User talk:GTHO

Space alligator (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Welcome![reply]

Hello, GTHO, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

(Standard welcome above, personal below)

Hi GTHO. Thanks for filling in some of the vagueness in Australian Touring Car Championship. Is it possible there is info missing from List of Australian Touring Car and V8 Supercar Champions for the non-V8 winners between 1993 and 1998? You might be interested in WikiProject Australian motorsport, the Australian Wikipedians noticeboard and the Australian collaboration of the fortnight, too. Welcome. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too scared of the rules. Most of it boils down to be polite, and remember we're writing an encyclopaedia, not building a soapbox. One "rule" is Be Bold. The trick is to guess what is likely to be contentious, and ask first, or if you guess wrong, be gracious when it's pointed out - we all stuff up sometimes.

The winners listed for 1993 to 1998 appear to be all V8 Supercars/ Shell Series. Was there a separate "Australian Touring Car Championship" awarded in that period for some other class? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to user talk:ScottDavis#Excel Files & Wikipedia, see de:Wikipedia:Helferlein/VBA-Macro for EXCEL tableconversion. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page in the tutorial. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is a strong case for the removal of HQ to WB Statemans and HJ to WB Caprices from the “List of Holden Vehicles” as these models were Statesmans, not Holdens. I offer the following in support:

• The July 1971 brochure for the HQ Statesman Custom & Statesman de Ville does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all. In fact it even refers to General Motors rather than General Motors Holden’s.
• The article on Page 62 of the September 1971 issue of Modern Motor magazine begins with the words, “The first thing to get straight about the new Statesman is that it is not a Holden”
• The article on Page 44 of the October 1971 issue of Modern Motor includes the following:

Road Test Data – Specifications

Manufacturer ... General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd

Make/Model ..... Statesman Custom

• The July 1971 SA car registrations table on Page 30 of the November 1971 issue of South Australian Motor magazine, shows the following: .......

…..Chevrolet - 1, ......Holden - 1327, ......Statesman - 25….. No separate figures are given for Torana, Kingswood, Monaro etc

• The November 1974 brochure for the HJ Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
• The October 1977 brochure for the HX Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
• The same brochure refers to “500 GMH dealers throughout the country” whereas the HX Kingswood brochure refers to “500 Holden dealers.....”
• The August 1980 brochure for the WB Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
• The Green Book Price Guide for Sep-Oct 1984 lists Torana, Kingswood, Monaro etc under HOLDEN but lists Custom, de Ville, Caprice and SL/E under STATESMAN.
• No “Holden” nameplates or badges are apparent on any of the vehicles shown in any of the above-mentioned Statesman sales brochures.

If "General Motors" didn’t promote these Statesmans as Holdens and they didn’t badge them as Holdens and they were not registered as Holdens, what makes them Holdens?

Cheers, GTHO 11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, and you've definitely proved your point. I have since reverted my edits, and will merge the purged contents to List of Holden Statesman/Caprice vehicles. However, before I do so, I feel that the title of the list is inaccurate. Would List of Statesman vehicles be more appropriate, since the Statesman was marketed as the Statesman de Ville, and the Caprice as the Statesman Caprice? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the purged info should be reconstructed under a List of Statesman vehicles title. To be consistent with the List of Holden Vehicles I think it's format should be

• Statesman Caprice (HJ,HX,HZ,WB)
• Statesman Custom (HQ)
• Statesman de Ville (HQ,HJ,HX,HZ,WB)
• Statesman SL/E (HZ,WB)

I think it will need to include a cross reference to the Holden Statesman and Holden Caprice entries in the List of Holden Vehicles article and that those entries will need to be cross referenced back to the new List of Statesman vehicles, otherwise I'm sure both lists will grow to include everything Statesman and everything Holden Statesman.

If I can help out at all with any of this please let me know.

Cheers

GTHO 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes have now been implemented, but I am not quite sure about the production years of these models. I have instead left the years as question marks, so if you could fill in what you know that would be great. Also, if I have made any mistakes in the opening prose, feel free to fix those up too. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your recent edit of 1999 FIA GT Championship season, as well as previous edits to 1979 World Sportscar Championship season and various other Australian and Formula series results/seasons. It's greatly appreciated that you're taking the time to add the points results tables for a lot of these things, but unfortunately there is a slight problem. There is an established method to pretty much every sports car article on Wikipedia, in that the style of various things has already been pre-determined and that rule followed throughout Wikipedia. This style is similar to the ones used in the Formula series as well. Really, your charts don't mesh with this style.

If you could, it'd be great if you could adapt to using the style of chart used elsewhere to not only make them easier to understand, but also easier to link and not as glaring on a page when there are other styles of charts immediately above or below. For some help, there are two example pages on the WikiProject that help show the style used: Example Race and Example Season.

This isn't a major thing, and again I'd like to say that adding anything, even if the charts aren't great, is worthwhile. Thanks. The359 07:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Now I have a problem. My results files, which number in the hundreds, have been built up over many years and are all in Excel spreadsheet format. I had previously been made aware of the Excel / Wiki macro (EXCEL-VBA-Macro format_as_wikitable) so I have been using this to load my results.

I assume from your comments that I will now have to retype everything into these pre-ordained templates before loading, rather than using the Excel / Wiki macro to load them. This seems to me to be very labor intensive and quite frankly does not encourage me to share my data with the rest of the world.

Or is there a secret to converting Excel data into your templates which would avoid all this rework?

Cheers, GTHO 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the charts that fit the style used in most every other form of Motorsport on Wikipedia are, as far as I know, not able to be converted from Excel. They must be typed from hand. However, if it counts for everything, every sportscar Season and individual Results Page that I've written has had its charts written out, by hand, by me. It is labor intensive but they create a much easier to understand and read chart. The359 01:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You brought this up on WP:SCR a while back, and I've finally been able to come across information that clearly presents the situation in 1976 and 1977. I've divided the pages up into 1976 World Sportscar Championship season and 1976 World Championship for Makes season. The same for 1977 as well. Each now has their own respective schedules as well as the constructors championship standings.

I realize that the name of the championship was mostly World Championship for Makes for that period, even before and after the split, but I plan to alter the page titles and intros later.

Just wanted to let you know that these have been split as you pointed out, and you could look over whether or not they are correct as they should be. The359 01:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have certainly gone a long way towards sorting this out. Excellent. But I still feel uncomfortable with statements like "The 1976 World Championship for Makes season was part of the 24th FIA World Sportscar Championship" The FIA ran three "racing" world championships in 1976, the World Championship for Drivers, The World Championship for Makes and the World Championship for Sports Cars and I can't see why we would want to call one championship part of any other championship. They were three separate championships. Re this being the "24th FIA World Sportscar Championship" it's probably worth noting that the last time the FIA had used the term "Championnat du monde de sport" (World Champioinship for Sports Cars) was in 1961. Reference "The Automobile Year Book of Sports Car Racing" (1982) Cheers, GTHO 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The naming is simply to imply that it is a continuation of the general "World Sportscar Championship", as it is most commonly known. As I said, the naming of each article and the text in it should change once I complete each season. The359 08:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been busy on Aus motorsport articles. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian motorsport has been marked inactive (see discussion at User talk:Kariteh#Inactive definition). You're welcome to "reactivate" it if you like. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to notice in your edits that you seem to simply add plain text. Due to the obscure nature of some of your articles, you need to add wikilinks to other relevent articles on Wikipedia. For instance, if Holden is mentioned in something you add, please make it Holden by using the brackets [[ ]]. This helps readers and editors alike. The359 09:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I won't remove the category from any more articles for now. Perhaps you'd care to contribute to the the discussion at WP:Australian motorsport. DH85868993 11:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you do appreciate that I have been moving the articles from Category:Motorsport in Australia into subcategories of that category. This is how all the other "Motorsport in <country>" categories work - see Category:Motorsport in the United States for example. DH85868993 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see your point about having all the articles in one category, but eventually the category would just become unmanageable. Regards. DH85868993 11:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That surprises me! Looking at Brabham's latest autobiography he says (p.202) "Three days later I was on an airliner to Australia, to race my BT19-Repco at the new Surfer's Paradise circuit near Brisbane. We had merely fitted a fresh engine in the car and faced Jackie Stewart in David McKay's 2½-litre Brabham-Climax. I started the preliminary 10-lap race from pole position, led into the second lap—and my engine's distributor drive broke. That was disappointing, but I went down to Melbourne to see Repco, and spent a couple of days with them." Reading that again, it does not contradict your version.

The results at www.oldracingcars.com show a DNS for the preliminary event, which I think must be wrong. The CAMS Gold Star site shows Brabham as DNS for the 50-lap main event, which fits with his having competed in the preliminary, but retired. I took all of the above to mean that he entered for both the preliminary and the main, started the preliminary, retired with engine failure and consequently DNS'd for the main.

Your edit suggests that, from the actual race report you have, Brabham was only entered for the preliminary and never intended to race in the main event. That seems unusual. Why go all the way to Australia for a 10-lap race? Should we perhaps be showing two results: Ret for the preliminary and DNS for the main event, perhaps with a footnote to explain? I look forward to discussing this - it's tricky to get any good info on it! Cheers. 4u1e 10:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the key to all this is in the size of the engine in Jack’s car . The Courier Mail says it was a 3 Litre, which makes sense given that the car was an F1. The main event at Surfers on 14/8/66 was the Surfers Paradise Trophy, Round 2 of the Australian Drivers’ Championship (for the CAMS Gold Star). That would mean that the main race was for “Australian National Formula” cars, which could be no larger than 2.5 Litres. Whilst it’s easy to see the Surfers organizers making the 10 lapper a Formula Libre event to accommodate Jack’s 3.0 Litre Repco, I don’t think CAMS would have taken too kindly to the championship event being opened up to engines over 2.5 Litres. Jack’s car simply would not have been eligible for the Surfers Paradise Trophy race.

Why would he come to Oz just for a ten lapper? I don’t really know, but you can bet that Repco, as an Australian automotive parts supplier, would have been very keen for some local promotion on the back of the recent international successes of “Our Jack” and his Aussie Repco engine.

Regarding which races he was entered in, the following quote from the Courier Mail of 13/8/1966 is pertinent. “Racing will start at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow with Brabham’s 10 lapper against the local racing cars and Stewart at 12.45 p.m.” No mention of his participation in the main event. Racing Car News, September 1966 had this to say in its meeting report. “Jack Brabham flew out to Australia for a ten lapper.” Again no mention of his participation in the main event. The grid listing for the Surfers Paradise Trophy in the same magazine does not show Brabham at all. If he was expected to start in that event I would certainly expect him to be shown with a “DNS” next to his name.

Strange as it may seem, the Surfers Paradise Trophy would appear to have no relevance to the race history of the BT19. Cheers GTHO 07:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting. I had assumed the car was fitted with the 2.5 litre version of the engine for that event, a trivial change which had been made for the two Tasman rounds earlier that year. The 2.5 litre unit was the one that Repco were trying to sell commercially (as an alternative to their refettled Climax FPFs). It was to promote the smaller engine that Jack entered the Tasman series, so its use at Surfer's would perhaps have made more sense for Repco in terms of publicity - and would have enabled Brabham to enter the main event as well.

However, regardless of how much sense it would have made, it's what they actually did that matters! As your source is clear that they used the 3 litre engine, then I think your reasoning must be correct. Could I suggest that you contact Allen Brown at www.oldracingcars.com and Dan Shaw at CAMS Gold Star, who I guess would be interested in clearing up this point as well. Both sites would appear to have the wrong results at present.

One more question: Was it normal for the Aussie national championship rounds to have a preliminary race at that time?

Thanks for your explanations! Cheers. 4u1e 13:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was quite common back in the 50s and 60s for the Gold Star cars to appear in a short preliminary race at some stage prior to the actual championship event. I have sent emails as suggested. Regards, GTHO 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Racetime Computing is essentially defunct as a motor racing website. --Falcadore 07:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look at this: [1]. Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My worst nightmare!! Please see my comments on your talk page. Cheers GTHO 10:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you do me a favour? I noticed that you cited the book Aussie Cars for some information regarding the Holden Brougham in the Holden article, but you didn't note down the page number. If you could provide me this number that would be great (see revision: [2]). Also in future when you cite books, or any other publication can you provide a page number(s) as it makes it a lot easer to insert accurate references when this information is given. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brougham reference was on Page 102. Regards, GTHO (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a history of working on the article Ford Meteor. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. Jeepday (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my only edits on the Ford Meteor article related to moving the Canadian “Meteor” information off onto the separate Meteor (car) page. If you are after Australian references on the Ford Meteor I suggest that you have a look at

Redbook

and

[Unique Cars and Parts]

Cheers, GTHO (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI, GTHO, you may or may not be already aware that I have nominated the Holden article for featured article status. If you don't not mind, would you be able to give a review (oppose or support) here? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. GTHO (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to respond to your issues on the FAC, however, I cannot justify including information on every single model. As I've said on the FAC, does the VX Commodore's new taillight lenses and revised headlight design really warrant a mention? The answer is simply no. The history really acts as a summary of the Holden brand as a whole. If someone wanted to read in more detail about the Commodore's evolution, they would go to the Holden Commodore article. In all other areas I think I've fulfilled your requirements, so if you could strike out your comments and support, that would be appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSX, Done. Cheers, GTHO (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate your extensive review. I have now added a mention of the FC model into the 1950s section. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) Just one more thing. I've used page 62 of the September 1971 edition of Modern Motor magazine to reference the fact that Statesmans were not marketed as "Holdens". I got this from the list of sources you provided me back June 2007. However, if you could provide me with the article's title, the author of the article and the publisher of Modern Motor magazine at the time, that would be appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was “Bold New Breed” and the author was Rob Luck. I don’t have the origin magazine myself but the February 1974 edition of Modern Motor claims that it was “Published by Modern Magazines (Holdings) Limited”. Well done re the Holden FAC. GTHO (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the style you've used to cite your books on several pages, and I figure it'd help to point you toward the Template:Cite book. This can help you better reference your books to match Wikipedia's style, as well as include all information necessary, such as author, publisher, dates, and so on.

Just a useful tip. The359 (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GHTO. I recently moved the references at the bottom of the Phillip Island article to a Further Reading section and added a couple of in-line citations for one of the facts in the article. You reverted that change. Instead of changing it back I thought I'd explain the reasons for my original change.

I changed the heading that the list of books was under because they are not correctly referenced. See How to Cite Sources in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Your comment was "see General Sources" which says that sources can be general or in-line. Clearly you've gone for general. However, if you also see Provide Full Citations and Provide Page Numbers from the same article you'll see that the references aren't complete.

When I edited the article to add some in-line citations and added a {{reflist}} in with the existing references I found that the formatting of the two different reference types was very different. I decided to separate them because it looked untidy and because the books weren't proper references anyway. If you have a look at Standard Appendices and Descriptions in Wikipedia:Layout you'll see that the References section is for listing "books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article." The Further Reading section is for "resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article."

I don't really mind what heading is above the book list. It probably doesn't matter that much but in reverting the change you also removed a pair of valid references from the article. I'll add them back in and leave it all under the references heading. Maybe you could update the book references so they're more complete? --Fruv (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!

Regarding your question over at Helpdesk, most images can't just be moved. Unlike with articles, only the original uploader or a sysop can change an image title. What you can do however is reupload the image under a the new title, and then tag the old image with {{isd|Full name of image excluding the "Image:" prefix}} (a sysop should come along and delete it fairly quickly). You'll need to change the image link on the article manually however. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Audi 5+5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just noticed your additions regarding the Audi 5+5, and specifcally that you list it against the Audi 80 B2. However, upon checking your online reference, it clearly shows that the 5+5 is actually a renamed Audi 100 - which is a very different car. Can you provide further references to clarify, and correct your edits. Thanks -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 13:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. GTHO (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you drill down to the Vehicle Specifications for one of the 5+5 models listed in redbook.com (eg to [3]) you will see that it shows the LxWxH as 4380x1680x1370mm. The German publication Auto Katalog 1980, pages 196-197, shows the 80 as being 4383x1682x1365 and the 100 as 4587x1768x1390. Motor Manual, February 1982, page 54 gives the following slant on the issue: "Easily mistaken for its big brother Audi 100, the 5+5 is in fact almost 300mm shorter overall, with 142mm less wheelbase." I have no doubt that the 5+5 was an 80 but will keep looking for a better online reference. GTHO (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your adjustments to one or two entries on Rootes cars in the UK, I looked for but couldn't find an entry on Rootes in Australia. It gets a brief mention in the entry on Chrysler Australia, and clicking round with google there seems to be a certain amount of relevant information on the web more generally, though with web based information generally I can never work out which bits I should believe. (The wiki process allows for a slightly more robust editing process than most stuff on line, when it comes from sifting truth from the other stuff, I think.) Anyhow, you look better qualified than most to draw together available sources and kick off an entry on Rootes Australia. At least...well .... if the spirit should move you in that direction in due course ... that would be interesting for the rest of us. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I have enough information to make it worth creating an article. GTHO (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new article. Please see Rootes Australia GTHO (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Nice intro. Charles01 (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lotus77.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comment at your Commons user talk Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons admin Finnrind took care of it on the Commons end. I tagged this image as a duplicate of the Commons image. Do I have your permission to speedy delete it because it has been renamed and replaced? Royalbroil 20:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK GTHO (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might want another look at recent edit - 2 2002 races? --Falcadore (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for that. GTHO (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTHO, I have started an article on the Sun-7 Chesterfield Series (Amaroo) but have left blank 1972 and 1973 in the List of Winners table. I've noticed from the References you quote in your articles that you seem to have a very extensive collection of motor racing magazines. If you get a chance, maybe you could have a quick look at Racing Car News (September or October editions) would have the Sun-7 final results; or 'Giant Killers' would probably mention the winners (particularly if it was Bondy). Thanks, Cheers. Marcusaurelius161 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can be of much help with this one. My RCN reference material is mainly photocopies and doesn't include the Sun-7 Series. However if I do find anything that might be of interest to you I will let you know. Falcodore may be able to help. Cheers, GTHO (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I might give Falcadore a try, as you suggested. Thanks. Marcusaurelius161 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) suggests that while the trademark is written MINI, in wikipedia it should appear Mini. --Falcadore (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I'll change it back. GTHO (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VR and VS series have Commodore badges on the side molding strips. In the book 50 Years of Holden (1999) the models are represented as following:

• VG: Holden VG Utility ("utility" is capitalised, making it a Holden model).
• VP: Holden VP utility ("utility" is decapitalised, so I would call it a Commodore).
• VR: Holden VR Commodore utility.
• VS: Holden VS Commodore utility.

Although the book ends with the VS, we both know the VU onwards models are represented as:

• VU/VY/VZ/VE: Holden V[x] Ute.

Please, lets just merge the Holden Ute article with Holden Commodore. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice in recent months you've been substituting labels like Formula 5000 and Formula Pacific with Australian Formula 1 or Formula 2. While technically correct I would suggest that taking a lead from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) at the very least there still should be reference made to the commonly accepted names like 5000 & Pacific, particularly as AF1 regulations changed dramatically overtime.

Just as an aid to those who do not know AF1 or AF2 - basically to de-jargon the articles. --Falcadore (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that terms like Australian Formula 1 need an explanation but isn't that why we link the term to the Australian Formula 1 page? Do we need to disrupt the flow of the article to explain a term which is already explained on the linked page? GTHO (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why we have common name - so the common can lead to the technicality, not vice versa. --Falcadore (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the edit in question, the 1973 AGP article stated that the event was "a Formula 5000 race" and linked off to the Formula 5000 page. Nowhere on the F5000 page would the reader find reference to the fact F5000 was at that time part of AF1, that AF1 was more than just F5000 or that the 1973 AGP was open to both AF1 and AF2 cars. I don't believe that accuracy should be compromised in the name of common useage and I changed the article for that reason. Having said all that I have to concede that reference to F5000 in the actual '73 AGP article does serve a purpose and have added it back in to the article accordingly. GTHO (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced material is incorrect. Jon Porter NEVER actually worked as an employee for Elfin. Any work he did there was as a sub contractor for himself. It is important also, to remember that Tony Edmondsom manged Elfin for Don Elliot, who was the actual owner.

Ok, but why is the old reference still there? This is misleading. It needs to be replaced with a new reference which verifies the new information. GTHO (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to draw existing material together to create Ford Falcon GT, the Holden fans/editors have certainly done a more thorough job than the Ford fans. The Ford Falcon (Australia) article does not draw it together unfortunately. The XY GT & XY GT HO Phase III articles are duplicates. Paul foord (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer Talk page. --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight. GTHO (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my mistake too, a year ago. No problem. --Falcadore (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the table here does not make sense, specifically the left most column? --Falcadore (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a word "no" but I will see what I can do about improving it. GTHO (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another user who is relabelling all your A9X labels away from the SS5000/SLR naming. Started discussion on the users talk page here and was hoping you would weigh in. --Falcadore (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see your point. HoldenV8 (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problemsHoldenV8 (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputing any of that, however as a list of Formula 5000 champions is heavily implies that a Ferrari 246T is a Formula 5000, which it most certainly is not. As the section is titled Champions, I removed Lawrence on that basis. Maybe the chapter needs a different heading. --Falcadore (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll give it some thought. GTHO (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about butting in, but since Tasman has its own page, I propose removing the champions list from the Formula 5000 page. What we need is to get the SCCA Formula A and British F5000 pages off the ground so we can have Formula 5000 about the concept and use Champions tables in the respective series pages only. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about either of these two to start them. --Pc13 (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps it would be best to raise this on the F5000 Talk Page. Meanwhile I have added notes to the three "F5000 winners" who drove cars with other than F5000 engines. GTHO (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some time back you created the above article. I wondered if it was a mis-type and should be "1974 Repco 500K". I cannot find any sources (other than Wikipedia mirrors) that confirm either, and thought that Repco seemed more probable. –Moondyne 03:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racing Car News, January 1975, page 60 gives the results of the race under a heading "Repo 500K". The same page makes reference to the meeting being the "Repo Meeting of Champions". My memory tells me that Repo were in the car care business and a quick Google of "Repo polish" suggests that they still are. GTHO (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Repo Polish does now ring a bell, you having mentioned it. Cheers. –Moondyne 00:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pre-1950 seasons include a wide variety of Formula Libre races, and I believe that is why the Australian Grand Prix is both linked to and included in those season articles. That's why I think, the relevancy. --Falcadore (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find one mention of the AGP in the pre-1950 "Grand Prix season" pages and that is on the 1949 page. I've put that one back. GTHO (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must have picked the on that had the reference. Although 1952 also has AGP - and is additionally notable as unlike any other domestic AGP was run to Formula One regulations. --Falcadore (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Surfers Paradise raceway really need a category? I's a circuit now over 20 years defunct and there is not a lot of scope for this to be any more than a few races, and additionally the wording of the category name will get it confused with the street circuit still in operation at Surfers.

Categories of specific circuits should be restricted to just the very biggest and best known I feel. --Falcadore (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least ten existing articles relating to Surfers Paradise International Raceway and I considered that this was enough to justify the creation of the category. I would have thought it better to have the ten grouped together rather than just leave them under Motorsport in Australia. I take your point about the actual category name though and therefore propose to change it to Motorsport at Surfers Paradise International Raceway. GTHO (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure what they mean to say is that the category rules were Tasman Series regulations, Tasman Formula if you will, rather than the actual Tasman Series. --Falcadore (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean 2.5 litre for 68 & 69, 2.5 litre + "F5000" for 70 & 71 and 2.0 litre + "F5000" for 72. I doubt very much that this was the case and I think we need verification to run with "Tasman Formula" GTHO (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can remove it without verification? Surely a ^{[citation needed]} tag might have been better if you had doubts. --Falcadore (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. I'll start again. GTHO (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been doing some digging, appears AF2 may have been in use across the region for at least some of those years, maybe just instead of F5000 though. Singapore Grand Prix seems to cite AF2 in later years. You'd imagine Singapore, Macau and Malaysia would have been using the same regs. --Falcadore (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I suggest we move any further discussion over to the Malaysian Grand Prix Talk page. GTHO (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That formatting change works for you? The me the years and series names no longer line-up. --Falcadore (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the changes I made lined everything up for me, but obviously not for you. I would understand if you wanted to revert my changes but should we seek other input back on the Alfredo Costanzo page first? GTHO (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I contacted you rather than revert, becAuse I assumed that differing screen resolutions might be creating a skewed result. Doubt we'll get a third opinion on the Talk page though, might have to go to a Project page for more comment. --Falcadore (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at the Alfredo Costanzo page on a second PC, which runs IE6, and the Infoxbox data is misaligned. The PC on which I made the Infobox changes runs IE7. Could this be the issue? GTHO (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very probably. I run Firefox on my lap top and on one of my other PC's or IE6. --Falcadore (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know that by pushing links through a redirect, like for example these new Coventry Climax links, you are actually making the link process slower? Now they have to bounce through a redirect link, before getting to the correct page, instead of linking directly. --Falcadore (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet found anything in Help that would suggest that using Redirects is counterproductive. To the contrary, Help information here, here and here suggests that it is the preferred way of linking to Sections or specific information on pages. GTHO (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point. Previously those articles linked directly. You've introduced a middle man. --Falcadore (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged. But before you pass sentence it may be worth considering the following which I am quoting directly from Help on Redirect

• Redirects can indicate possible future articles.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

Furthermore, not only are Wikipedia editors asked not to worry about performance, changing redirects to direct links does not significantly improve performance anyway.

GTHO (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Macquarie:[4] championship // (say 'champeeuhnship)

• noun 1. the position of being a champion.
• 2. the honour of being a champion in competition.
• 3. a contest held to decide who shall be champion.
• 4. advocacy or defence.

Really its just the CAMS sanctioned Australian Championship which is limited to certain series. Championship on its own without further qualifier is an entirely appropriate term to be used in conjunction with V8 Utes. While the language used in the V8 Utes article could and has now been better written, claims over exclusivity of the word championship to certain events are not really valid. --Falcadore (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Sporting Regulations for the 2009 Australian V8 Ute Racing Series at [5] do not use the words champion or championship it seems appropriate to me that the article should follow the same lines. Of particular interest are the following quotes from the regulations:

• This Series has been sanctioned by CAMS as a National Series
• The driver gaining the highest points total over the eight (8) rounds of the Series shall be declared the winner of the Series

I appreciate that the terms champion and championship are often used regardless of the official line, but I feel that using these terms in an article about a contest which has been specifically designated as other than a "championship" only adds to the confusion. Perhaps my Edit Summary could have been better written. GTHO (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing my point, which was intended to be more general than the specific article which triggered this. Champion and championship, are plain language terms not dependant on CAMS regulations. CAMS Australian Championship is a term which is dependant on CAMS series regulation. A driver can still be a champion or winner of a championship regardless of whether a series is a CAMS Australian Championship, or National Series or Interstate Challenge or a single day race meeting or a AASA sanctioned event or two hoons illegally drag racing on the Pacific Highway. --Falcadore (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GTHO, I was doing nothing more than just tidying the pages up and correcting links to some of the cars/drivers/teams that ran in those races. I do appreciate what you're asking and ok, I will stop but I wasn't doing anything to make the pages incorrect. Unlike some people around the world I only put info onto Wikipedia that I know/believe to be right.HoldenV8 (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the original image may be wrong, there is an Elfin 623 image alread available. If the Elfin 623 was a Aus.F3 adaptation of the 622 then they should share the same article, yes? --Falcadore (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me! GTHO (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want Category:Australian Formula Two Championship drivers to be a redirect to Category:Australian Formula 2 Championship drivers, you have to create the latter category. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check these two Chrysler Valiant Charger's as I think I may have the model incorrect? Bidgee (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both could be VJ, but the R/T photo has the front indicator surrounds of the VK (the VJ were painted not chromed) & the motor is a hemi-6, not the V8 Hemi 392. The 340 generally looks right and the mags look original Paul foord (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "R/T" has the tailights of a VK and the Chrysler badges front and rear also suggest that its a VK. Of course there was no R/T model in the VJ or VK ranges so that signage is not original. The second photo has the tailights of a VJ and has Valiant badges front and back which tie in with it being a VJ. GTHO (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your using the book "Aussie Cars" as a reference - thank you, I didn't know about it's existence before but have now ordered myself a copy. As a return gift I here give you an easy copy and paste for referencing this very book, in full-on all-out all the bellsandwhistles wikiformat:

<ref>{{cite book | last = Davis | first = Tony | year = 1987 | title = Aussie Cars | location = [[Hurstville, New South Wales]] | publisher = Marque Publishing | pages = xx | isbn = 0947079017}}</ref>^[1]

Also, btw, here in NY "GTHO" means "Get The Hell Out" rather than Grand Touring High Output Handling Option. Just thought you might like to know.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite your comment and participation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian motorsport#Australian motorsport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release please? Thank you for your consideration. --Falcadore (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any information on the Trophy Class? --Falcadore (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Class Structure section of article. GTHO (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Won't vbe able to attend to this until next week, am prepping for an important race meeting this weekend. --Falcadore (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be possible to add a column for the dropped round score? --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A common way of showing dropped points is to place them within brackets within the table itself. Of course the 2010 AGTC table doesn't show points per race it shows race placings. But I think brackets may still be the best bet. May I suggest that we pick this up on the actual Discussion page so that all interested parties can join in. GTHO (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember it the only external difference between a Daimler Majestic and a Daimler Majestic Major is V signs in the horn grilles. They are not visible in the photograph so that the one image could apply to either article. Do you disagree? Eddaido (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you raise the issue on the Daimler Majestic Major page so that others can participate as well. GTHO (talk)

How about this. You 'raise the issue' you have raised to whoever you wish. OK? Eddaido (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK GTHO (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you know the technical regulaions of the Adelaide 500 have long been confusing and race organisers attitudes towards them even more so, I've attempted to re-write it to demonstrate this, but would appreciate your feedback. --Falcadore (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that the Adelaide 500 / Clipsal 500 Adelaide has always been awarded to the winner of the Sunday race. I'll do some more digging and post my findings on the Adelaide 500 Talk page. GTHO (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trophy has been, but round winner has also been acknowledged separately - that was how the has Skaife won 40 rounds or not blown up - because they tried to retrospectively change some of the Adelaide 500 results so that round wins became Sunday wins. That attempt was later revoked. --Falcadore (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that course commentator Barry Oliver used to tell us each year that the championship round winner was decided on points over the two races but that the 500 winner was the winner of the Sunday race. According to www.v8supercars.com.au, “In 2000 the winner of the Clipsal 500 was the driver who scored the most points over the two races. In all other years the winner of the Clipsal 500 is the winner of the second race on Sunday.” Interestingly www.clipsal500.com.au shows Skaife as the 2000 winner. The Sup Regs for the 2000 Clipsal 500 tell us that “the winner of the Round will be the driver who has accumulated the largest number of points at the end of Leg two”. So Tander won the “Round” but who took the Clipsal 500 trophy home? My money is on Skaife, but I can’t prove it at this stage. Both www.v8supercars.com.au and www.clipsal500.com.au agree that Rick Kelly and not Todd Kelly won the 2007 500. GTHO (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Skaife took the trophy home, but Garry Rogers kicked up the largest stink he could over it at the time. It was that very incident that caused the regs to be changed (second time in as many years after the 1999 debacle). However, the round winner stats went into the V8 Supercar records, up until the point they tried to change the results seven years after the fact. The Kelly brothers briefly swapped results for the same reason. --Falcadore (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do we agree that the Adelaide 500 / Clipsal 500 winner (as opposed to the championship round /event winner) has always been the winner of the Sunday race? GTHO (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, only by co-incidence. 1999 being a case in point. --Falcadore (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on V8 Supercars Championship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bentogoa (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Automotive Barnstar
		For your tireless work to improve Chrysler Valiant and Dodge Phoenix, I award you this barnstar. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By copied, I meant Production cars for a grid, but perhaps I should have explained that better. --Falcadore (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left a note at User talk:Lordosis for them to merge in their additional information; if that doesn't happen, you might want to email them and/or do the merge yourself. Once the information has been merged, the page "User:Lordosis" can be blanked so it doesnt appear in google results. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tander raced under her maiden name of Ferrier prior to 1995. - did she get married at the age of 15? --Falcadore (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note re-added with correct year. GTHO (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is wrong - it so often is with Continentals. Some day there will have to be a great sort out. The rose garden and Begonia house behind it were given to the city by the local Rolls-Royce Bentley dealer in memory of his wife. Photo was taken on NZ leg of world tour by car's owner. Eddaido (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty is that the photo was uploaded by someone determined to be and remain anonymous (maybe it should not be there). It definitely is an R-type. I don't know how else to do this so I suggest you yourself make contact with the world expert, Martin Bennett of Canberra ACT, perhaps through your nearest Owners Club details and then if you as well as I are both satisfied it can be marked on the Wikimedia file? Here's about Martin Bennett. Eddaido (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not pick this up on the Talk page of the article in question so all interested parties can have their say? GTHO (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GTHO, first introduced in 1956 (?), the IH A-series, B-series, and C-series (and any other names they may have had later, I know next to nothing about these trucks) are currently of interest to me as they were also bizarrely marketed as Dodges in Australia (Chrysler Australia apparently did all the pressing work, although the cabins still had "IH" stamped in the sheetmetal). Aside from message boards, I cannot find any mention of the Aussie market IH/Dodges, and OSX suggested that you may know more.

While there are plenty of photos, there is nowhere to put them and I don't even know what one could possibly title an article (or a Commons category, for that matter) on these rather charming old International pickups.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a truck person, but I'll see if I can find anything. GTHO (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in but in case its a help (not really sure what is required)—I grew up with a red 1950 AL-110— I found this in a display ad. Is it any help? In other ads I see they sold kerosene-powered refrigerators and in the 1960s a vehicle like a kind of Jeep.

from [[6]]

The Australian Women's Weekly
Wednesday 22 April 1959 page 58

DANDENONG WORKS

GEELONG WORKS

Victoría, and the World..

International Harvester has shared in the development of Victorian industry in recent years. The first IH manufacturing plant in this State was opened in 1933 near Geelong, Victoria, principally for the manufacture of farm machinery; tractors were added in 1948. This was followed in 1952 with the establishment of the Works at Dandenong, Victoria, which produce a complete line of Motor Trucks. In 1958, International Harvester's Port Melbourne Works began producing the International Construction Equipment which is playing such a vital role in building Australia's future.

The establishment of these Works showed confidence in the future. They employ over three thousand Victorians. Their products are not only helping to earn a profitable livelihood for people all over Australia, but in many places beyond the seas.

PORT MELBOURNE WORKS

?

ll

£7,000,000 OF IH EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURED IN VICTORIA HAS BEEN EXPORTED OVERSEAS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.

OFFICES IN CAPITAL CITIES; WORKS AT DANDENONG, GEELONG AND PORT MELBOURNE, VICTORIA.

BUILDER OF ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT FOR ESSENTIAL WORK

Eddaido (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start! Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Gavin Farmer, Great Ideas in Motion, page 315:

• The Dodge AT4 was introduced by Chrysler Australia in 1962
• The Australian Dodge AT4 and International AB-line were both based on an International Harvestor cab design from the USA
• The AT4 had different grille, badges and fenders to distinguish it from the AB-line
• Body panels were pressed by Chrysler at Keswick (later Tonsley Park) and then sent to Finsbury for AT4 assembly and to IHC in Dandenong, Victoria for AB assembly GTHO (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I began an article, entitled International Harvester A-Series, which I believe should include this content. Did IH production of the AB begin earlier, or was this it? That is to say, did Chrysler press all the panels for this range from the beginning, or did IH originally use US made cabs? Or was it some other solution. In any case, I am glad to have some firm ground to stand on (unlike in real life, where hurricane Irene is a-comin!).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On page 310 of Great Ideas in Motion, Farmer says that in 1953 Chrysler Australia began pressing the panels for the "Powerhouse" range of Dodge, Fargo and De Soto trucks as well as for the International Harvestor AL range. He also writes that both cabs were derived from a US Dodge design, modified to suit the needs of the two Australian companies. GTHO (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar, as International's AL-range uses an exact copy of the American IH L-line cab (AL = Australian L-line).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTHO, just curious to know why you have added 2-dr saloon and 2-dr convertible to the infobox? Eddaido (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because its a fact but if you wish to dispute this lets continue discussions on the talk page of the actual article. GTHO (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to move to the article talk page but perhaps you can just point me to where they appear in the manufacturer's catalogue (I think they were only specials by near dead coachbuilders) and if you can prove it I'll let it pass. Eddaido (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to the Infobox entries. GTHO (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello GTHO! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Keith Wong and Kiang-Kuan Wong are two different people, related albeit, not one long-named person. --Falcadore (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. I should have checked it out. GTHO (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to a discussion on the merging of the articles Touring car and Tourer at Talk:Touring car#Merge proposal. I look forward to your participation and insight. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my changes, this information was really new for me. Regards, --Pitlane02 talk 08:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually. You've given me something to think about there. ThanksHoldenV8 (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NZ for 40-odd years after 1945 (with very carefully controlled exceptions) assembled all its own cars. This extended even to Jaguars and of course included the Australian made Holdens Falcons and Valiants and briefly Leyland P76. However, if a car were an Australian-made version of someone else's (i.e. not a pure Australian breed!) like - Fiat 1500, Morris Major, MGB, our importers of fully assembled cars (a market very restricted by government regulation) would buy the Italian or British export version, not the Australian-made version with design modified for the Australian market. Also having small production runs (for example Toyota Australia) would hold on to designs long outdated in Japan and NZ. True I do remember small imports of pre-Valiant Aust-made Chrysler Royals - "the exception to prove the rule" as they say. And of course in those days a lot of Australians emigrated to greener pastures in NZ bringing their (cheaper first-cost) cars with them so strays did appear on our roads. It all began to change in the mid 1970s . . . Eddaido (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eddaido - Thanks, but I'm not clear on why you have told me this. GTHO (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got carried away a bit there, I mean above. You made some improvements to Morris Majors of 2 kinds and I changed the Australian article removing a statement (you were not responsible for it) in a manner which might have appeared abrupt. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i have taken it apon myself to help improve the content avaible on seperate GT models, and other aspects of performance fords in australia. Ford Tickford Experience FPV GT R-spec Ford EL Falcon GT there is currently discussion on the merger of the two GT models into cluttered parent articals.Space alligator (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today I found myself looking at a picture of a Morris Oxford which seemed to suggest they began to be made around 1952. Then I looked it up on the page you have recently amended and it said they got started in 1948. Then I read further and it seemed to effectively say nothing was made between 1936 and 1948 which is to say the least odd. THen I found a note about 14s 16s and 18s so I made some links because no-one has ever written about them. Then I found a picture in Commons so I thought I would help by putting the picture in its rightful place. I have since learnt two things. First, as I suspected, nobody actually reads these things anyway. The second is that you object and have removed it. Why? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the Morris Oxford talk page for you. Do you think it will be enough to attract (favourable) attention? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTHO. Haven't spoken to you in a while, but nonetheless but I've got another user with a question relating to the measurement of displacement for the old Grey motor in the early Holdens. If you have the time, your input would be appreciated at: User talk:OSX#Holden "21h.p." engine. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 20:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find. GTHO (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were not to know I put that bit in there:

• From BMC came
  each year in excess of one million copies of:

• Austin
• Morris
• MG
• Riley
• Wolseley
• Vanden Plas

• From Jaguar Cars came
  each year between 15,000 and 30,000 examples of:

• Jaguar
• Daimler
• Coventry Climax
• Guy

Why did you take it out? Can we discuss it please? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I didn't think it made much sense. I'll raise my concerns again, on the BMH Talk page. GTHO (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense(!) I mean location and reason you took action. See you there. Eddaido (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cars assembled in Australia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Triumph Herald may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (Standard-Triumph experienced financial difficulties at the beginning of the 1960s and was taken

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. GTHO (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Renault Frégate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Renault Domaine vf.jpg|thumb|right|Renault Domaine]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed GTHO (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm belatedly noticing that the results posted in the article are substantially different to records I have. Could you please check and confirm? Regards, --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can dig up the main source that I used. What source do you have that differs? GTHO (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1999 edition of Australia's Greatest Motor Race. --Falcadore (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I have just added to the page for the Fastest Lap could also serve as a reference for the results as currently shown. GTHO (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except the results on the NMRM website does not match the results in Wikipedia. Class A for example. --Falcadore (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what say you bring this up on the Talk page for the article and we take it from there. GTHO (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTHO, I have just had a happy time with this article adding some images because I had just uploaded one that I thought was more apt than the one you had there. But I write to you now because I have just noticed this article is only a matter of weeks old and I'd assumed it was from something like 2006. So I hope you will accept my apologies for doing a bit of rip s***t and bust around that place though I guess that might be quite hard to do. Sorry!, Eddaido (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was here I took another look at this and tried to improve on the layout of the article. I have the idea that because the Australian Vauxhall bodies were made by Holden they continued to have a separate chassis (possibly because Holden did not have the presses to make the necessary relatively heavy steel structure) anyway because of that (the chassis continuing) they were able to continue to make convertibles and utes. Does this fit with what you know? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Darwin (in "100 Years of GM in Australia", page 130) says that "Holdens produced Sedans, Commercial Roadsters and Convertible Coupes with J Series mechanicals except the Australian cars used a chassis" Perhaps you could raise this on the talk page for the actual article where all interested parties can participate. GTHO (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and I will do. Being familiar with the NZ (i.e. UK) equivalents I think they were distinct Holden bodies on Vauxhalls back perhaps even into the 1920s? Is there any record of this? and the 14hp light six began in 1933 but I think the J might be only from 1938. Do you know if that's right? I also read somewhere that Holdens in the 1930s made bodies for other US GM cars that were sent to NZ. Some may have been sent to NZ but normal NZ stock was I am sure direct from US/Canada because the Australian bodies always look strangely familiar yet unfamiliar to me. Like seeing someone's sister rather than the right girl if you see what I mean. Almost right but not right. Eddaido (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTHO, I've just been revising the page about Morris Cowleys (though I'm not finished and I'd be grateful for any thoughts you might have about these and other changes). I notice that it seems you moved the article about the short-lived Cowley vans to the Cowley (car) article. I'd like to remove the vans from the Cowley article back to their own article and deal with them and categorise them with other Morris commercial vehicles rather than cars. Do you have strong arguments in favour of keeping them with cars? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could raise this on the talk page for the actual article where all interested parties can participate. GTHO (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear today's news. I was about to write to tell you about these images I've been allowed to upload. They all relate to GM Holden's, I think, and I am just writing to let you know about them whether or not you can use them anywhere I don't know but at least you know they are available. Hold on, there are also three Austin 1800 ute images.

Utes

• Bedford utility
• 1947 Chev
• Chev rear

Tourers etc

• Vauxhall 12
• Vauxhall Wyvern
• Vauxhall 14
• Vauxhall Big Six

Austin

• Austin 1800 utility

Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm sure I'll find a use for many of them. GTHO (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.

This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made this new list article. Please would you tell me about them or fix all the things I have done wrong. Thanking you in advance etc, Eddaido (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. GTHO (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at WikiProject Motorsport you may or may not have an opinion on. V7867 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what kind of engine this is? Its a good looking photo and I'd like to upload it (if its not a one-off) [7]

(Post script) is this a lead or a red herring?

Have a nice Xmas. Eddaido (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I don't know what it is! GTHO (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}}

Please help me with the following. I would like to add a template which requests an image be added for an entry on the page List of Chrysler vehicles. I have seen this used on another page but I can't find that page and I can't find anything in Help. Thanks

GTHO (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTHO. See {{Image requested}}--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the other day I came accross the article Holden W platform and it sounds suspect to me. I was wondering what you thought of it. While there are elements of truth to the article, I never really thought of the HQ era cars as having a dedicated platform like the Commodore did. I always understood it as the car itself being made in several body variants and trim levels. "Holden W platform" sounds like original research to me, using some factual information and making incorrect deductions based on this. Lastly, despite owning and having read many Holden history books (although a couple of years ago) I cannot recall this platform ever being mentioned. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments. I don't remember hearing or reading anything about it either. As it is unreferenced, I would support a proposal to delete it. GTHO (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done: [8]. Thanks for your input. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't have a problem with this article being deleted. It appears that from the very beginning when GM acquired Holden that it would seem logical that GM would institute "platform engineering", something they've been doing since 1926. I think GM uses platform engineering for Opel and Vauxhall early products, and more recently Isuzu and Suzuki. If GM did actually use a platform with a letter code designation, it would be nice to have credible facts from a GM-Holden source, but it doesn't mean that the article should remain if a source can't be quoted (Regushee (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your improvements, was pleased to find them just now because it means you are not (were not?) caught up in any fire storm? Don't you think the article is too big? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. We were not in any danger over here on the western side of Adelaide. I agree that the page seems to be a bit on the long side. GTHO (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you help me out here: this picture of a Minx with an unusual grille intrigues me because I am trying to update Singer and I want to add this picture to the SM1500 article, they must have been using up a stock of the SOHC engines. SICNAG I think is reliable. BUT when I read the second paragraph below the Flickr pic. it seems to contradict the first paragraph. Do you know the truth of the matter? I won't use it if you are not confident. Thanks and regards etc, Eddaido (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pictured car is an Australian produced Hillman Gazelle from 1966-67, based on the Singer Gazelle VI. The image should not be used on the Singer SM1500 page as that was a very different car.

The Singer SM1500 of 1947-50 used a 1525cc OHC engine.

The Singer SM1500 of 1951-54 used a 1497cc OHC engine.

The Hillman Minx-based Singer Gazelle I/II models of 1956-58 used the 1497cc OHC engine from the SM1500.

The Singer Gazelle IIA/III/IIIA/IIIB models of 1958-61 used the Hillman 1494cc OHV engine.

The Singer Gazelle IIIC/V models used the Hillman 1592cc OHV engine.

The Singer Gazelle VI of 1965-67 used the Hillman 1725cc OHV engine.

The Australian Hillman Gazelle from 1966-67 used the alloy head 1725cc OHV engine from the Sunbeam Rapier.

I hope that helps. GTHO (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does thank you! I thought it might be a continuation in Aust. of the Gazelle I/II models of 1956-58. I was getting my decades muddled. Hmmm, well, if its only my decades then that's OK ;), Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yesterday I decided to create a new article on CSV but 2 users not from Australia deemed it appropriate to have it deleted and blocked. I have managed to seek a review, which I think involves having "community" support for the article to stay. Afterall, CSV has gained independent manufacturer status like HSV to built its own cars and there's similar companies worldwide featured in wiki articles. The 2 people involved seem to have acted capriciously. Anyway, if you can contribute to the debate and support it, further info is here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_June_21. Just thought I would contact you (and feel free to involve other automotive enthusiasts) having noted you are from Australia and hopefully do know about CSV independently, and also thanks to your helpful contributions on Australian cars' articles. Cheers CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see this article has acquired a new external link to Austin Memories.
Same with Herbert Austin, 1st Baron Austin
Should they stay or go? regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings either way. GTHO (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be fine to have links to owner clubs etc but Austin Memories is just a pure history site which updates itself from here and has the use of the official photo collection. In other words (am I being over-sensitive?) it seems to be saying now you've looked at Wikipedia come and read the real story. That in particular is what I'm unhappy about and I'd like to remove it. Do you mean you would not object to that? Eddaido (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but the fellow - aka "Mr Austin Memories" John Baker - has put a huge amount of work into his Austin website which contains a whole lot more detail than is likely to fetch up on Wikipedia any time soon. And his website looks (though I know these things can be hard to assess) well researched and carefully compiled. It's nicely presetned, too, which these days matters (maybe a lot more than it should). On a personal level, I wonder if he's one of the thousands who spent a large part of his life working for Austin and/or successor entities. Either way, I think what he has produced is genuinely a potential source of interesting additional info for wikipedia readers.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in on your (pl.) discussion of this. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]