User talk:MrsSnoozyTurtle: Difference between revisions

Please see ANI

Hi 1292simon, please see [1] and please provide your comment and input. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nim. Sorry, I'm not involved with that issue and prefer to stay out of it. I trust you had pure intentions in notifying me about the ANI, but I think you need to be aware of WP:VOTESTACK so that you don't accidentally breach it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BMW M5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Launch control (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

BMW M Roadster

Hi @1292simon, I'm quite new here and don't fully understand the etiquette. Thanks for the comment on my recent edits to top-speed and so on. I noticed that they have been undone but I can't see why, other than something is under discussion. Given that my edits are accurate, can you shed any light or should I contact U1Quattro who appears to have done this? Any help greatly appreciated. Leigh911 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Leigh911:
(by the way, unfortunately "@username" doesn't work on Wikipedia, it needs to be the "reply to" command instead)
I can't see any reason why your edit would be reverted. The poorly explained reversion doesn't make much sense. All I can guess is that your edit got caught in the crossfire of the other user reverting my edit (U1Quattro and I have had some...ummm "intense" discussions in the past). If you would like an explanation from U1Quattro, the best place to ask would be clicking the "Add Topic" button on Talk:BMW_M_Roadster.
Just FYI, the content from BMW M Coupe will probably be merged into BMW M Roadster soon, so it is certainly an action-packed introduction for you! If you have any questions, feel free to give me a yell. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help; it's greatly appreciated. I'll heed your advice. Just getting my feet under the table and trying to be useful.
I noted my edits had re-appeared, thanks! I'm going to make myself unpopular on the M3 page too (it's a gift).
Incidentally, your comments in these talk pages are a god-send wrt Wikipedia style and layout in general.
Cheers, Leigh911 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for your kind words. If your contributions are in line with Wikipedia's aims, then there's no need to worry about whether you're making yourself unpopular or not...
PS oops, I just realised that my reply on the GT-R talk page was to a post that was 4 years old! Regardless it is still a worth point IMHO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Model years vs production years

Please read Wikipedia guidelines concerning model years verses production years. When referring to a vehicle's model year, use words like "for 1967" or "for the 1967 model year". Saying "in 1967" refers to the calendar year and negates the production and introduction start up times which are usually the previous calendar year. Watchdevil (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for the tip. Sorry I wasn't aware of that subtlety with the wording of model years. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Endashes

Please use endashes when listing from–to model years. Watchdevil (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to remember that. Is this the correct character: 1973–1975? 1292simon (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Butchering articles

I would advise against you continuously cutting large portions from articles without a discussion or consensus from other editors. Even though an article may be about a specific subject, there are related histories and influences that are relavent which are appropriate to be discussed within an article. Watchdevil (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Watchdevil. Thanks for your advice, I really appreciate that you have sent me a message rather than reverting an edit.

I will take that on board and make discussions when I think large portions are best removed. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Compact Executive

Hello Sir/Madam. Thanks for your continued great work on this article. I was about to restore the text deleted by the other editor, and then noticed that you had already done it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia ruled/governed by consensus and verifiable facts? I get arguing over unclear aspects like details and subjective things. Is it normal to remove a source for not relating to the main topic, followed by removing a complete paragraph with citations because the previously deleted source is no longer there to support it? (Sentence may contain traces of nuts and sarcasm)

I am very unhappy with how the Sweden section stands now as it is overloaded with citations. But at least there is zero ambiguity over launch date, historical development, generational changes and timeline. Plus there are primary and secondary sources of three citation types. If so desired citations are available to show that the models are manufactured by Volvo Cars they and were developed in Sweden.

Some Volvo articles will get the class classifaction changed to EU segments or none as the models do not fit clearly within the framework. As such a neutral approach seems appropriate. The S70 is such a case - bigger than the CE rivals yet smaller than the E rivals. Regards, 2A04:4540:902:5700:8DB4:D94A:5709:6D53 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, those edits are not normal or justified IMHO. The editor is taking the FV and CN tags to an absurd level and claiming it for every trivial detail, as a scapegoat for deleting text that he/she doesn't agree with. I do not think this is the intention of Wiki policy.

I think the level of citations in the Sweden section is quite silly. They are basically there to placate one editor, I do not think they are actually beneficial. Speaking of Sweden, I think the Saab 900/9-3 should be added at some stage.

Regarding the S70, the classification isn't purely based on size, it is also about where it fits into the model range and which cars are considered its competitors in independant sources (e.g. group tests). Personally I think the S70 is a compact exec, although I would need to check a couple of references to be sure.

Again, thanks for your hard work researching all the references (I would say more, but I best not make any inflammatory statements about the other editor!). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Given how much disagreement there is it might make sense to scrap the article entirely and replace the content with something new. Some of the criticism is very valid and no something that can be resolved. At least that is my opinion on the matter.

Currently there are three articles covering this one topic of 'middle of the size spectrum' car. The D-segment article has an european point of view, the mid-size car article has an US / american point of view and finally the compact executive article has a british (or things that get grouped with the UK / britain) point of view.

None of these articles are wrong or should be deleted. They all make sense, are well defined and so on and so forth. There is just a lot of overlap. I don't have a clever proposal to make on how to improve the situation. As it is now the CE article is lacking lots of important information yet adding more manufacturers or countries will not help.

The mid-size article is the one that most other language wikis link to. Most likely because it was started in 2004 which is earlier than the 2006 date for CE. Adding a history section and a current situation section might be better than splitting the content up for each individual country. Inside these sections countries can be grouped when appropriate to show differences for say central europe, US, Australia etc. Regards, 2A04:4540:906:1700:A8D4:9200:21E1:AC50 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is an interesting question about whether any of these articles should be merged, I think there are prons and cons of having them as separate articles. For something like City Car / A-segment which are different terms for essentially the same group of cars, I think it is better to have the content all within the one article. However, although the compact exec term started in Britain, I think it is a distinct category of car rather than just the UK term for mid-size car. So the compact exec article can cover cars from any country that fits into this category. For example, the Lexus IS and Nissan Q50 fit the compact exec car category, even if they aren't called that in their home country.

The USA mid-size/intermediate car article is kind of a special case. Their unique history of downsizing entire categories etc is confusing enough on its own IMHO... and that's without trying to fit it into an article about cars that are called "mid-size" in many other countries yet are a totally different size to a USA mid-size car! Sorry, I'm waffling on a bit now, I guess all I can say is that it is quite complicated. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Matra and Renault in the minivan article

I removed two models you claimed were from PSA: the Matra Rancho and the Renault Kangoo. I don't know if you intended to say that or if it was left that way accidentaly while trimming, but it was incorrect (although the Rancho was related to a product that eventually would be sold by PSA, but still... ). Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Urbanoc. Thanks for letting me know. I had included the Rancho because Chrysler Europe ended up being part of PSA, however the Kangoo was a mistake. Thanks for fixing that up. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for trimming those car classification articles anyway. They were bloated with unneeded "examples" and too much unsourced bs. Urbanoc (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your kind words. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sport utility vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Compact sport utility vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Platform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Car Classifications PLC

Hi 1292simon. Thanks for your edits on Car classification. Need to understand your logic on one point. PLC is indeed a North American car classification (major segment measured by unit sales), but it is not mandatory that the vehicle be built in North America. Your edit implies that it is mandatory. Vehicles such as the Jaguar XJS, Mitsubishi Sapporo, and Mercedes-Benz R107 and C107 were in the 1970's heyday of the PLC designed specifically to address the PLC market in America, not the tiny home market for bloated Grand tourers. When a Cadillac Eldorado driver traded in on a Mercedes-Benz 450SLC he was not changing car classifications - they are in the same decision set. If that were true, then when a motorist trades his Ford F150 for a Toyota Tundra he also has changed car classification. The 'galapagos' concept of 'American' vs. 'Foreign' cars is an outdated formulation - I don't think Wikipedia should perpetuate it. Thoughts? PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi PLawrence99cx. Thanks for bringing this up as a discussion, I really appreciate your effort to work together on this.

I certainly don't mean to perpetuate any untrue Galapagagos theories! So apoligies if my edit implies that. My intention was to highlight that the segment is used in North America, but not that the cars must also be built there.

However, I do think some references are necessary to show that particular overseas cars were considered PLCs rather than Grand Tourers. IMHO the Bloomberg article states that the Jag, Porker and Merc are a very similar type of car, but doesn't go far enough to say that they are part of the PLC segment. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Same here 1292simon. I see that we agree PLC is an NA market classification, and that the heated "American" vs. "Foreign" battles of the 1970's shouldn't in theory be replicated in Wikipedia uncritically nearly 50 years later. The reason this concerns me: right now the article sum up is "America started building simple, relatively powerful cars that were big on the outside, small on the inside, with a veneer of luxury. Then they stopped. Mass hysteria, that blew over." No nod given in PLC article to the competitive pressures that drove this. Those competitive pressures have to be part of the article, and specifically European 2+2 cars designed at the outset for the NA PLC market, that over time made the idea of a PLC built in Detroit lose the luxe image that allowed premium pricing. That was the kill shot that made Detroit PLCs seem increasingly silly by the 1980's. For someone researching this topic, I don't think it's fair to just list a bunch of cars and leave it at that. PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi PLawrence99cx. Yes, some discussion of the competition from overseas GTs would definitely be a good addition. My concern is that statement about specific Mercs, Jags, etc being marketed as PLCs needs to be supported by references IMHO, but the Bloomberg and Daimler (a deadlink, BTW) refs don't provide this. Sorry for commenting out your text for this specific reason, because I did not realise the big picture. Even if the Euros weren't specifically called PLCs, I would agree that it would be good to discuss the pressure caused by them.

Regarding the summary that they are "simple, relatively powerful cars that were big on the outside, small on the inside, with a veneer of luxury", personally I feel that the overall tone is mostly neutral and doesn't belittle PLCs like that (except for the line about "baroque excess", that seems a bit harsh). Anyways, I look forward to your edits to give some perspective to the segment and cast it in a better light.

All the best, 1292simon (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

How about this organization 1292simon? Characteristics/History - Growth/History - Decline/Examples of vehicles 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s/00s.PLawrence99cx (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not a fan, personally. The changeover point from "growth" to "decline" is subjective, and I think the discussion of specific models should remain integrated within the history. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The current article is not analytical, just a laundry list, 1292simon. It has limited value to people trying to understand the PLC mass market classification. There may possibly be a few analytical nuggets lurking inside the current laundry list, but they are hard to drill down to. How about this - 1. Defining Characteristics; 2. History; 3. List Of Cars By Decade. Briefly, what do you consider to be the key insights buried in the current list of cars? PLawrence99cx (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your insight that the PLC article should be descriptive, not pejorative. The best non-Wikipedia description I can find for the PLC is mass-produced midsize sporty luxury coupé market segment. That excludes two door premium luxury vehicles like the hand-made 1956 Lincoln Continental Mark II and it's nearest competitor, the 1957 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud I drophead coupé. Agree? If not, why exactly? PLawrence99cx (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi PLawrence99cx. Yes, the History section does often jump from model to model without much direction, so that could be improved. Perhaps this discussion should be done on the PLC Talk Page instead of mine, in case Watchdevil and others would like to get involved? (although personally I have no problem with you making a bold edit and going from there)

I agree with the structure you have suggested, with one tweak: "3. Significant Cars By Decade". Instead of attempting to list every single PLC, I think it is more worthwhile to have a brief description of why they are significant (e.g. "1966 Oldsmobile Toronado - first front-wheel drive PLC").

The definition of "mass-produced midsize sporty luxury coupé" seems like a good addition. Personally I think "midsize" is a bit restrictive and "sporty" relates more to the styling than the handling, but these definitions are always subjective so it's good to include a range of opinions in the article. I agree that the Mark II and Silver Cloud are not part of the PLC segment. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi 1929simon - thanks for devotion to the PLC! Haven't had the opportunity to make edits lately, but shall review. Your ideas make sense. Question - why is the Cord 810/812 not a PLC in your view? PLawrence99cx (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PLawrence99cx. The Cord is an interesting question. I don't know much about the Cord, therefore don't have an opinion on whether it's a PLC or not. Is there a link between it and the early 1950s PLCs? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Noticed your Cord comment just now - thanks for following up. Sounds like we are on the same page with the basic definition - "PLC is mass-produced midsize sporty luxury coupé."

Now I have seen a 1953 Eldorado in person - stunning - what an enormous vehicle!

What baffles me is this push to get low volume ultra luxury cars shoehorned into the PLC article, cars that are not mass-produced, mass-market, or mid size. The pre-war Cord is a two door ultra luxury car, as is the 1952 Bentley R Type Continental, the 1953 Cadillac Eldorado, the 1954 Packard Caribbean convertible, the 1955 Imperial Newport, the 1956 Continental Mark II, the 1953 Buick Roadmaster Skylark, and 1953 Oldsmobile 98 Fiesta. There is no market distinction between these cars - and none of these are "mass-produced midsize sporty luxury coupé."

1955 Ford Thunderbird - the marketing department of Ford Motor Company described it as 'a personal car of distinction' to establish the T-Bird as different from the 1953 Corvette 'sports car.' The press in late 1954 adopted this name. Then in 1958, the Ford marketing department called the four seat model a 'personal luxury car.' This is the first reference that uses the actual term PLC.

1967 - Cadillac entered the PLC market for the first time with a redesigned, smaller Eldorado.

Thanks for being a conscientious editor 1292simon.

• Thanks for your kind words. Yes, I agree that being mass-produced is fundamental to PLCs. It is unfortunately common for car genre definitions to get stretched way beyond their original intention. Perhaps it happens more with PLCs because there were several models that started as ultra-luxury cars but later became PLCs, so the earlier generations get lumped with the same label. Articles like this are examples of the problem with mis-applied definitions.

  Sadly I've never seen one of the early Eldorados in person; the early 60s models, although lacking the beauty, are certainly impressive based on sheer size alone!

  All the best, 1292simon (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Falcon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

More information about carsharing of the BMW Group. Revision: No mention of BMW in the link

Hello, thank you for warning about the error that the link to AlphaCity does not mention BMW Group. Can I upload it again to correct the AlphaCity link and improve the information about BMW's car sharing services? In this case my source does mention that AlphaCity, is the corporate carsharing service of BMW that was born in 2012.

Eleolisil (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Eleolisil. Thanks for making the effort to send me a message (it is much better to be discussing this rather than getting into an edit war!). Is AlphaCity owned by BMW? If not, then I personally do not think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article on BMW and there are WP:PROMO concerns. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi 1929simon, AlphaCity is the car sharing service by Alphabet, wich belongs to BMW as a fleet management and renting company, that provides Business Mobility solutions. With this information to the right links would it be valid? I think it may be interesting to expand this information that I have found about BMW and its car sharing services, is something that is not known and may interest users. Thank you very much for your recommendations and help.

Eleolisil (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. In that case, I agree that AlphaCity is a relevant addition to the "Car-sharing services" section of BMW.

  I ask that you please use an encyclopaedic writing style (the previous version was pretty heavy on jargon). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

businesstelegraph.co.uk in Compact executive car

Hi 1292simon, I replaced the citation of businesstelegraph.co.uk that you added to Compact executive car (in Special:Diff/886530753) with a citation to the original article from Autocar. The businesstelegraph.co.uk domain appears to be a collection of scraped articles from other publications, and we should avoid linking to that domain per WP:ELNEVER. Please see WP:RSN § businesstelegraph.co.uk for details. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 00:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Newslinger. Thanks for fixing up the citation and letting me know. Sorry, I didn't realise that businesstelegraph.co.uk uses scraped articles... these fakes often look very authentic! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Engine Balance

Hi 1292simon, thank you for the edit(s) and the addition of images to Engine Balance. The image files are both named Harmonic Balancer, but they are designed to cope with totally different kinds of imbalance. As they are far more suited in specific parts of the article that discusses each particular imbalance, I am moving them to appropriate sections. Thanks again. Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. 1292simon (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

About the Static Mass part of the article, while it is true that heavy engines are not used as a balancing method, static mass is a hugely important part of engine balance. For example, it is very likely an engine vibrates more when its iron block is changed to aluminum block thus becoming lighter without any other changes. 10hp engine weighing a ton is just an example to illustrate this point. I am reinstating the deleted part. If you have other reasons to believe the article is better without the part, please explain why on my talk page. Yiba (talk | contribs) 03:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Yiba. I appreciate that a heavier mass can affect the vibration level, but this is a separate phenomenon to engine balancing. Also, there are no sources that support a link between a heavier block etc to engine balancing. In fact, the section has no sources at all. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I know how you feel. But engine balancing cannot be complete without the interaction between moving parts and static parts, as well as the interaction among the engine, engine mounts and the installed environment. I have always wanted to create and expand the engine mount section in this article. If you find a good source, please let me know. Yiba (talk | contribs) 11:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Yiba. Not everything that affects engine-related NVH is considered "engine balancing". I believe this is the case for the static mass section. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)yiba

Nomination of Bose Soundbar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bose Soundbar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose Soundbar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello.

In your recent edits on BMW articles, I saw that not only you were defying the infobox guidelines but you have also made the infobox a mess. Especially in terms of assembly section. "all-wheel drive" and "rear-wheel drive" are the terms used in case of electric cars as they have no engine. In case of cars with engines, we use where their engine is placed and then their drive train layout. Also, please try to avoid excessive line breaks in infobox and commas. Infobox should also state the manufacturer as stipulated by the template. We had a discussion on this experience but you ignored the points raised by me. Your edits are cluttering and confusing. Hope you take these suggestions into consideration and try to improve your edits in the future.

Cheers. U¹ _quattro TALK 06:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi U1Quattro. Please see my reply at Talk:BMW M5. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit at turbo-diesel

Hello 1292simon,

I really appreciate your recent edit at turbo-diesel, since it made the mess of my complicated explanation unmessier. However, you have also put some errors into it, which have effectively altered the entire section's meaning. No worries, I have fixed it :-) But I thought I might try explaining things so you learn something. (Telling you that you've done something wrong without telling you how to do it right is rude I suppose).

When looking at torque, just imagine it as work in a circular fashion. Don't think about power strokes. All motors (turbines, steam engines, waterwheels, electric motors, and internal combustion engines) produce torque. Since the torque has to be manipulated sometimes, (e.g. in a car with a fixed gearing, going uphill requires more torque than going on a flat road), there needs to be some way of torque manipulation. In a waterwheel, this is achieved by letting more (or less) water flow over it, in a steam engine, by letting more (or less) steam into the cylinder, in a petrol engine, by letting more (or less) air-fuel mixture into the cylinder, and so on. You can see, that all these motors have one thing in common about the way how the torque is manipulated: The quantity of water/steam/mixture is manipulated. Otto cycline petrol engines use a throttle valve for manipulating the mixture quantity. This comes with one problem, the throttling does not only throttle the torque production, but also the engine efficiency. The diesel engine was designed to be the most efficient internal combustion engine technically possible. Thus, it cannot have throttling. To this day, designing an engine that relies on manipulating the quantity of its mixture for torque manipulation without a throttle valve, is impossible. This is why the diesel engine cannot (and doesn't) use mixture quantity manipulation. It sucks in as much mixture as possible, because in a diesel engine, the mixture sucked into the cylinder is pure air. The fuel is only injected into the air shortly before the piston reaches TDC, which induces the final mixture formation, and thus changes the mixture quality, or in other words, the air-fuel ratio ($\lambda$). By manipulating the air-fuel ratio, the torque is manipulated. The more fuel there is (relatively to the air (= $\lambda$ is decreasing)), the more torque a diesel engine will produce. The highest torque figures can be produced with approximately $\lambda =1$, but injecting too much fuel will result in sooting and thus, engine failure. The torque manipulation by mixture quality manipulation is something that you can find in all diesel engines. If an engines does not have this characteristic, it is not a diesel engine. Also, all diesel engines (not only direct injected ones!) compress pure air in their compression stroke and only inject the fuel into the combustion chamber shortly before TDC; if an engine does not inject its fuel into the combustion chamber, it is not a diesel engine, which is why there are no diesel engines with carburettors. The combustion chamber is usually inside the piston (in direct injected (modern) diesel engines), or inside the cylinder head (in precombustion chamber / swirlchamber engines). The air is compressed so much that it heats up. The fuel needs to be able to vaporise within a few milliseconds in this hot air. Whilst its core remains liquid, its surface turns into mist, which mixes up with the hot air and then catches fire only because of the high air temperature (it does not get ignited). So the fuel is not injected when it's ready to be ignited, instead, the fuel is becoming ready to combust after it has been injected, whilst combusting. The fuel combusts with a diffusion flame, starting from the fuel drop's surface, burning all the way through to the core (this is why it can become ready to combust whilst combusting; the fuel does not combust all at once). Mixture formation and combustion take place (almost) at the same time.

I hope I have covered everything that I deem important (and I also hope that I have not slain you with this wall of text!) Best wishes, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Johannes Maximilian. Thanks for writing that detailed explanation for me, and especially for your collaborative approach to my edit of the Principles section (many other people would have gone straight for the Revert button!). I really appreciate it. Your tweaks have made it much better and removed some things that I accidentally implied. If you could consider a wording change please, I think the meaning of "manipulation" in this context isn't intuitive for the average reader, so could it be changed to "generated" or something else? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Simon! It's nice to read from you. You are absolutely right about the unintuitive wording. The problem with that (in my opinion) is the literature that's changing constantly. In German language literature, the term has been a problem, and I remember having long discussions with a university professor from Germany. In English, the term for diesel engine "torque manipulation" is quality (torque) control. I'd say that many different approaches can be taken, if we don't want to specify how the right torque is set: torque manipulation, torque control, torque altering, torque governing (the device that limits the lowest and highest torque is called a governor in English), can you think of any other terms? If we had to choose a term, I'd either go for torque control or torque manipulation. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Johannes Maximilian. It's reassuring to know that the wording is also tricky in German, not just in this messy language called English!

  To describe the throttling process, I think "torque control" would be a good choice, as it is similar to how it is described in the Bosch Automotive Handbook. Another option is to describe it by the output of the engine, e.g. a laymans version of BMEP. Perhaps "the energy generated is dependent on the mass of fuel..." might be an easily understood alternative (unless there is a technical issue with this wording)? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Torque control should be the word then. Describing how the engine's output is being produced isn't very good, because that is out of scope in this case; also energy cannot be generated ;-) It can only be converted (that is the whole point of an internal combustion engine, it converts chemical energy (fuel) into motion energy (torque)! Basically, we just need to know that the amount of torque produced by an engine can be controlled by pulling a lever. The question is not "how is the torque controlled?", but "what does the lever do"? In an ideal Otto cycle petrol engine, there is an injection pump, and it has one fixed setting: As much fuel as possible. The lever actuates the throttle valve. In a diesel engine, the lever actuates the injection pump, but the throttle valve is locked in the "fully open" position. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 01:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, torque control sounds good to me too.

It is fascinating how the air-fuel mixture is so fundamentally different between Otto and diesel engines. All the best, 1292simon (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It is very fascinating, (which is why I have attempted to overhaul the entire diesel engine article in February!), and after thinking about it, it is surprisingly simple. Yet, there is so much confusion about this going on. For instance, there is this myth that the diesel engine's low fuel consumption secret is its fuel: Diesel engine fuel contains more energy per volume, but that alone could never make the diesel engine so efficient. It is the high compression ratio, and the lack of a throttle valve. That's it, there is not much more to it than that. Anyways, best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flat engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inline engine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

BMW G20 M3

Why are you constantly adding disputed content at BMW M3 page? You say thag the RfC has expired, yet you have made a vote on it after its expiry. This is confusing as well as annoying. U¹ _quattro TALK 18:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi U1Quattro. Please see my reply at the Talk page. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

BMW M8

Why are you adding "FR Layout" again when we had a discussion on it and you agreed to my points? Also, I presented the sources supporting the claim that "twin-turbocharged" is the correct term so why are you re-adding that again? That is insatiable and frustrating really. U¹ _quattro TALK 08:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please see my reply on the Talk page. 1292simon (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Luxury vehicle

With this edit, you essentially undid about a half-dozen of my edits, and removed the idea of luxury pickups entirely, despite the fact that Luxury pickup and Luxury Pick-up truck redirect to luxury vehicle. Why did you do that? pbp 00:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to remove the luxury pickups. Please see my reply at the talk page. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. U¹ _quattro TALK 06:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at BMW M8

Please see a complaint about your edits at WP:AN3#User:1292simon reported by User:U1Quattro (Result: Both warned). Both you and U1Quattro are risking a block if you continue to revert without first getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)