User talk:Andra Febrian#top
Deletion of Maruti Ciaz from HEARTECT platform list.
Sir/Mam! I request you to please visit the Maruti Suzuki Arena & Nexa Website.
All the vehicle lineup of Maruti Suzuki is now built on HEARTECT platform except Celerio which is still on old Platform. YSSR1865 (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:YSSR1865, I can't find anything that says "Ciaz is built on the HEARTECT platform." And you said, "All the vehicle lineup of Maruti Suzuki is now built on HEARTECT platform", how did you came up with that conclusion? How about Vitara Brezza, Alto, Eeco, and S-Cross?
: Any addition to Wikipedia must be supported with citations and sources. You had none. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Haa!! Sorry for Mentioning all! Existing Alto800 & Eeco were based on old Platform itslef and same goes with Celerio.
But Maruti Suzuki itself mentioned in the OFFICIAL WEBSITE that Vitara Brezza, S-Cross, Ciaz, Baleno, Ignis, XL6, Ertiga, Swift/Dzire are based on HEARTECT architecture! YSSR1865 (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:False. https://www.marutisuzuki.com/corporate/technology/heartect I can only see S-Presso, S-Cross, WagonR, Ignis, Swift, Baleno, Dzire, Ertiga and XL6. No Ciaz, no Vitara Brezza. Which part of the website are you talking about, YSSR1865?
:As for the S-Cross, it is definitely a mistake. https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/official-new-car-reviews/226342-maruti-s-cross-1-5l-petrol-official-review-5.html Andra Febrian (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Check MS Arena Website! and Nexa Website!
and I deny the link that you've mentioned (team bhp) one is just being doubtful and there's no answer there.
and official website itself is saying that S Cross & all lineup in NEXA based on TECT architecture (HEARTECT). I request you to recheck.
I'm 100% sure about that. 07:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:"100% sure" doesn't justify an unsourced addition to Wikipedia. This article https://www.evoindia.com/cars/maruti-suzuki-vitara-brezza-review says the S-Cross is built on the same platform as the Vitara Brezza, which is Suzuki Global C platform. The Ciaz was developed before the HEARTECT platform existed at all. https://www.cartoq.com/maruti-suzuki-yra-b-segment-hatchback-could-use-the-ciaz-platform/ this link said it is based on the old Ertiga platform. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
: You can check these links,
1) Suzuki Vitara Brezza https://www.marutisuzuki.com/vitara-brezza check the words under "safety to be wicked" title.
2) Suzuki S-Cross https://www.nexaexperience.com/s-cross/safety#element_submenu
3) Suzuki Ciaz https://www.nexaexperience.com/ciaz/safety#element_submenu
and this information is from official website. not any secondary websites like you've mentioned. And i deny your links because they're old.YSSR1865 (talk) 19 January 2021
I deny that because TECT is NOT the same as HEARTECT. They are two different things. TECT is not a platform, rather a marketing term of vehicle structure. Andra Febrian (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
BeamNG.drive Crash Test Dummy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu5YPzRqq8E
Crash Test Dummies NOT driving big bus yet!
NO! No driving big bus yet, this one first, go-cart first! 2001:E68:5432:9790:2431:C54C:BC94:29F7 (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Suspicious sources
Hi there, you recently reverted a edit by {{user|2A02:A319:403B:1B80:61C7:BF81:8C9D:2488}}. I came across them too, adding text or just 'odd' sources. I looked at several of the 'news' sources, and they look rather bloggy, WordPress style sites.
The oddest thing is ALL the 'stories' were written by "Adam". Looks like someone is trying to promote their own substandard sites. I've reverted several of their edits myself. Just FYI.
TECT isn't same as HEARTECT???
Could you please differentiate between these two?
Again I request you to recheck the website of NEXA. You're just being like a fan of Suzuki.
I already said you to check the website of NEXA.
If TECT isn't same as HEARTECT.
Then Why did MS mention BALENO & S-Presso (includes S-Cross too) under TECT architecture?? huh.
Why're you just covering the truth?? huh. YSSR1865 (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
And Remember these are MONOCOQUES..not Ladderframes to be two parts(body & platform) YSSR1865 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
HEARTECT cars could have TECT, and non-HEARTECT cars also could have TECT. Those are separate things. TECT is not HEARTECT and vice versa. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops
My apologies, I was too quick to revert your helpful removal on the sales information section from Isuzu D-Max. I've now undone my reversion to your latest version :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
:Ah, in fact you beat me to it with the reversion. Maybe I should go and have my coffee before I try to edit again... Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
::Haha no problem :) Andra Febrian (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Mazda SUVs
Mazda CX-8 is NOT anyhow related with Mazda CX-9. CX-8 is simply elongated version of CX-5. The CX-8 and CX-9 are build on two different platforms. CX-5 and CX-8 are of the same width. CX-9 width is 13 cm bigger, which in term of width is A LOT, and by far the most indicative the vehicles are not related. Why am I telling you that? Because once the width of a car is defined it is almost impossible to change, whereas length is easy to manipulate, weather by lengthening the wheelbase or by increasing the overhangs with different bodyworks. Maybe they look alike, but so do today's Mercedes C-, E- and S-class and I bet you will not say they are just a different versions of the same car. So, please revert your changes, because they are wrong.https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-reviews/mazda-cx8-vs-cx9-whats-the-difference Zvrkljati (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Zvrkljati}} Right. So you're telling me the CX-9 is related with nothing? Mazda 6 is 14 cm narrower. You should remember that platform has different definitions depending on the manufacturer. In this case, 'platform' isn't just floorpan. Modern Mazdas are related to each other due to its SKYACTIV platform, perhaps what we should write as 'related' is the closest ones. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::1) I understend related = the technically closest one. 2) In a way all vehicles of a particular manufacturer (or even a group) are related, but you are not going to put them all on a list. When decing the scope of related vehicles you have to use common sense. 3) I no where talked about platform width flexibility. Platform width flexibility is mauch bigger than vehicle width flexibility. So, Mazda 6 being 14 cm narrower is simply not an issue. 4) Even if manufacturer builds all its vehicles on a single platform, there are subplatforms within a platform. Mazda is the case. 5) The closest to CX-9 is Mazda 6. Everything else is much more distant. CX-5 is as much (un-)related to CX-9 as CX-8 is. Give me one prove why in your opinion CX-8 is more related to CX-9, than CX-5.Zvrkljati (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Zvrkljati}} "Mazda 6 being 14 cm narrower is simply not an issue." but somehow Mazda CX-8 being 13 cm narrower is an issue? If you think the CX-9 isn't related to CX-8, same goes to the Mazda 6.
::::I'm not trying to push the opinion that the CX-8 is more related to CX-9 than CX-5. It combines both. We'll write both as related to the CX-8. The CX-8 has the same wheelbase as the CX-9 at 2,930 mm, which is probably not a coincidence given it is extremely long for such car. Not to mention it is easier to just take CX-9 platform than stretching CX-5 platform to match CX-9.
::::I have sources.
::::* "...because the CX-8 employs the CX-9’s platform but the body is 17cm shorter in length and 13cm narrower in width."https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlyon/2018/02/16/mazda-strikes-gold-with-cx-8-its-first-ever-7-seater-suv-in-japan/
::::* "Ensuring this, Mazda opted to go straight for the CX-9’s platform, down to the 2,930mm wheelbase."https://www.bworldonline.com/mazda-cx-8-combining-the-best-of-cx-5-and-cx-9/
::::* "The Mazda CX-8 is a crossover vehicle which is based on the same platform as the CX-9..."https://www.formacar.com/en/news/view/21392.html
::::* "First, it’s built on the CX-9 platform, not the CX-5 elongated, as is commonly reported."https://autocarmalaysia.com/2019/10/07/first-drive-mazda-cx-8-2-2l-awd/
::::* "This CX-8 employs the CX-9’s platform but the CX-8’s body is 17cm shorter in length, 13cm narrower in width and its heighy is almost identical." https://www.dsf.my/2019/10/mazda-cx-8-bookings-open-with-rm190k-to-rm210k-price/
::::* "It is based on the CX-9 platform and has the same 2930mm wheelbase..." https://thewest.com.au/lifestyle/motoring/same-but-different-in-a-good-way-ng-b88882216z
{{reflist-talk}}
Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
:Ford Focus (fourth generation)
::added a link pointing to Taoyuan
::added a link pointing to Taoyuan
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Automotive industry in Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevrolet Joy.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kia Optima, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hwaseong.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nissan Livina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hòa Bình.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | The Civility Barnstar |
style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for explaining and helping the Toyota Concept Vehicles article. DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for March 18
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
::added a link pointing to Mini Clubman
::added a link pointing to Mini Clubman
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Changes to Chevrolet Menlo
What is your rationale for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Menlo&diff=1006876062&oldid=1005925716 the changes] you made to this article? It seems to me that the original was more descriptive. My Gussie (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
:I don't understand why the original was more descriptive. Care to elaborate which part do you think is more descriptive? Andra Febrian (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
::SAIC-GM is more specific than General Motors. The original also showed the country of assembly and provided links to the brand of the car (Chevrolet) as well as the company directly responsible for it. My Gussie (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
:::But "Chevrolet" is not a manufacturer. The original did not show the country of assembly. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I misread the changes - I agree that the new version is better. My Gussie (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr.choqqers
Wow, my first impersonator! Thanks. Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
:Hahaha, I'm actually surprised an admin quickly noticed the impersonator and blocked it before anyone in the WikiProject Automobiles (that are familiar with you) noticed... Andra Febrian (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Ownership of Polestar
There’s no single test of corporate nationality. Let’s stick to information released by the company itself -> Polestar is jointly owned by Geely and Volvo, making it a Sino-Swedish company.
See: http://zgh.com/our-brands/polestar/?lang=en
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiddo (talk • contribs) 11:57, April 26, 2021 (UTC)
:By that logic, why not stretch it to Proton and Lotus? Please start a discussion at Talk:Polestar and try to gain consensus there. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Facelift
I think that full model change is more important than facelift in vehicle manufacturing?
But There is just facelift article in wikipedia.
I think japanese model change article is very informative.
This article explains the difference full model change and minor model change and facelift
Please use translator and check out below article
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A2%E3%83%87%E3%83%AB%E3%83%81%E3%82%A7%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B8_(%E8%87%AA%E5%8B%95%E8%BB%8A)
Facelift article has just 7 lines and very insufficient
What do you think of expanding of facelift article like japanese article?
Can you help me? Footwiks (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
:In my opinion, "facelift" is a branch of model change yet it is used more often. If anything, a "Model change (automotive)" article should be a separate article, while also listed as a related article in the "See also" section.
:And yes, the Facelift (automotive) article needs expansion. The Japanese Wikipedia article seems like a great start for that. I'll try to improve it soon since it's an interesting topic. Andra Febrian (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
:: In my opinion, "facelift" - As a separate article, It has a limit. Also, "Full model change" and so on - As a separate article, It has a limit. Like Japanese Wikipedia article, What do you think of that one article have all branches of model change?Footwiks (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Volkswagen Jetta (A6), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chakan.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Nissan X-Gear's name in Malaysia
Hi, I'm not sure whether this is enough to prove it seeing as there is a Livina badge on the back of the car but Nissan Malaysia's marketing seems to only ever refer to the model as the Nissan X-Gear, not the Nissan Livina X-Gear:
- [https://putranissanklang.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/x-gear-brochure.pdf Brochure]
- [https://paultan.org/2014/03/26/nissan-x-gear-facelift-launched-1-5-litre-rm/ Press launch]
- [https://www.nissan.com.my/allnewserena/ Website (in the vehicles dropdown menu)]
American English and JDM car articles
Hello there, I see you have reverted my edits on the Toyota Mark X page. I will admit my edits were leaning towards personal preference, which is not acceptable. However, the Toyota Mark X, despite its presence in the grey market, is not an international product. Therefore, I felt American English was correct. If you review my sources, you will see there are many inconsistencies about Japan-related topics on this website. CarCrazedAlex586 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
:WP:ENGVAR, specifically MOS:TIES mentioned that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." Since Japan is not an English-speaking country, there is no need to change this article to American English, regardless of their preference of any English variety. Not to mention, it is also advised by MOS:RETAIN to keep whatever English variety that has been established, which in this case is British English. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
::Okay, I understand now. But can you try and give me some exceptions? I get that EUDM car articles should use British, like the Honda Civic Type R for example. CarCrazedAlex586 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Well, I'm not a user with any kind of authority so ideally for that you might need a consensus from the article's talk page. But I also want to point out that other JDM cars predominantly use British English too, so as to maintain some consistency I think it should be also in British English. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
::::Well, that's unfortunate. One more thing, Japanese does have some English loanwords, but they're a mix of varieties. They say gasoline and not petrol, but number plate and not license plate. Also, their dates are year/month/date.CarCrazedAlex586 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at [[Talk:Honda Mobilio]]
Hello Andra, an editor opened a new discussion at the talkpage of the Honda Mobilio article, you may consider checking it out. Thanks! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevrolet Aveo (T200), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ravon.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
File:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at :Small car shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}Still you have not started a discussion but you did start editwarring The Banner talk 16:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
And if you ask again what the problem is: take it to the talk page first to properly discuss your change. The Banner talk 16:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
:I have warned {{u|The Banner}} that they are also engaged in the edit war. For what its worth, I think the DAB page seems appropriate although needs to conform to WP:MOSDAB i.e. reduce length of entries and only one wikilink per entry. But please don't edit war over it. Better for you both to discuss at the talk page and you can always seek comments from other noticeboards or dispute resolution. Polyamorph (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
::Discussion was what I have been asking for all the time, but I see nothing from his side yet. No reasoning or so. The Banner talk 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|The Banner}} this is not how you settle disputes. Reasoning was clearly articulated in edit summaries. I see you have opened a discussion at Talk:Small car. This is where further discussion on this matter needs to take place. Polyamorph (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Crossover SUV
Please stop reverting my edits of Crossover SUV what is wrong with the edits I am making. Also, a sedan isn't a Crossover either. And lastly, in Full-size Crossover you are also reverting my changes. And anyway why do u care so much about the Flex being head image??? I see you are edit warring on Small car. Please stop edit warring me and read my explanations. Take it to the talk page. Just stop reverting with an unreasonable explanation. And furthermore, I was the one who improved Crossover. Adding missing segments and starting the galleries. Did, you start the galleries? Best, 2007DodgeRam (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
:You seemed to have a lack of understanding of the "Crossover-styled cars" section. No, these cars are not a crossover, but crossover-styled with body kits and such, so that they could say "hey look buy our cars because this is a crossover". Would anyone develop a "crossover-styled" SUV? That would be redundant.
:I explained in an edit summary many months ago that if you put Traverse as full-size, it somewhat contradicts with its article which clearly said that the vehicle is a mid-size since 2018. We need something that is firmly full-size, and the Traverse is not one of them. By the way, is this you sockpuppeting? I'm seeing some patterns.
:And lastly, don't claim you're "the one who improved Crossover" when your authorship is 1.1%. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
No that is not me sockpuppeting. He is some Texas Ip. I live in Az. And furthermore , we need more examples in the Full-size crossover segment. I get that there are very few of those but we need examples. Just because you are the number 1 contributed to the article doesn’t mean the article is yours so stop bossing me around. You have no more rights on this sight than me. Please just stop being bossy like you own the article. I’ll make it to #1 contributor of the article in no time at all 2007DodgeRam (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
:Well, you're the one that claimed you improved the article. Then I presented a proof that you probably don't, now you're accusing me of bossing around. No, don't twist my words.
:Yes, we need more examples in the full-size segment, but i can't think of any other models. We shouldn't just shove in things just because "we need more examples". If we can't get more, probably just let it be. Andra Febrian (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I’ll give you examples: Ford freestyle Ford Taurus X Lincoln MKT Buick Enclave 2007DodgeRam (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
:Great idea, although for the MKT and Enclave we need to sort out the respective articles, whether they're really a full-size or mid-size. That would require some source-checking though. Andra Febrian (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
MKT: https://www.cars.com/research/lincoln-mkt-2016/ 2007DodgeRam (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
As for enclave it was full size until 2017 2007DodgeRam (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Hyundai N-Platform Information
Hey there,
Seems like you've deleted some information about the Hyundai N1/N2 Platforms [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyundai-Kia_N_platforms&type=revision&diff=1005542368&oldid=995528181 here.]
Although this information is unsourced, it seems to be mostly correct, from what I can tell.
It would be better to find sources for this information and correct errors, rather than wipe the whole section out.
:How do you explain Hyundai-Kia Y platforms then? Most of N1 and N2 platform cars are listed as Y6 and Y7. I think it should be sorted out first. Also there is a lack of sources since i cannot find much about N1/N2. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Help with improving Rivian article
Hi User:Andra Febrian: I am a Rivian employee hoping to improve our article. Some information is new, and some is old and needs updating. Because I am in a COI relationship, I am reaching out to see if you would consider it a good use of your time to take a look at my proposed edits. I noticed you have an interest in automobile articles, and was wondering if you might want to work on improving this page as well. It is always my intention to work within the Wikipedia rules. Currently, on the Rivian talk page I have a proposal regarding updates to our facilities section, and a second one with info box updates. All accompanying sources are formatted. I look forward to your feedback, and appreciate your time. Best IanRivian (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peugeot 206, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peugeot Hoggar.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
{{archive box|auto=yes}}