Talk:Custom car: Difference between revisions

Automobiles Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Famous professional customizers include George Barris, Pete Chapouris (who collaborated on "The California Kid", a '34 5-window Ford coupe, in film of same name), Troy Trepanier, Boyd Coddington; several Hot Wheels products are based on famous customs; Barris built the '60s TV Batmobile and Green Hornet's Black Beauty. Don't see any of them mentioned.... Trekphiler 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BB Graham 04:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but WP:RS.... Trekphiler 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The images I've posted are shot in a new 3D standard technique called "Anachrome" this allows people to view it either in 2D or 3D. The 3D is clean & very impressive, if you see it with RED-CYAN glasses. Many tens of millions of RED-CYAN glasses are sold each year recently. If you're a skeptical editor, I have enough of them around to mail some free samples to serious Wikipedians for evaluation. Contact me for an e-mail addess3dnatureguy 05:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this:

"A consequence is these new "scratch built" vehicles cannot be licensed for street use, as they do not meet the myriad of regulations applying to new cars, and are not exempt as they were if rebuilt from original components fabricated before new rules came into effect."

These cars can be licenced under the same rules applying to kitcars, which is more/less what they are. Trekphiler 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had added some factual information to the custom car article and it was removed. I would like to know why this happened? How can I re-enter my additions? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyinlow39 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find you in the edit history, Fly. What'd you put in? I notice a couple of questionable XT links, maybe considered spam linking, which would get taken out. Trekphiler (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyinlow is referring to edits made in February. These edits were the addition of links to a myspace page and adding a couple of names to section on customizers without real sources to verify there importance. The edits where reverted almost immediately and shouldn't be readded. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected something like that. Trekphiler (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Please discuss the contested changes, I will mediate if necessary. Any uncivil comment posted here will be reverted and the account responsible may be blocked. I see that Trekphiler has already solicited help from WikiProject Automobiles, WP:3O is another option for bringing this dispute to the attention of neutral editors. Hopefully we can get some perspective and come up with a reasonable compromise that addresses Zerocannon's concerns over original research without losing any valuable content. Although this should be obvious, I'd like to affirm that my protection was not an endorsement of either version. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself alone, I don't see taking out the pix is valid, not when the subject is "custom car"; not when the reason is "enough on paint" & "redundant"; & not when it's begun with a suggestion to suicide. As it stands, good examples of custom painting treatments & examples of what would be "classic" custom techniques, including flame jobs, lead sleds, chrome aircleaner hats, hood louveres, & chopped coupes, are entirely absent, in favor of a handful of bland pictures.

As for the glossary, none of the terms are uncommon among rodders & customizers, & glossaries of common terms aren't unknown, even without specific cites; I don't have sources handy. Also, I do wonder what's "reliable", for terms that have never had an etymology attached, unless a magazine source cite of actual use is enough. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself alone, i don't see having forty-something photos is valid, not when the subject is "custom car"; especially not when as its name implies would be "custom" and logically inferred to be "of one's liking". We get it, different paint on different cars. So really now, it's your word against my word and frankly, Wikipedia is not your car aficionado magazine photo-collection. In my opinion having eight photos showing different kinds of modifications is far more than enough, if you want to scrutinize photos of cars, go to google image/car show/book store where it's meant for.

Handful of bland pictures? Oh so you and i now both have a point of agreement.

As for glossary, WP:NEO.

I don't have sources handy Then it's inadmissible. QED Zerocannon (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While my intervention prohibits me from advocating for either side, I think it's safe to offer some suggestions. Wiktionary accepts jargon provided there is any written evidence of usage among a specialized group (see wikt:Wiktionary:Neologisms). Terms thrown around in custom car circles could be transferred over to Wiktionary under a "custom car lingo" category and linked to from this article, accompanying a summary that explains the background of their usage. Doing so would alleviate concerns over maintaining an uncited list. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the glossary, l'd add it's not usual even in the magazines for the terms to ever be explicitly defined; they're in such wide usage, it's usually presumed the readership knows what they mean, which demands either omission, which isn't helpful here, or OR, which is frowned on... So which is the better, in such cases? (BTW, it's precisely because they're rarely defined I put them in; sourcing a definition could take rather a long time, absent OR...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:03 & 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms don't have to be explicitly defined by the source texts, you just have to demonstrate documented usage in a context that is consistent with your definition of the term. Specialized jargon is usually discouraged from Wikipedia articles, but a brief glossary at Wiktionary would certainly be a valuable resource (and not just for this article). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not your car aficionado magazine photo-collection." I would have thought the idea was to present fair coverage of the kinds of customs & techniques. That would seem to suggest at least representative examples. If I had free use images of the Chapouris '34 or the Hirohata Merc, i'd happily subsitute them. (Judging by the removal of the 2 coupes, the '56 Lancer, & the Buick, I'd probably see them promptly deleted as "redundant".) And since many (if not most) of the changes are visual, by definition, pictures are an obvious necessity. Should an article on Renaissance art not at least show typical examples? The pictures left are neither a comprehensive nor representative sample.

Just what is wrong with a broader sampling? Or is it my sampling you object to? Or my addition of my own pictures? (Yes, I took most of them, because the previous examples were 3D or lesser quality, & untypical. The later ones were a broader look.) Was it omission of muscle cars? Fords? Chryslers? VWs? (I'd love to include a full-custom Beetle, but I'll just bet it would get taken down, too...)

"'Handful of bland pictures? Oh so you and i now both have a point of agreement." Yes, you decided to delete everything that didn't meet your absurd standards of what's acceptable, not to mention descriptive content (aside the glossary).

Unsubstantiated accusations of 'ownership' of the article, or the photos (it's not extremely clear to me which he thinks I do or don't claim) aren't supportable, unless a revert to preserve useful content is a claim on ownership. (If it is, I'd put on a careful watch, 'cause this is going to cause real trouble if it becomes usual practise.)

NEO? None of the terms mentioned is"'recent"; the newest, I think, is "hemi", & that dates to around 1965, scarcely "new". It is jargon (or patois), use in a limited community, & not in the dictionary; neither are CAM ship, overwatch, or kneeknocker, all of which are on WP, or in WP glossaries. Don't overwatch & Hummer qualify as NEO, then?

"your word against my word " And your word, again, still, has been derisive of what you don't like, not least a disbelief reliable sources for the glossary even exists. I didn't start from insults. Maybe you ought to desist. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add it's not usual even in the magazines for the terms to ever be explicitly defined; they're in such wide usage, it's usually presumed the readership knows what they mean, which demands either omission, which isn't helpful here, or OR, which is frowned on... So which is the better, in such cases? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're making no sense. This is the second time you're addressing the things i've mentioned wrongly and misinterpreting it deliberately (or you're not, which then, well, god have mercy)

We're at the point where, you're simply not taking in any points i've raised and dispel unfavorable ones as "invalid", and this'll attrite till it's pearly gates and trumpet sounds. i'm disinclined to concede as well, and seeing how much spin is added, a third opinion doesn't seem very useful. Zerocannon (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any answers, just more insults. What, exactly, are your complaints with the deleted photos? Why shouldn't they be included? Which ones are most objectionable, & why? Absent some idea, some reason, you're right, I'm not going to concede they should be removed. You're claim of "redundant" isn't sufficient to persuade me, & your resort to claims of "deliberately misinterpreting" is even less so.

As to deliberate, or not, I invite anyone to read what you said & judge for themselves. If you'd care to point out exactly where, & how, you believe your deletes were "misinterpreted"? Since you seem so convinced I'm incapable of following your "brilliant" & ineluctable reasoning...

"ownership"? What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

"Besides, you don't even seem to own them photos" So which is it, the text, or the pix? What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

"Where exactly do you find scholastic credible sources on cars..? Lol" What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

"Oh i have no reasons? Okay do i still have to explain?" What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

"In the form of removing misinformation."? Misinformation? Or something you refuse to admit ignorance about? Oh, wait, there are no "credible sources". My bad. What part of that did I "misrepresent"?

TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:46 & 14:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]