User talk:HumanBodyPiloter5

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nissan Skyline GT-R has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Nissan Skyline GT-R was changed by HumanBodyPiloter5 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.885216 on 2020-11-14T01:14:19+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Formula One. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

• If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Formula One was changed by HumanBodyPiloter5 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.95315 on 2020-11-14T06:03:29+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is wrong with this bot's programming? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd point out that there is an option to report false positives (in case you'd missed it)
SSSB (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HumanBodyPiloter5! I noticed your contributions to Formula One and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!
SSSB (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1971 Asheville 300, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perfect game. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply replace a comma with a semicolon. Doing that is almost always incorrect. If the semicolon could be replaced by a full stop, then it is used correctly. If replacing it with a full stop would leave an ungrammatical fragment, then it is not. Cinagroni (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as correct grammar. Linguistic prescriptivism is thoroughly discredited and belongs in the bin. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete nonsense. Your ideology sounds incompatible with the concept of building an encyclopaedia. Cinagroni (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, linguistic prescriptivist ideology is an often bigoted and thoroughly discredited relic of the Victorian era and I will not tolerate it. Also that last reversion you did and your decision to start getting annoyed with me about "grammar" on my talk page makes me think you're just being antagonistic for the sake of it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you will not tolerate the concept of correct grammar, a collaborative encyclopaedia is definitely not for you. Descriptivism does not mean there are no rules; if you think it does, you have a great deal of learning to do. Cinagroni (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe the way I was taught to use semi-colons in school as the way they were used on that page, so that's clearly how the alleged rules of British English were described to me. I will admit some of the semi-colons were probably overzealous and likely the result of them being retained as the article was edited and sentences got split up and information moved around, but in the case of the one you keep reverting even after I split it into separate sentences the semi-colon is there because the information is meant to represent two different viewpoints and give them equal weight, which is something British schools teach. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you were taught that way, you were taught wrongly. Here is a simple primer on how to use semicolons correctly. Cinagroni (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have made at least four reverts at 2020 Turkish Grand Prix within a little over an hour. You should self-revert your most recent two edits, which were simply a revert of my preceding edit but with a misleading edit summary. Cinagroni (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in continuing this argument; and I didn't make a misleading edit summary. The information was presented to deliberately emphasise that the two things are not synonymous; you came along with your "semi-colons can't be used this way because I say so" argument; I decided to compromise and change the wording to comply with your arbitrary semi-colon rules; but you changed it again to use a comma just because you felt like it. You haven't actually made an argument as to why you think a comma should be used there; I have made an argument but you have continued to behave in a manner which I am having trouble not interpreting as antagonistic. I was attempting to work towards a compromise based off of discussion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HumanBodyPiloter5 reported by User:Cinagroni (Result: ). Thank you. Cinagroni (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

With regards to your recent RM at Talk:Autódromo José Carlos Pace. The common practice is to provide evidence that your claims are true. This makes it much easier for editors to assess your claims and make thier judgements. It would not be unreasonable for someone to abstain, or even oppose, on the grounds that you have provided no evidence, espically when there is more doubt (for example I would not be convinced that Mexico City circuit would be the common name for Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, should you be tempted to perform such a move request). Evidence can simply be a list of sources from a variay of publications which use that name.
SSSB (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reminding me SSSB. I was originally going to but then got distracted with family Christmas shenanigans. Regardless the examples weren't difficult to find. I agree that the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez is a case where WP:COMMONNAME wouldn't be the most appropriate title since "Mexico City circuit" would be far too vague since Mexico City is one of the world's largest cities. That is more of an exception though. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the reason I keep removing his twitch information is because it's really pushing it in terms of how notability and relevance. Twitch information is hardly ever included in pages, simply because it's usually a side hobby for most notable figures, and not what their notable for. If you're going to include twitch, how far does it go? Do we start including their instagram, twitter, youtube all of their merchandise pages and websites? Wikipedia articles are not fanpages. Romain, Charles, Alex, George, Nicholas to name a few all stream on twitch too, yet none of them have this sort of stuff included in their wikipedia pages, and for good reason. It clutters up the page with insignificant chunks of info. It should be quality over quantity and wikipedia has policies for notability. I already think we've reached a good compromise here with my version. Twitch is already mentioned in his charity efforts (which is notable) without cluttering up the page with his followers and how he feels about the site and his fans. - Cement4802 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cement4802, it's received substantial coverage (entire articles, not just passing mentions) from multiple reliable independent sources. It's inherently notable. I don't particularly care about his online activities, but it obviously warrants mention on the page. Whether similar information would belong on other driver's pages is a separate issue and depends on how much coverage those activities have received from independent reliable sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I completely understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we should be so quick to start including this sort of information. Drivers like Charles, George, Alex etc DO receive the same sort of media coverage for their twitch activities and yet it still hasn't been determined as something notable enough to be included in their wikipedia pages. I'd be happy to make progress on this issue if enough editors believe we should be including this sort of stuff. I think it's best to bring it up on the talk page first, and see what the community thinks of it. There have already been multiple conflicts in the past for and against including his twitch activities so I don't think it's wise to go all out without a discussion first - Cement4802 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I already think we've reached a fair compromise on the info included on the page at the moment. Perhaps we could keep it like this for the time being while things get sorted out, before we start moving in any direction. My stance has always been to leave this sort of stuff out completely so it's not like i'm just trying to manipulate things in my direction - Cement4802 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cement4802, I'm not sure other drivers have received as much significant coverage for such activities from sources which are both independent and reliable, but I will also admit to not having looked that hard for such coverage, and that coverage of drivers like Leclerc or Grosjean's activities may well be in French and not in English. Regardless, what is or is not included in other driver's particles is tangential to what gets included in Norris's biography. A broader request for comment may be necessary, and members of Wikiprojects which cover things like video games and social media may need to be drafted in to give their perspectives. I will agree that the current state is a workable compromise for the time being. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 O'Reilly Auto Parts 253, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael McDowell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2010 Belgian Grand Prix, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that at the 2010 Belgian Grand Prix, Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton slid off the wet track into a gravel trap, but was able to re-join the circuit and win the race? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2010 Belgian Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‎"(...) not everyone knows that a Grand Prix is a type of motor race" - it isn't. Doesn't makes sense, practice, qualifying and race are part of one Grand Prix. Eurohunter (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia and not a pedantry pageant. For a person who doesn't know what something is but wants to learn, "Formula One motor race" is more helpful than "Formula One Grand Prix". The "Formula One motor race" wording is as far as I can tell the long standing convention for this exact reason. If you want to change this wording then please seek a consensus to do so. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's missleading which is not general purpose of encyclopaedia. Eurohunter (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why did you spell tires with a y 23winandym (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@23winandym: because those article use British English spelling conventions.
SSSB (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi. can u check the official release from F1 about the cancellation. it’s already there and read it. thanks. https://twitter.com/f1/status/1400856436972961796?s=21 Jacxgarrett (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

read the sources that someone put before undoing their job. thanks Jacxgarrett (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this: Special:Diff/1029670359. It was the accidental result of an edit conflict.
SSSB (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'm restoring your actual edits. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was going to restore what I had removed without meaning to, but you beat me to it.
SSSB (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't know where to start a conversation here, but I removed the reference in that Grand Prix just to be coherent with the other GPs who have the charts but no reference, otherwise I suggest the exact opposite, to add the reference under every lap leader chart

@XMillennium94x: Generally nearly every aspect of every Wikipedia article should be referenced, with statistics such as who was leading on what lap being an unambiguous example of this. If this is not the case on other articles then this should be rectified. Since you seem to be new here, please try to add edit summaries to every single edit you make and please remember to sign every talk page post with four tildes (~) so that your signature is displayed. Removing citations or cited material from articles without an explanation is likely in most cases to be interpreted as vandalism. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe referencing the "Pay drivers" wiki article would be contentious, defamatory or considered to be giving undue weight, highlighting that Lance Stroll has been associated with the concept of "Pay Drivers". It's been raised in several notable news outlets, including the BBC and Sky Sports, acknowledged by the driver himself and quoted in dozens of smaller F1 and auto-racing news outlets so it's hardly a fringe concept and anyone from a neutral perspective would acknowledge the association.

LucaDiCalzone (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HumanBodyPiloter5! Paint It Black has now been nominated at FAC. If you have the time, would you be willing to take a look at it? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lotus F1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autocar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HumanBodyPiloter5, I was wondering if you may be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tumbling Dice/archive4 and offer any feedback? I'd love to take "Tumbling Dice" to FA soon. If not, no worries. Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even means also in English language, doesn't it? Island92 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: even is used to indicate that something is surprising or extreme. For starters, it is WP:EDITORIALising. But being out for 7 days following a positive COVID test is expected, so even is a poor choice of words.(talk page watcher) SSSB (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.--Island92 (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HumanBodyPiloter5,

I noticed that you tagged this page for deletion but didn't inform the page creator of the AFD discussion. This is a mandatory step of any deletion tagging (CSD, PROD, AFD/MFD/RFD/etc.) that you failed to do for this and other nominations. The page creator has a right to know that the pages they created might be deleted and they might want to participate in the discussion. If you don't want to take this step, then please do not tag pages for deletion.

I recommend you learning how to make use of Twinkle, if you use this program and set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post these talk page notices for you. Please, in the future, don't forget to notify page creators any time you tag a page for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the past this has always happened automatically for me when I've nominated a page for deletion, often before I've been able to post a notification myself. I'm sorry if my assumptions about how the template functions have in some way been incorrect. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was doing some lookup on Gar Robinson to see if he passes GNG to create an article on him and unfortunately only found one article (which was reproduced multiple times....) which clearly has SIGCOV of him. However, the recent announcement from SC365 regarding his confirmation with Riley to defend his LMP3 title is worded in a way that I believe attempts to place greater emphasis on him, so I'd like your opinion on if it's more than just ROUTINE coverage. [1] -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article seems to provide fairly significant coverage so far as LMP3 drivers go. Assessing the notability of sportscar drivers always seems to be particularly difficult due to the quantity of routine coverage many of them receive. In this case I'd say that the driver in question is definitely borderline notable, the main question being whether they are independently notable of other subjects like the teams they have driven for or the events/series they have driven in. I'm not really sure how much notability winning the IMSA LMP3 title imparts, but it's probably not enough to presume notability here. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I noticed you deprodded the article Martín de Álzaga (racing driver), citing a reason that he was in the Indy 500 and drove in a grand prix. Alzaga was the first to retire in the 1923 Indianapolis 500. Although he won a grand prix race in the 1924 Grand Prix season, this was before Grands Prix were part of any sort of championship structure, and is not likely to generate any true notability.

Alzaga has an article on eswiki, but the references in it seem to be comprised as archives of self-published works, 404's to a newspaper publication, and 1 book that likely only contains a passing message of him. If you compare the pageviews of the eswiki article and this article, it seems this person has much more reach in the Spanish-speaking world, likely due to him being an Argentine.

I'm not going to go to the eswiki and suggest they fix that article's sourcing, but the fact that there is a much more popular article on eswiki that the enwiki page is probably serving as an intermediate between, is making me feel like that having an article for this driver on enwiki is not useful as a stub, and finding any speck of sourcing is insanely difficult to do, and any meaningful sources are probably in Spanish, owing back to the fact that this person may hold a much more notable presence in the eswiki, but not here in the enwiki.

~XyNq^t_c 20:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I see your cleanups and deletions on a lot of articles. While your work is usually good, I think you may be overly sensitive and sometimes your deletions make no sense. Like at Nissan Micra, for instance - you wrote citation is needed here, preferably one that can establish that all these awards are actually notable and not just vanity awards. I don't think it requires much research or pre-existing knowledge to be aware that the COTY awards (Europe and Japan) and Good Design award are big deals. It was also the first Japanese car to win ECOTY. To assume that these are vanity awards is kind of bizarre. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in that case is that there is no citation, and to lump any superlative on a product like "award winning" should require good quality sourcing, even if the award it won is a well-established an respectable one, since there are many fairly-meaningless vanity awards out there that get handed out like candy to any brand willing to pay the entry fee. Since the awards in question are fairly well-established (particularly ECOTY) I just added a citation needed tag rather than deleting the content, since the lack of sourcing was the only real issue. Even if to someone knowledgeable in the field it may seem obvious that ECOTY is a respectable award to win, that isn't necessarily obvious to all readers, and sourcing should be provided to demonstrate this. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 Dutch Grand Prix, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit on GMC Hummer EV: you revised a caption describing a pictured 2024-model Hummer EV to instead read "2023," claiming that it cannot be a 2024-model vehicle because 2023 is the current calendar year. I wanted to inform you that this was likely incorrect, as vehicle model years do not always align with the calendar year of production. At General Motors, production generally switches from one model year to the next around July 4, so many 2024 models (including the Hummer EV) are currently in production at the company. 42-BRT (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, a car manufacturer can claim that their car is from the year 3248 if they want, that doesn't make what they say true. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Model years simply don't work that way though, it's much more like version number than it is a chronological marker. The current Hummer in production is the 2024 model, even though they are being produced in 2023. This is why when discussing cars the term "model year" is not interchangeable with "build date", and why you typically have to quote both when taking out insurance or selling or buying a used vehicle. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least they should be distinguished. A "2024 Trabant" is a Trabant manufactured in 2024 (something which cannot exist in 2023). A "2024-model year Trabant" is a Trabant that forms part of whatever the manufacturer claims the model year to be. That's just WP:PLAINENGLISH. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally assumed that the "2024" in "2024 Trabant" is the model year. In most circumstances, this doesn't really matter – if we're talking about a car, is the material qualities of it that are more important, or when it was built? Although a 2024 Trabant might have been built in 2023, what is most important is that the car has the features of the 2024 model year. In the rare circumstances where the build date is actually important, I believe the most common way is to write something like "2023 Trabant (MY2024)" or "2024 Trabant (BY2023)", depending on the context (although this annotation might just be local convention). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the whole "model year" convention is completely alien and people either talk about the six-month period in which a car was registered with the DVLA (ie. calling a car a "53-reg model") or they talk about the date on which a car rolled off the production line. Really my main issue relates to WP:CRYSTAL: Captioning an image as "2024 Trabant" is likely to give readers the impression that the image is a speculative render of a future car model, similar to the kinds seen in car magazines speculating on the final appearance of camouflaged prototypes. There's also the issue of sourcing in many cases; we are simply told that the image is of a "YYYY model-year car" without any obvious way of telling whether that's actually the case or not, especially if there aren't any visible exterior trim changes between that model year and the preceding or succeeding ones. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HumanBodyPiloter5. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Track limit, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just showed you how articles are to be named on the automobile talk page, and now you're acting against that very guideline by incorrectly moving Alfa Romeo Giulia (952). To edit WP you have to work with others, and you have to follow the guidelines that have been agreed to. If you don't like the guidelines then you try to have them changed, you don't just ignore them. This is your last chance as far as I am concerned; please restore the original title.

See HERE, and here is the text one last time: when disambiguating between identically named automobiles, or referring to different generations of the same lineage (such as when splitting up an existing article into separate generational pages), disambiguation should usually be made using the applicable model code.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CRITERIA. I am objectively correct here. The Wikiproject conventions go against the conventions applied to the rest of Wikipedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, that's not the case at all. Point five of WP:CRITERIA clearly states that the title should be consistent with those of similar articles, and that there may be topic-specific naming conventions. There is a relevant topic-specific naming convention, and it states that disambiguation between generations is done by model code. There's a clear and unambiguous support for this practice in the naming criteria policy. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECOGNISABILITY is the main thing here, as is WP:OVERPRECISION. "[model name] ([nth] generation)" or "[model name] ([YYYY])" are immediately comprehensible to a layperson. "[model name] (JKHFUKJAHFJKSDHFJKSDHFJKLSDHFJSKLDHSJKDHFDSJKHSDFJKHSF903498543058345987345734053705937394)" only makes sense to people who already have specialist knowledge about a subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but there is an existing convention which is backed by policy. The correct way to go about this is to either overturn that consensus or get a consensus for why the Giulia should be an exception, not to unilaterally overrule a properly formed community decision. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy? The policy that says we should have articles at obscure titles that are difficult to understand without pre-existing specialist knowledge so as to create additional frustration for laypeople who want to learn more information about the subject? Can you please link me to that policy. Consistency does not overrule the other parts of WP:CRITERIA. A consistently bad naming scheme is still bad. WP:BRD applies here and it's not my job to revert my bold changes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you linked. Consistency may not overrule the other criterions listed, but using the model code is still recognisable, precise, and concise. The only criteria you could argue it might not meet is naturalness, which is what I understand your argument to be. But in turn, naturalness is not an overriding criteria either. A title is considered recognisable if someone familiar with the subject area would recognise it, and anyone familiar with a model of car is likely to understand its generations. In fact, a layperson unfamiliar with the concept of car generations at all would probably be more likely to search for the model of the car without considering the generation at all, and they would end up on the main article where they would see it divided by generations rather than year. But it's not my job to explain an existing consensus, and if you want someone to revert your change I am quite happy to go ahead and do so. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these internal R&D codes recognisable to other than people who happen to work for the company in question and super fans who learn every detail about the subject they're interested in? In some cases the model codes are fairly widely known (ie. Rover SD1, Toyota AE86) or don't require specialist knowledge to comprehend (ie. Chevrolet Corvette C6), but in most cases they're obscure and abstruse, and I would certainly consider that to be the case for the Alfa Romeo Giulia and Maserati Ghibli. In both those cases an earlier nameplate is being reused so the concept of one model being the "nth generation" is less applicable. In most cases I would prefer the "[model name] ([nth] generation)" format but I believe that in those cases the notion of the "Alfa Romeo Giulia or Maserati Ghibli from the 2010s" is significantly more natural and recognisable than the idea of those models being a particular generation of that nameplate and infinitely more recognisable and natural than "Maserati Ghibli (M489)" or whatever the gibberish title was before. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an internal code, it's a generation name. I agree some names are more prominent than others (Commodore generations come to my mind, they actually have the generation badged on the car), but that doesn't mean less prominent names are obscure. The big flaw I see in your argument is that you're assuming the reader already knows that the nameplate has been used for a previous generation. To the sort of reader you're talking about (no prior knowledge of model generations or the model being covered), an article titled "Alfa Romeo Giulia (nth generation)" or "Alfa Romeo Giulia (2015)" is just as baffling as seeing "Alfa Romeo Giulia (952)". They are far more likely to end up at "Alfa Romeo Giulia" where the distinction is explained than they are too arrive at any of these three alternative names. Using the year also introduces so many other complexities which are arguably imprecise. For example, with the Giulia case, the new model was announced in 2015, began manufacture in mid 2015, but went to market in 2016 with the 2016 model year. So is it a 2015 generation or 2016 generation? How do we decide? In some cases, this can stretch out even further. Then when you have a transition between generations, there is almost always two different generations of the same model being produced in the same year. What do you do when the new generation Giulia begins manufacture this year for 2025? Do you call it the 2024 or 2025 generation? Surely it can't be the 2024 since a 2024 Giulia is of the 2015 generation? Generations is simply a more precise system which cannot fail. There's also a common name argument to be made here: if you Google Giulia 952, you immediately get hits from reviewers, car resalers, owners' clubs and forums, parts catalogues, and so on. If you look up Giulia 2015 or Giulia 2016, you get articles about the Giulia from those years, many of which mention the generation name. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]