the welding skills to attempt that, but I'm told it's amazing what you can do with photo-shop. My parents had a chicken called Greensleeves who used to come along on dog walks when I was very young but I was assured we still ate her. But I'm really out of my depth with chickens. And actually, I'm not even sure that the back end of your chicken is off a chicken. I think I'll go back to dreaming about Peugeots. Happy day Charles01 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear. Sounds to me like a go do something else. I went and looked at the linked original chicken and I now see what you mean. I made a collection of available roosters in Flickr commons and this was a clamp shape, never considered its origins or appearance, just that it would do the job. And I was rather pleased with it. My nasty mess is booked for speedy deletion. I despond. Look at the beautiful detailing around the doors. Apologies, Eddaido (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, if it were mine I'd have clamped the other three wheels too. The images stand on their own, So What if the owner is all possessive about it while in the public eye. We can all see what that 302 should look like and you are to be congratulated for your courage in halting all other operations to take the pictures. Weather clearing here, Eddaido (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The other problem I've just noticed is that I was so pleased with myself for having spotted it that I uploaded it with the wrong name. Tiens as they say down south. Maybe I should stick to chickens after all Charles01 (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Commission[edit]

Dear #1. I am miserable to have proven such a letdown. In case it improves your estimation of me may I suggest that a well-positioned camera on the course of the London to Brighton Run (in I think a week's time) could capture many more sparkling Charles01 images of Peugeots young and old? Know it means packing a compass and a cut lunch but mightn't the spouse enjoy it? Help me, I'm clutching at straws here. My Highest regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be a tempting suggestion if a free day and bright sunlight coincide on a Sunday in early November. Charles01 (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Daimler mystery.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? 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. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 21:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Daimler mystery.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Daimler mystery.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Savhñ 13:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Some more unknowns[edit]

This thirties' Aston Martin is unknown to me (well, I am also feeling lazy), and I wonder whether this 1937 Bugatti Roadster has been rebodied? Google gives me nothing. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, you certainly ask hard questions!
All i know is that from time to time I see an old car which just looks wrong when matched with its description. This pair is too exotic for me. I've read of Bugattis now being duplicated and triplicated using the same engine and chassis numbers. They both look in such good order for their age yet I have an old schoolfriend long retired who has spent months chemically removing rust and working in new metal so that the engine of his old car is covered by what is still essentially the same piece of metal, I mean it is possible to make "a silk purse" out of a very badly rumpled "silk purse" if you see what I mean. I do know someone I can write to who lives near where the Aston Martin was exhibited and might know the owner or something of the car concerned. Here's someone in the same area does rebuilds Will let you know if I do find out anything. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I was nearby (I took the Bugatti image) and neglected to ask the owner any questions. Bugatti owners are often loath to speak to mere mortals anyhow, my $300 watch being a possible obstacle to conversation. In any case, it was a beautiful car and hopefully someone will come along who can amend the description. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, here's all about the Aston Martin [[1]]. Easier than I thought! Found through the owner of a local dealer The Toy Shop and now I have just read to the end of the ad and, blow me down, I can sort of claim to know the (then) owner! Now is the hour Over to you to update the Wikimedia file. The opinion from The Toy Shop was the Bugatti is probably real. My watch problem is even uglier! Eddaido (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Aerial_topdressing[edit]

El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:1951 Daimler 2½ Litre Consort Saloon ad.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:1951 Daimler 2½ Litre Consort Saloon ad.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

High Contrast (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Daimler DK400 RSP5533.jpg[edit]

Sorry for the late response. This is how it goes: The original image was on flickr under a license that lets you do anything you want with it and license it under the same license. There is no need to add the flickr template. I think that there is no issue with this. And by the way, amazing use of photoshop. If you have any more questions, please ask them here as I watchlisted your page :) — ΛΧΣ21 06:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all this. My concern was for the owner of the copyright who was watching but he advised me yesterday (when I checked with him) he was not concerned about it. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry. Every work released under a Creative Commons license compatible with Commons can be reused, changed and tweaked by anyone. The only restriction is that you have to say from where you took the original work, and license your derivate work under a similar license :) — ΛΧΣ21 15:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I find images I want and then tackle the owner and pester (as much as I dare which isn't much, but I must say I have received some very rude communications! Get Stuffed would be relatively polite) until I persuade them to give it the appropriate licence in e.g. Flickr or, best of all to make their own direct upload to Wikimedia. Anyway I have this sense of obligation to them to show them all is fair and above board - 'transparent', I'm 'accountable'? for what happens?, and that I am grateful to them for being so obliging. (As I am to the volunteers that administer Wikimedia - Thanks!) That particular donor was fascinated by the WP / WM structure and organisation etc etc (own words) "as a professional geek, I find it interesting to see all the 'behind the scenes' especially such behemoths as Wiki". Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I have poked many users on Flickr to change their rights so that I can upload their pictures to Commons :) Thankfully, I have only had grateful interactions with those people and I let them know I am very grateful for their work and for giving me the permission to use it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 01:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cat sort order[edit]

Why are you attempting to impose a category sort order of chronological years, even though this has almost no relevance in most cases and it disrupts any more rational cat sort order that's already there? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Only because I find it extremely useful and no one else seems to use it. You mention a cat sort order already there, can you tell me where I can see this? I realise there is an automatic sort by the file name but then that fails once there is more than one contributor each with their own ideas for a file name. Going back to your general comment is there a particular example that may have caught this attention? I find it very useful for example with something like Model T cars where if they are in date order it is then easy to see the improvements. Eddaido (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that for some cars, such a sorting makes a lot of sense - especially when they have already been subdivided into the smallest possible categories (ie, the Delahaye 135 MS rather than Delahaye vehicles). Personally, I have been hiding the chassis numbers of some cars I have photographed inside the category names, and I hope such information isn't deleted in the process of sorting by year. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Its really nice to hear from you. I debated at length whether or not to begin a discussion about this on one of the talk pages and decided against it. I have been to some trouble to try to avoid destroying any categorisation my concern being to get all images of the same things together on one page. We have pictures of the same car by in some cases I think three different photographers and all categorised in different sub-categories because they had been categorised in bulk. This might be rude but it did seem to me this was quicker and easier for the uploader who is obliged to categorise and wants the job done as quickly and as easily as possible i.e. in bulk. This, it seemed to me, being so then I thought they were Very unlikely to even notice I had rejigged the categories of their contributions.
I would hate to have brought about a loss of info. Can you give me a guide to the images/categories with hidden chassis numbers so I can check? Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Post script - you realise I just changed Delahaye 135 MS to Delahaye Type 135 MS so now it fits with the others? Eddaido (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Daimler[edit]

Hi, that car is a Daimler 250 V8, you can recognize it by the upper border of the front grille. It was a luxury version of the "normal" Jaguar Mark 2 and it was equipped with a 2.5 litre V8 engine, instead of the 2.4 and 3.4 litre engines that equipped the Jaguar siblings.

That's all. Bye bye ! --Luc106 (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right, and I wrote to you because you categorised it as a Jaguar. Eddaido (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Alvis TE 2 Graber Super[edit]

Hi Eddaido,

thanks for your message about the Alvis TE2 "Graber Super". I'm far from being an Alvis specialist, so if you really think that's better, then you should probably do it Clin Anyway, I put it in a separate category for 2 reasons:

  1. it was marked a TE2, not a TE21. Maybe that was only an error of the owner who wrote the identification card.
  2. it looks clearly different than the others TE21's, especially regarding the wide radiator grille, front lights (guys in Morges told me they were from a Facel-Vega), boot with no handle, etc.

As I'm understanding things, Alvis chassis were bodied by various coachbuilders (I'll soon upload 2 TE21's I saw in Morges, a Park-Ward bodied coupé and a convertible whose coachbuilder I'm not sure, but I think it was Graber too. It has different front lights than the other ones, but if you can help me identify it …). I know for having seen it on last years' Morges' TC 108 Graber identification card that Graber had made various different bodies for Alvis chassis of the same kind (apparently there were not 2 similar TC 108 G's), so I suppose it may be the same for the TE21, or at least some of them.

So, I suppose it would be a good idea to have separate categories for cars with such special bodies, especially if there are several pictures of them. So we could have Category:Alvis TE21, with subcategories Category:Alvis TE21 by Graber and Category:Alvis TE21 by Park-Ward, and Category:Alvis TE 2 Graber Super as well if it's established it's only a particular version of the TE21, and not a different car. What do you think of it ?

Cheers, Akela NDE (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is my take on events, please understand I am not laying down a system of recognised historic facts. I've arranged reference books which I should go and collect.
1.Graber made beautiful very well finished very luxurious bodies, they put bodies on Bentleys, Lagondas and Alvises and . . . others. Indeed English cars were very popular in Switzerland in the 1940s and 50s. Alvis, it seems, still had a racy aura round the sanatoria.
2. Alvis seemed to prefer making big money out of defence contracts and then maybe making a few cars (as if a sideline). Eventually their car offering became an acute embarrassment. A speedy solution to a very urgent problem ( read this) was to gear up Graber and sell cars with their body as the now standard Alvis. This was the Alvis TC 108 Graber and Very expensive it was with all that duty on an import from Switzerland - no Common Market‎ or even EFTA?.
3 Because the Graber car was a great looker it got attention but not enough sales at such a high price and so instead Alvis got the same body made in England by various parties finally settling on Park Ward.
4. Graber went on making the same bodies and putting them on Alvises (and other cars) and there is every reason why your car should be a TE2 Graber on a TE21 Alvis chassis because it is not a stock Alvis, it iis pehaps being described as a stock Alvis TE 21 chassis with a TE 2 Graber body - does that make sense? Yes Graber did use bits from other cars like Rolls-Royce tail lights etc and why not Facel Vega too.
5. With 1930s and 1940s and early 50's Bentley there were many coachbuilders. With Alvis there were only the two of any real consequence once they threw away the TC 21 body and they were Graber and Park Ward.
If you don't mind I would rather we had no sub-categories for Alvis coachbuilders but just put the Alvises in their own Alvis categories and their bodies when non-standard under the coachbuilders' names. Would that be OK? I don;t mind discussing it further.
In any case with the Alvis type of car it is always important to learn the coachbuilder if at all possible. I look forward to seeing your new images, I've admired quite a number in the recent past. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that pretty clear answer :-) So I will upload the other Alvises in, say, the TE21 category for the first one, and just Alvis Cars for the one I'm not sure of (I sutpidely forgot to take a picture of its identification card) ; you or another Alvis specialist may be able to decide whether it's a TE21, TF21 or other, by the normal coachbuilder or by a custom one.
Concerning the TE2 Graber Super, as it's apparently a custom body on a standard chassis, I still think it should be in a category of its own: a car is made of chassis and body, so if it doesn't have a standard TE21 body, it's not a normal TE21, but a particular version of a TE21 - hence a specific subcategory of the TE21 cat' for the pictures of it. But, once again, that's only my opinion, cause I'd hate people to spot a picture of the Graber special and imagine its features were standard to all TE21. So, if you think it's better to put it in the "normal" TE21 category, feel free. I'm totally ready to admit I'm a fanatic of divisions in subcategories of subcategories Clin
Oh and thanks for your compliments on my pictures, too. I'm trying to do my best with limited talent and, unfortunately, a poor camera. But it's really nice to see people like them!
Cheers, Akela NDE (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
HI, I'll respond on your talk page. Eddaido (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again,
I'm sorry if I made you think I saw a conflict there: I see none. We apparently have different opinions on how to organize pictures categories of cars who share the same chassis and engines, but have different bodyworks: I don't think that's really important. it's only that, to me, the bodywork is part of a car's identity. But I definitely have no problems with anyone not sharing that opinion.
I thought keeping the TE2 Graber pictures in a category that would itself be part of the TE21 category would have been a good compromise, but if you are definitely sure these pictures have to belong directly to the TE21 category, that's fine by me. You can move them following your idea: you're the guy organizing the Alvis car categories, I'm only the guy who came to spot some Alvises while I had my camera.
Thanks for the bit of Alvis history, seriously. But don't worry, I'm not a photographer, just a classic cars enthusiast who likes to share his passion Clin. Oh, and for the Citroën Picasso, look here and there ! Smile
Cheers, Akela NDE (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I can't quite figure out what you two decided on but would like to rename those pictures TE21 (rather than "TE2" which must have been a mistake by the owner). I found a number of similar cars online, all badged TE21 or TF21. Please do tell. Also I saw this amazing four-door TE21 by Graber! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, just found an old Graber-bodied Alvis Convertible, photographed in 2004 with the same BL-9920 license plate as the Graber TE21 coupé spotted by AkelaNDE! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with that, I think a vertical stroke like 1 can be hard to see behind glass. Is renaming pictures something the ordinary (like me) can do? I asked for one to be deleted because I'd uploaded it again under a new name at the specific request of the photographer. I think Graber almost always made (makes?) very beautiful cars and they were always beautifully finished how do we get that photo of the four-door car into WP? Same for the lovely convertible but that must belong to a Swiss-resident Scot trying to minimise his Swiss taxes ;-) best regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool, that's how I felt (simply a missed "1"). I think our only chance of seeing the four-door here is if AkelaNDE spots it while carrying a camera. Or if the original photographer can be convinced to go through the convoluted OTRS procedure; I got a Swiss classic car dealer to do so with this Delahaye. To change names one has to become a filemover. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 07:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a really neat little Delahaye. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File:1955 Imperial Crown Imperial Limousine Interior.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:1955 Imperial Crown Imperial Limousine Interior.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

SamBlob (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

file[edit]

Hi, Can you pleas use the talk page? Disagreement ;), Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism is not appreciated[edit]

العربية | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | Tok Pisin | 中文(简体)‎ | +/−


float You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits, as you did to File:MG PA 6 Race, 1300 cm³, Bj. 1936 (2008-06-28 Sp).jpg, you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

Denniss (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, not vandalism, an attempt to get the description corrected. On what basis has the description been created? Eddaido (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You have been told multiple times where this description came from. --Denniss (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes that is true. However it does not alter the simple fact that it is incorrect!! Eddaido (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That's just your opinion. --Denniss (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
No. I recognise that the uploader must have collected the description from somewhere and took it on board in good faith. Nevertheless the vehicle in the photos is not a PA-type MG though it may incorporate part or parts of one within itself.
My suggestion would be that when someone uses the details on that brass plate to look up production records they will find an accurate description and (here is the problem) those records will describe a car substantially different from the recent assemblage (the "race car") in the photographs.
To leave these images identified incorrectly as they are only helps to bring Wikimedia and Wikipedia into disrepute. Eddaido (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

James Young Bentley[edit]

Since all the photos in this Category are of a James Young Bentley, it should be categorized thusly. This keeps the main James Young category from becoming overpopulated and is the preferred practice. As for the MG above, I will be happy to look into it with unbiased eyes. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr Choppers. re Bentleys I see I am going to have to write you my Sock Drawer essay. re MG pictures I cannot see how there can be a dispute, the facts are clear, there is no such thing as that type of MG answering to that description except perhaps one or two made from parts of other cars in the last couple of years. Case closed. As I say I do not see why there is a dispute. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I can picture why you did this, but I believe that the Commons' style of categorization makes the pictures easier to find. "each image should be placed only in the most specific categories, and those categories should in turn be placed in their most specific categories." As for the MG PA6 Race, the owner seems to either believe that his car is such a beast, or he is out to trick the rest of the world. He calls himself PA6Race on youtube, and I believe that he is also the anonymous IP who uploaded a bunch of nonsense about a PA6 to the German MG PA Wikipedia entry back in 2010. So now I will gently try to make your opponents see this side of the story, we'll see how it goes. It seems to me to be a 1935 PA with a (possibly 1936) N-type six-cylinder engine fitted. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sock drawers in the next working week. Eddaido (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Bentley 4½-litre 1930[edit]

Hello,

It is not a good idea to have characters such as ½ in a category name. This one should be renamed. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jean11#Category:Bentley_4.C2.BD-litre_1930 Andy Dingley (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks A D and Yann. Have responded on Yann's talk page. Eddaido (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Identification request (another one)[edit]

Austin 12 Windsor (ca 1927).jpg
Oldtimer seeks identity the badge.JPG

I don't suppose you have time and information with which to identify this? And please? And, indeed, thank you. The fact that It had a badge should help, but somehow even the badge looks suspiciously not quite like an awful lot of badges. Anyhow, the fuel seems to come from Esso. Best wishes Charles01 (talk)

That looks like Staffordshire grass, maybe Weston Park? Am getting out the Austin Bible and will advise. Have a nice rest of Easter, Eddaido (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Formerly the Earl of Bradford's home. Then I think his son tried to run it as a restaurant with all manner of bells and whistles. Now it seems to have been taken over by the quangocrats, but there's still a lot of fine parkland. Austin? Hmmm. Well, it usually (often...) is. As you see, I took a day out today so one or two home duties didn't get done. So I did them a huge tomato salad for supper to try and redress the veg deficit that sets in when teenagers do self catering (well yes, I know there are exceptions). Now it's much too late. Sleep. Best Charles01 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes? Heavy Twelve Windsor? c. 1927? And (if on home ground) well suited for the transport of close personal servants, confirmed maiden aunts or Cousin Claire from Jamaica. Otherwise usual transport for country solicitors with a good practice, self-drive on Sundays. Don't know why the logo was changed from time to time except that we do still "update" logos today. Your care and concern will be remembered fondly one day, probably when they're doing the same for your grandchildren. Wish they'd put another good clear label in the windscreen with the licence plate :) but here are some others the same: 1927 and another and a drawing dated 2010 and NZ
almost identical, check with this photographer

Any more 'difficult' ones for me? Best, Eddaido (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you. I borrowed a very upmarket camera for yesterday and the pictures it takes do come with more MBs and the attached lens gives usefully less distortion at max/min zoom. But the pocket camera I tend to use is a whole lot quicker, and for the small wiki sized images .... let us just say a little sunshine goes a long way. That and a photo-friendly colo(u)r scheme on the car. Anyhow, I need to set about renaming this one, but I have a few more to upload first. Best. Charles01 (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC).
On the "any more?" there's a Humber that I hope you'll check, but I'm cautiously confident that I know what it is - or will do if I can check the engine size and registration year with the DVLA. Anyhow, I haven't uploaded that one just yet.... That sounds like the bleepers in the kitchen. Time to turn Alex's Bratwurst and maybe put on the risotto (M's left over rice 'n veg from two days ago) for my lunch. I do seem to be unhealthily preoccupied with food.

PS. About old cars. View of part of the local car fleet in my youth, these (Sunday tripper, petrol still rationed) owners are from the more prosperous part of the community . Import controls will ensure serious starvation lasting until 1974.

Humber 16/60. probably[edit]

Humber16-60 1933.JPG

This is the the one about which I did have some doubts. It's clearly a Humber because it has "Humber" written on it. Otherwise I identified it by googling the license plate and finding an auctioneers' summary. It looks quite carefully done as auctioneers' summaries go. Nevertheless, if you have the chance to take a look at the picture I uploaded and correct anything that doesn't quite add up, I would be grateful. Still suffering under a dreadful feverish cold/cough etc...that one of the kids bought home. Hope it goes away soon. The best to you, anyhow. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel sure you're right though for some reason in mid-depression 1930s Rootes Group switched off big display ads so I can't find certain confirmation. I am trying to accumulate some data in that area to make i.d. easier in future from just DVLA records. Anzac Day here, ever heard a country go silent? I exaggerate but not much. Equinoxial colds are the worst, hard to throw off I think but — best of luck. Eddaido (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Humbers on the left need i.d.
So, here's a challenge for you! Eddaido (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Triumph Dolomite Saloon 1938 R (8308099273).jpg[edit]

This media has been deleted. Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | français | italiano | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Tiếng Việt | português | +/−


Dialog-warning.svg

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Triumph Dolomite Saloon 1938 R (8308099273).jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY) or BY SA (CC BY-SA) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request. Ww2censor (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Something seems to have gone wrong with the system. Please see Commons:Help_desk#Unfree images from Flickr
As requested I asked the donor to switch the Flickr licence back again. At this point the donor was now being curt with me.
  • 7:38 I ask him to switch the Flickr images again from ARR to CC by SA
  • 8:37 an email from him saying he has done it
  • 8:59 I send him an email saying:
"I finished changing the tags on the images in WP, thought about it for a minute or two, went back to check and they are all four now approved! This is how it usually is, not days later.
All Done! It is now safe for you to switch the licences in Flickr back to All rights reserved.
Thank you for putting up with this latest mucking about.
Will load up my photoshopped versions"
I'm sure you can read the official record from the page history with more faith than I can(!)
  • 10:00 or thereabouts I go to upload the photoshopped versions and I see that the robot has reversed its earlier opinion! — because it must have gone back again at 9:50 and found the Flickr licence reverted? Or has it started a new run by repeating the last of its previous run or something?
I would happily swear in a high court that before 8:59 Flickreviewr had left a note saying that it had done its job and found everything correct. Now we have trouble over just the fourth image. Why has FlickreviewR done this re-run - which would explain the previous sudden rejection after a 3 days delay (when usually its a matter of minutes as it was 18 hours ago). Yrs miserable and frustrated Eddaido (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't explain exactly what happend but sometimes when FlickreviewR does not find the image size, which happens when images are cropped down from the original Flickr image, or it is a very high resolution, then it tags such images for human review. I reviewed the image, which we volunteer reviewers do when we get around to them, and only found the "All right reserved" licence on Flickr which is why I tagged it for deletion. Perhaps you can ask the deleting admin to review the image history, instead of swearing in court, and see if FlickreviewR did actually approve the original image uploaded (I did not see that), but then tagged it as needing human review. Perhpas this was because you modified the image but did not allow the image to be reviewed before telling the Flickr user to revert his licence. A litte patience might have prevented the problem which can hopefuly be resolved. I suggest that in future it might prove to be better to just upload the original Flickr image and allow FlickreviewR to approve it, and then upload the modified/photoshopped image separately under a slightly different name, tag it as a derivative or extracted work of the original upload, like this {{extracted from | original image name}} with links to the original but still showing the source as the Flickr url. Let me know if I can assist further. Ww2censor (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've noted your suggestions including the template. I'm off to talk to the admin. Thanks for all your voluntary work! Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Riley Special[edit]

Riley Special Brooklands style, front (Lime Rock 2014).jpg

Saw this beautiful car at Lime Rock recently, but it leaves me baffled. The non-Brooklands windscreen in particular. Any suggestions beyond what I already wrote in the caption? It was for sale at US$75,000, so definitely not a real anything. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice car, your question is too tough for me. I've written and asked rileyrob for guidance -- will advise. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Rétromobile 2013[edit]

Salut, je vous remercie pour les nombreuses belles images que vous donnez Wikimedia. Je vous écris pour demander si il serait possible pour vous fournir beaucoup plus d'informations quand vous donnez des images de vieilles voitures. Merci

(Google translate from - Hi, thank you for the many beautiful images you give Wikimedia. I write to ask if it would be possible for you to provide much more information when you give images of old cars. Thank you)

Eddaido (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'ajoute les informations disponibles sur les affiches présentant les véhicules. La plupart du temps, il n'y a de mentionné que la marque, le modèle ainsi que l'année. bonne journée.
(google translate) Hello, I add the information on the posters with vehicles. In most cases, there is only mentioned in the make, model and year. have a nice day.--Thesupermat (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Maudslay buses & Category:Maudslay buses in the United Kingdom[edit]

Why did you reverse these two categories? Surely the former is the parent of the latter? This is the pattern I've followed for all the 'manufacturer buses' categories I've created (which is quite a few), and I'm pretty sure when I did the first one I was following the established convention (manufacturer as the parent, manufacturer by location as a child cat). This is the first time I've seen anyone try to reverse it, so is there something I've missed here? Ultra7 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have reverted my edit. Why is no one interested in Maudslay buses? Eddaido (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No idea, that museum example was the first I'd heard of the marque. I've not seen or heard of another one before or since. Perhaps it's the only surviving example? Ultra7 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Help![edit]

Huh? round-eyed
May 1947 Austin Ten heavy-lidded

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)

Two things of note, the (postwar) black car's special grille and lamps yet it is otherwise quite complete and, on the heavy-lidded (not the round-eyed) car no windscreen wiper!
I think 1947 was Britain's coldest winter ever so this car probably came with an ice-scraper ;-) But I do think the black car might have been through a cultural revolution unless its a refugee from Hong Kong. Wish they were always so easy!
Thanks for your other message, I thought there was a virtue in sticking to the usual presentation of engine details. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
PS maybe there are wipers on the red car but in an odd position for a car with opening screen? Eddaido (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see some wipers in a very low position. Thanks! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 22:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Riley RME or RMF[edit]

Just noticed this edit, how did you know it's a 2.5 litre? Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I know it is a 1.5-lire (not two) because of its spats. Decoration added in the hope of selling just a few more. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have explained, I learnt this in 1954. Eddaido (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Great. I checked with the Vic registration authority, and it has chassis no RM22170 and engine number RMA12359. I hope that matches a 1.5 RME? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 23:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Afraid I've no idea but how did you do that?
It has no running boards and built in sidelights — its a 1.5-litre or the plates have been changed to protect the innocent. Hardly a rare enough car to play those tricks deliberately, rebuild after an accident? Just a rebuild of ? looks all very shiny. Maybe those numbers are OK with a 1.5-litre? You need an on the spot committee of Riley experts (its obviously at a Riley gathering, someone will know). Who have you been checking with?
These cars were made to get rid of unsold stuff after they introduced the new Pathfinder for the 1953 Motor Show. 1953 a truly appalling year for the British motor industry, home (road tax revolt) and export customers (small slump after the burst of the start of the Korean war) went on a go-slow - terminal decline also of Jowett, Daimler as well as Riley etc. The last two "specialist cars" staggered on a few yards as part of bigger organisations. Eddaido (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
A bit more: fog/driving lights built in to valance, (best of all) vertical footwell ventilator scoop - who would bother to change that? Mind you, few things rot better than a fifties British car from the bottom of the door down. Eddaido (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt you in the least, I was just wondering how the original photographer got it wrong. The website is here: [2]. OSX gave me a list of links to Aussie registration sites, they're somewhere on one of my talkpages. Ta, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 22:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sun can be very strong in Australia, specially for new arrivals. Thank you for the website. Here's another case of vague photographer / fussy editor here. Eddaido (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:1905 Humber 1905 Isle of Man TT? (6057363652).jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:1905 Humber 1905 Isle of Man TT? (6057363652).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

I understand that most of the vintage photos scanned by the original uploader are more than 100 years old; if you can show that the original photo was published before 1923, and was photographed by someone who died more than 70 years ago, please tag the file with {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=...}} Chenzw  Talk  13:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for this. Have written to the original uploader and now await reply (which might be almost instantaneous or . . . maybe not). I don't mind uploading it again if a suitable response arrives after the image is deleted. Eddaido (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Another better-informed editor has provided a new licence. Is this satisfactory? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yup, it's okay now, thanks! Chenzw  Talk  00:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Category:1934 Ford automobiles modified (and similarly named categories)[edit]

Eddaido,

Thanks for creating Category:1934 Ford automobiles modified, and all the other similarly named categories. In my opinion these are very useful categories, particularly for documenting 1930s hot rods. However, I think the names of the categories could be improved; I believe that either Category:1934 Ford automobiles (modified) or Category:Modified 1934 Ford automobiles would work better and read more easily. Feel free to disagree, but I think modifying the naming convention in this (or in a similar) way would constitute an improvement. Also, creating a parent category such as Category:Ford automobiles (modified) or Category:Modified Ford automobiles for these categories could be pretty useful as well. I'd be happy to make these edits myself, but I wanted to run them by you first. Thanks again for all your hard work here on Commons!

Michael Barera (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Barera,
Thanks for your thanks, Michael. The way I see it customised cars and hot rods just belong under just those categories, the original manufacturer is a minor thing. Aren't they all individual works of art? Samples are all that I would have thought useful. Nevertheless, maybe if I could find a nice enough photo of my own personal transport I could upload it too and join the crowd. My concern is that for most people today the original cars are now near as exotic as, say, a 1905 Locomobile. They need to know what they looked like, or rather if they want to know what they looked like they should be able to find out in Wikipedia / Commons. So I think the right thing needs to be separated out from the (often beautifully) knocked about example. Having said all that and it seems we agree in practice I'm not sure why there might be value in adding parentheses to modified. Another couple of keystrokes is all and I don't think that matters much so if you really like it do it.
If we are lucky enough a donor / uploader will try to find the right category. I just think that adding modified to the end of the ordinary vehicles name is the simplest method and least confusing finding aid. Over the last 24 hours I've come upon several examples of a large number of identical cars classified under two almost identically named categories and yet the same cars. Category creator B didn't know A had been past before, I suppose. Also I've found where images have been categorised individually to a particular category then categorised again in total. I think this must be a simple mistake but it needs someone like you to back me up in case I'm shown to be wrong. Will come back to you on that detailing the cases concerned.
Parent categories would be a really good thing.
To recap, the parentheses seem to be surplus and while the more complex category name is, I wholly agree, a nicer description I do consider it would be much harder to track down (unless you know its there - will Ms or Mr Average Categoriser know its there?). And don't worry about me and Commons, I think I must have an IQ about the junior filing clerk level and I don't find the job too wearing. Let's know what you think about those category names.
Regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Eddaido, I didn't want to make a big deal out of it. I completely agree with your creation of "modified" categories. I just thought that the naming convention, "Ford automobiles modified", didn't read particularly well, and that maybe "Ford automobiles (modified)" or (perhaps even better) "Modified Ford automobiles" would work better. The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward the latter; I think it sounds more natural, to my ear at least. I'd love to create a parent category, but I think naming it "Modified Ford automobiles" might be better than "Ford automobiles modified". Michael Barera (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I too like "Modified Ford automobiles" for the parent category and I look forward to seeing it. Haven't forgotten I need to show you those items giving me puzzlement. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Alright, Eddaido, I've now created the categories Category:Modified Ford automobiles, Category:Modified Chevrolet automobiles, and Category:Modified automobiles. I really do think the "Modified [] automobiles" naming convention looks better for them. Please feel free to modify these categories (and add new parallel ones) as you see fit. And please don't hesitate to message me with your question(s); I can't promise any results, but I'll always be happy to help as much as I can. I always enjoy conversing with you. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup, me too. Eddaido (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Panhard_-_Levassor_15_CV[edit]

mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Heidelberg Historic 2015 - Bentley Mark VI 1947 2015-07-11 16-09-08.JPG[edit]

Heidelberg Historic 2015 - Bentley Mark VI 1947 2015-07-11 16-09-08.JPG

Hier ist Bentley spezial und Mark VI. Zwiadowca 21 16:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I regret that I have no German language ability. I changed the category because I do not believe it was in the correct one and the new one is better suited.
I do not dispute that it is a Bentley Mark VI chassis. There seems to me to be every probablility that is so. However its bodywork (and more) is clearly unique and special and the images should be classified accordingly.
I hope Mr Google does his work properly! Kind regards,
Ich bedauere, dass ich keine deutschen Sprachkenntnisse. Ich habe die Kategorie, weil ich nicht glaube, es war in der richtigen und die neue besser geeignet ist.
Ich bestreite nicht, dass es ein Bentley Mark VI-Chassis. Es scheint mir jedes probablility, die so sein. Doch seine Karosserie (und mehr) ist eindeutig einzigartig und besonders, und die Bilder sollten entsprechend eingestuft werden.
Ich hoffe, Herr Google macht seine Arbeit richtig! Freundliche Grüße, Eddaido (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Tessuti crop.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Tessuti crop.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kotivalo (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 09:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Armstrong Siddeley Special[edit]

Hello, Eddaido. When I created the new category "Armstrong Siddeley automobiles" in order to list the brand Armstrong Siddeley also in the category "Automobiles by brand" (and not just the generic "Vehicles by brand"), I thought it a good idea to order the different sub-categories alpha-numerically by model name. I think that's common standard with all automobile brands. Just compare any sizeable brand from "Alfa Romeo" to "Volvo". I didn't mean to do any harm. Is my edit problametical for you? We'll surely find a way to correct my edit if necessary. Kind regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - the sort logic escaped me and I shouldn't have changed it whithout contemplation or consult. I just didn't think twice. My knowledge in Armstrong Siddeley isn't deeper than that in Studebaker, Lancia or Borgward. When it comes to historic automobiles, I'm an absolute generalist, not a specialist in one brand. You're critique is absolutely justified. Therefore, I will restore the former sort key immediately. Beg your pardon. --Purzelbier (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Austin 7 Big Seven[edit]

Hello Eddaido, I'm contacting you as you created the category "Austin 7 Big Seven". I found out that there also is another category "Austin Big 7" that contains further images of the same model, partially even of the very same specimen. So there obviously is a case of redundance. As your category contained more files and also useful information on the model, I nominated the other category "Austin Big 7" for discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Austin Big 7. Later, I saw that your category has been created considerably later. Furthermore, the original creator of the other category contributed to the discussion, that the Austin Big 7 is a completely separate model in its own right and not a sub-model of the Austin 7. I'd appreciate if you participate in the discussion and give your vote how to clean up the redundance. Kind regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Austin 12/4[edit]

Hello. I'm just looking at the Austin 12/4 images and decided to contact you, as on the one hand you sorted the category "Austin 12/4 Ascot" as it is and on the other hand you categorized the file "Austin 12-4 Saloon 1933.jpg" as "Austin 12/4 Ascot". As far as I know, "Ascot" is the body name of the 4-door saloon with projecting boot. This body was available on the Light 12/4 as well as on the 12/6 - but as far as I know not on the larger Heavy 12/4. So logically, any "12/4 Ascot" would be a "Light 12/4" - therefore wouldn't it be better to place the category "Austin 12/4 Ascot" as a sub-category of "Austin Light 12/4" as it is just one of several body styles of the latter model series? Furthermore, in my opinion the file "Austin 12-4 Saloon 1933.jpg" doesn't show an Ascot as it doesn't have a projeting boot; I think it must be a Harley saloon. If I'm right the file is categorized wrong and should be in the category "Austin Light 12/4". And last but not least there's the further file "1934 Austin 12 Harley.jpg" which obviously is categorized wrong, too. I'd appreciate if you let my know your opinion. Kind regards --Purzelbier (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is fierce talk! I let all the details lie where they fell. Nobody seems to be clear about 12/4 and Heavy 12 etc etc cars and I just gave up. Sounds like you know much more so please edit as you think fit and I will have a look after it is over. This applies to Wikipedia as well as Commons, please adjust all the articles accordingly. Such a relief to find someone who knows about all this. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Wait on. Are you identifying the cars in the photos or are you reading what the photographer has claimed the car is? Photographers, lovely pictures, may not mind too much about the car's i.d. Eddaido (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
My endeavour always is to identify the car, albeit my knowledge to do so is confined. Nevertheless, your compliments are encouriging. As I pointed out earlier, I see myself as a generalist in historic automobiles and my aim is to do edits only if I'm really sure about them (but of course I'm not unerring). I'd be pleased if you had a look on my edits on the categories "Light 12/4" and "12/4 Ascot". But there are so much more files that are suspect to me, whether the shown car is identified and categorized correctly - but I'm just not sure enough to go and edit. Look at the remaining first file "Classic Car Day - Trentham - 15 Feb 2009 - Flickr - 111 Emergency (55).jpg" in "Austin 12/4 Ascot" - is this really an Ascot as the description says? Or in other words, do early Ascots really have this sideline design, just like the Harley? Or the two files "R. D. Akers Invalid Car" in the superordinate category "Austin 12" - I can't say for sure, if the shown car is a (late) Heavy 12 or a Light 12, so I won't categorize it.--Purzelbier (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds to me as if we are of one mind. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Umm, I don't think the split of Austin 16 into 4 or 6 cylinder was necessary. Mixed together it is pretty clear which model is which so long as they are sorted in year -registered order. I know I might seem to be casual about new categories. That's because no-one else expressed any interest at all. Here I am expressing an interest, please let me know before making new Austin categories.
I see you changed the name of the 1940 Austin Sixteen file from the photographer's choice. I have made a nuisance of myself in contact with Austin history gurus and the short answer is that no-one knows for certain just when this model of car was first produced. It has an NSW licence plate. The NSW car registration database has been down for the last twelve hours but I will keep looking so we can look up that registration record. However I suspect this has been done before and it did not clarify things. Will come back when I know more. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm thankful for your opinion but I believe the separate categories for the Austin 16 are helpful and reasonable, because in my opinion the two series don't have much in common apart from the name.
Yes, and those very facts make the new categories superfluous. Eddaido (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The post-war 4cyl. 16 isn't the direct successor of the pre-war 6cyl 16 (that's the 18, but who am I telling that...), but not much more than a 12 with modern ohv-engine. Both cars even have completely separate Wikipedia-articles - and only the "pre-war" article was linked in Commons up to my edit. So for a layman, the relation between the post-war and the pre-war 16 wasn't very clear. And that this leads to confusion is proven by the controversial "1940 Austin 18" which you mentioned. The very car is shown on two files - one was already re-categorized by you as an Austin 16 (but not renamed, so the incorrect "1940 Austin 18" was already there and could confuse the beholder), the other file was still categorized as Austin 18. I think, the point is not the year "1940" or "1946" (in editing "1946", I just took over your own statement in the file's history, to be frank), the point is that the original submitter took this post-war 4cyl. "16" for an unrelated and considerably larger pre-war 6cyl "18". Therefore, I always make an effort to correct file titles which to my knowledge are definitely wrong.
To be frank, you seem to have missed the point that 1940 is most probably correct. No records exist to prove it is wrong. The (Victoria) licence plate is no longer registered. Eddaido (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I've already created other Austin categories in the past like "Austin A60 pickup" (before that those cars were incorrectly categorized either as A50 or A55) or "Austin J2" (which weren't categorized at all). Furthermore, the whole "Cambridge" range categorization is a bit of a mess: For the A50, the pickup isn't categorized as a Cambridge; for the A55, the pickup is a Cambridge (as is the half-ton van), but not the Australian Utility coupe - and the A60 has no Cambridge at all in the category name and all the saloon-files now lie "un-sub-categorized" beside my new sub-category "A60 pickup". In short terms - the category layout for A50, A55 and A60 is completely inconsistent. What's your opinion on this? Regards--Purzelbier (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I have an opinion on your last question. As I have said above I am very pleased someone is taking an interest in these things.Eddaido (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I must admit I'm quite perplexed by your reaction. To your first reply: How can it be superfluous to have different categories for completely different models that only share the same name? This would be like having the Alfa Romeo Giulietta from the 50s/60s and the one from the 70s/80s in one category just because everyone ought to realize that the homonymous cars don't have something in common. When I'm wrong - why are there different categories for the Austin 7 from before WW I and the 7 from the 20s/30s? Everyone can see that these are completely different cars (it's undoubtedly more obvious than with the pre-war and post-war 16) so why not putting them in one pot? And what about the two separate Wikipedia articles for the 16 - how shall the Commons-user know which article refers to which images, when there aren't two corresponding sub-categories? To your second reply: I'm repeating myself, but it was you that sorted the file formerly known as "1940 Austin 18 Saloon.jpg" as "Austin 16|1946"; and when another editer changed it to "Austin 16|1940" you replied "Are you mad?" (source: file history). I just took over your statement of year in good faith. To your third reply: Probably I missed the point due to English not being my mother tongue but I'm really puzzled. First you ask me to consult you before creating new Austin categories because you have an interest. But when I try to discuss how to clean up the mess with the Austin Cambridge sub-categories you state that you have no opinion. Shall I just go ahead and rearrange the categories as I think? Regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Our perplexity is entirely mutual. I remain glad of the interest of another editor. Please may I know the location of your are you mad comment. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
My quotation is taken from your edit of 11:44, 11 May 2015 on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1946_Austin_16_Saloon.jpg&action=history. Regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see, sorry about that. Can give no useful explanation. Generally speaking I lose interest in cars made after about 1950 - because I am not interested in them and because I think there are still enough editors about who will remember them and —one must stop somewhere. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


Copyright status: File:1911 Standard Eleven (14710027883).jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:1911 Standard Eleven (14710027883).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

It appears that you have not been notified that there may be a problem with the copyright status of this particular file. Please have a look at it and check if there is any way to verify that it is indeed public domain. Thuresson (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, its all news to me. I have just written to Trainiac who uploaded the image to Flickr to find out who "Spurling" was. I had hoped to slide by on the basis that the pics were published anonymously but if Spurling is a real person that's no good. Hopefully Trainiac will come back and tell me Spurling died more than 70 years ago. I'll let you know what transpires. I can always upload it again if it disappears in the meantime.
Many thanks for the heads up, Eddaido (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

File:1911 Standard Eleven (14710027883).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:1911 Standard Eleven (14710027883).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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Austin identification[edit]

Austin 12-4 Clifton Tourer registered June 1928 1670cc.jpg
Austin 12-4 Clifton Tourer registered June 1928 1670cc head on.jpg

Would you be able to find a moment to help with a better description for this, please? And thank you.

(The gentleman on the back seat does not form a part of this application to your knowledge base.)

Good things Charles01 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. It looks to me exactly like an Austin 12/4 Clifton Tourer of 1928. Using this knowledge I managed to find a photo of a similar car here or maybe the other way round. The man in the backseat seems pleasingly unaware. Good to know you are out there with the camera. Very best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow, great photos too of the Vauxhall 20-60 and the 14 Light Six and the Morris Commercial and the early Snipe and the Alvis . . . I could go on — Eddaido (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Too kind. Thanks. It's not the first time my son has loaned me that camera, but this time (he is very patient...) I am just beginning to remember when he tells me what (at least a few of) the "buttons" do. He says it's nearly ten years old and the modern ones are much better. But still only as good as the photographer's understanding of the knobs I say.... I left my glasses upstairs so I can't really see what I've written. Hope it makes sense. I'm back to bed. Best Charles01 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
(Puzzled local) "That's the top of their camper van you can see near the middle of the river"
Your pictures are always so beautifully clear. I feel that if I just tried hard enough I could read the fine print of the front page of that man's newspaper. Do you use a tripod? I think I am going to have to go out and make some of my own photos and my hand grows less steady all the time. I know some cameras claim to deal with that but otherwise there is not a lot wrong with the currently held 2004 sensibly priced apparatus. Eddaido (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
A recent discovery now displayed here. Looks like snowy ski slopes in the background. We have a great deal of trouble with cheerful Chinese self-drive tourists who leave the motorway and choose to drive on their preferred side of the road in what I'll call "the outback" (so different from those nice polite Japanese). The Chinese are also quite adventurous. Eddaido (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Funny you should mention tripods. I too notice that as I get older my hand shakes more. My pocket camera has some sort of anti-shake software, though it shows you a red hand surrounded by shake signs when the thing cuts in which is a bit ... undigified. The pix I took on Sunday, however, were with an older posher camera without such sophisticated antishake technology, and my tactic with that is simply to take a lot of pictures of each car and refuse to show you the blurry ones. And hurrah that we no longer have to pay for film.
But the reason it's funny you should mention tripods is that I have indeed ordered (last week) for the first time in my life a sort of tripod - a single extendable (but still, it says in the buyer reviews quoted, "quite heavy") stick - to rest on the ground, but it still hasn't arrived so (1) I wasn't using it on Sunday and (2) I therefore have no idea if it works. The other thing I notice about my pictures is that a lot of the better ones are taken from approximately the level of my stomach, because I feel with cars, as with dogs, they somehow look more "realistic" if you photograph them from their own level. That means photographing from about the level of my stomach or chest, depending on the height of the car, which means leaving a reasonable margin round the edge and then simply pointing the camera without looking through the viewfinder. If you've a screen on the back (I have) you can still check that the car was in the frame directly afterwards, but with a little practice it usually is. And I find my propensity for hand shake is less if I'm standing in a relaxed pose than it becomes if I'm crouching down trying to look at a screen/viewfinder on the level of where I can feel my breakfast/lunch doing what it does. Too much info? Wouldn't be the first time.
Yes, I suppose from your perspective, and mine since we came to live in England, the Japanese drive on the "right" side of the road and the Chinese, as far as I remember, drive on the "wrong" side. But not in Hong Kong. I have never been to either country. I used to have a good colleague from India who had grown up the son of a diplomat, so was familiar with the issues. When I asked him in all innocence whether back in Delhi people drive on the left side or the right side he roared with laughter and answered along the lines, "no". Charles01 (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ford Trux[edit]

Ford FK 2500 Diesel.JPG

This is ridiculously wimpy on my part, but

1. As I may have mentioned before, I long ago gave up trying to categorise pix beyond the most basic level in wiki commons because doing so opens cans of worms which I have neither the necessary expertise (90%) or patience / diplomatic antennae (100%) to deal with. However, you are relatively fearless on such matters.

2. I cannot help noticing that this picture I took outside a supermarket of a German beer truck looks different from most (not all) the other pix in the same category. I sense that Ford failed to sell a lot of these things. However, you did kindly recategorise a picture I took on Sunday of the English equivalent. The relevant article on German wikipedia indicates that there was a first series (of what they call a Ford FK - I have no other source for that identification - yes [I do]) up till 1955 and a second series after 1955. IF you think it looks like a seriously good idea (and have the patience for followup in the event anyone else notices and disagrees....) I wonder how you would feel about separating it between catigeries for Serie 1 and Serie 2 - a bit like I see someone did for Vauxhall Victors not too long ago.  ?. Your call. And maybe a slightly ungenerous manifestation of gratitude on my part for all the stuff you've already done in the ugly world of commons cats.

3. Classic car show I'd planned to go to yesterday cancelled due to lousy weather boo hiss. Sun was shining but there was a minor hurricane the preceding night. I guess the precautionary principal rules when everyone is scared shitless of their public liability insurance company.

Good things to you Charles01 (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This may see odd but I have been cheeky enough to have a go at dating the vehicles (has it had the effect you wanted?) but I don't want to create new categories for something I am completely unfamiliar with. Don't know what there may be that I don't know. I have been known to call in your help when confronted by an angry polyglot sure I have made a mistake in identity and I don't want to draw that reaction again. Mind if i leave category creation alone in this instance?
Very sorry about the classic car show and your likely finds there. Spring can't be far away. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I read the link above and was interested to see that the second series FK tools were shipped to the UK for the Thames NC - I thought it looked familiar! Updating the categories. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
That's nice. Eddaido (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Fully understood. (Except the bit about Spring). Best Charles01 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Dernière modif sur fichier 2CV...[edit]

Bonjour.

J'aimerai bien savoir en quoi une berline à capote comme la 2CV est un cabriolet ? Enfin, plutôt : pourquoi une seule et pas TOUTES ???? Mais, non, pas toutes... AUCUNE pour être précis et selon la définition de Wiki.fr : « [...]une automobile ouverte et découvrable grâce à une capote ou un toit escamotable, avec un pare-brise fixe, et des portes sans encadrement supérieur[...] », la 2CV n'en est pas un...

« Dans le doute, abstiens-toi », me disais toujours ma grand-mère. Tu t'autorevertes ou je le fais ?

Bonne continuation. --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 22:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC) PS : Voir en:Cabrio coach. Là, oui, mais pas de version française de l'article...

This is a bit messy isn't it. How do you cope with at least two meanings for limousine? Eddaido (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Oops... Sorry I thought you spoke French...
So : a 2CV is not a Cabriolet, it's, as seen in Wiki.en, a en:Cabrio coach with fully framed windows on its doors and side glass. Not easy to translate...
Examples : a cabriolet, a cabrio coach. May be we don't have the same definition in French and English...
Do you see what I mean? --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 22:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
No, no! The Alvis is not a cabriolet. It is a convertible. Do you not see what I mean? The little Opel you named a cabriocoach is (also) named cabriolimousine isn't it? My French is so bad I can often extract the wrong meaning or intent from a warm discussion and that can be perilous! I understand that Commons has to be used by all languages. Cabriolets as the term was used for cars in English lasted as long as the body style. Those with folding cantrails were absurdly expensive to build with fully lined (mohair for lightness and warmth) leather(?) roof and the heavy cantrails need the additional support given by the hood irons. At that price-level owners expected car side windows to close off properly and that needed the toprail. I believe on the equivalent today they do indeed have folding cantrails but the cantrails are very lightly made of a light material and are not a load-bearing part of the hood's structure. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add that I believe that the small Citroen and Opel had that structure because they were of early unit construction and it was thought they needed that support for rigidity and they were made available because many buyers were still accustomed to (completely) open cars which through their simplicity were always the cheapest (so very different from those with folding cantrails). Eddaido (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

In French:

This 2CV is a cabriolet. --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 23:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A Frenchman's coupé-cabriolet?

I doubt that what you describe as a Coupé-cabriolet would have been so described when made. There are still real limousines being made, your picture is of a stretch limousine, the kind of very ugly thing that now blocks traffic in all our cities. but I agree its driver is walled off from her/his passengers and that makes it just an appalling example of a limousine.

Because a Norwegian gentleman is a European does not mean he must only be called European does it? He is allowed to be Norwegian isn't he and possibly different languages may have different names for him. The distinctive meaning for cabriolet is pretty much lost now but it does not stop it being a useful word to describe something different from a convertible or do I mean a distinctive form of convertible. As a monoglot convertible looks quite French to me but maybe some authority knew better and elected to ignore the precise meaning of cabrioilet? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)