Talk:Daimler 250

Daimler 250 V8 should be merged with this. Seasalt 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Incongruity!

I laughed out loud when I saw the "stub" notice on this article. A Daimler sports car being characterised by a Renault 4! Whoops! --King Hildebrand 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on article name

This article is about Daimler's 2.5 litre V8 saloon from the 1960s. Between 1962 and 1967 the model name was either 2.5 V8 or 2½–litre V8. Between 1967 and 1969, the model name was V8–250.

In neither instance was the car called simply "Daimler 250". "Daimler 250" could refer to either the V8–250 saloon or the SP250 sports car.

What should the title of this article be? Which is the common name, Daimler 2.5 V8, Daimler 2½-litre V8, or Daimler V8-250? Should it should be described rather than named, with the article being named Daimler 2½-litre V8 saloon?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember it as the "Daimler 250" (by the end) but you shouldn't trust my memory.

I found an old Autocar (magazine) from 1968 which agrees with you about "Daimler V8-250".

On the older one, my Observers Book of cars (1965) calls it "Daimler 2½-litre Saloon".

If I ask Google to count the references, if finds >71,300 for "Daimler 250" which presumably includes the 41,200 it gives for "Daimler 250 V8" and 53,700 for "Daimler V8 250". BUT (1) those numbers will be different if I try it again tomorrow and (2) the Google number for "Daimler 250" is presumably inflated by the fact that this is the version used in the English language wikipedia entry. And it might be interesting to Google one or two other permutations for a better answer to "Which is the common name"? - in case I didn't include it already.

As long as dissenters from any wiki naming consensus are sufficiently served by redirect pages (and I see that "Daimler V8" also already takes you to this one) I'm not sure it matters too much. If there were a vote I should abstain unless someone had come up with a persuasive argument one way or the other in the meantime. BUT having had my interest sufficiently tickled I thought I'd share the results of my digging around for five minutes on this. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert

• 
  Current Infobox image
• 
  New Infobox image

@Eddaido: What exactly is the problem with the picture I added? I done it because it at a better angle and perspective and people aren't in the background? They also show the fluted grille. as well as on a separate picture Or am I looking at the wrong area? Please explain. --Vauxford (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

First, it is a particularly ugly picture - of a very pretty car. The only distinctive thing about the exterior of this car is its grille. Please do not put your ugly picture back. You have made a number of other, to my opinion, unfortunate substitutions in the last 24 hours. I have spent some time considering reversion of others. This one is the worst.

One must recognise it is a very subjective business. Your enthusiasm is welcome but you should consider your personal preferences may not be shared. Good luck. Eddaido (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: You can't revert things just because they are "ugly". I replaced the infobox image because it was a higher quality image as well as following guidelines from WP:CARPIX. "The vehicle's hood should be closed unless the engine is also a focus of the picture and the text in context is referring to the engine." The engine being focused should be a separate picture. Yes, I made quite a few changes by replacing low quality images that didn't stand out in the article. If your planning reverting every recent edit I done. Please refrain from doing so until we can come to a conclusion. Possibly have other people's points on this. --Vauxford (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to recognise other people have spent a lot of time choosing images. Just because you have a shot of a similar subject is not sufficient reason for replacing images to which a lot of thought (and hard work finding good quality images) has been given. By all means have other people's viewpoints on this. I look forward to reading them. Yes ugliness is unwelcome particularly under these circumstances. Eddaido (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: But "ugliness" is from your own perspective. A car is a car whether is ugly or not. If it sufficient to be included with generally good standards. i.e "good, complete, clean, and original condition" "Infobox pictures shall depict the front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person." (which is what I done on my recent edits) An ¾ angle is usually the best angle for a single picture of a vehicle which the image you reverted back to isn't the case. If you want pictures such as close-ups of grilles, engines etc then they should be separate pictures in the article. --Vauxford (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been looking at your other replacements of much better photos. Please hurry on with your search for consensus. Eddaido (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to make it so it fit both you and my good faith. I added back some image that I previously removed, as well as adding separate images of things related to the vehicle such as the engine bay on the MG TC. The only thing I did remove the most which I restored is extra images from the MG T-type article. I will try and ask other users of their thoughts of the new infobox image however most of them are asleep so I will try later in the day. --Vauxford (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Daimler 250 Infobox

• 
  Current Infobox image
• 
  New Infobox image

Me and Eddaido have different opinions for the Infobox image. I replaced the Infobox image because they are higher quality, at a better angle and perspective and people aren't in the background. They also show the fluted grille as well as following guidelines from WP:CARPIX. "good, complete, clean, and original condition" and "Infobox pictures shall depict the front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person." Eddaido reverted the edit because he simply said it a "ugly picture" and it apparently doesn't show the fluted grille.

I tried to resolve it by adding the new image in the Infobox and the previous one into the appropriate section (which you can see in my edits). There even a separate close-up image of the fluted grille itself so I don't see what the problem with the image. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts

We are invited to arbitrate between these two, yes?

Most pictures of cars have "issues". These ones certainly do. But then so do most of mine. (And most of yours.) The red car has been taken without concern for the reflections. You should try to go for reflections that highlight the creases and panels gaps the way the designer intended them. Many of yours - I'm guessing it's you but I bet I'm right - include reflections that distract from or conceal the designer's intended panel gaps and creases. No one expects all your pictures to be perfect. But describing them as high quality with all these distracting reflections is plain bonkers. Examples:

Your red Daimler has a background that is distracting and messy. Dear collaborators, usually you don't get much choice over where the light comes from or over what people put their cars in front of. But you can avoid uploading pictures where the reflections will be distracting and the backgrounds dire. The grey Daimler also suffers from inappropriate reflections, but far less so. Its background is much nicer. If I were uploading it I would have cropped out the gentleman apparently posing with the car, but maybe he is the photographer's chum or the owner or both. It is taken from too low. In that respect it is, you might argue, more art house than encyclopedia. And the fellow has stood too close and max'd out his zoom. Sometimes you have to do that to avoid getting run over. But - again - the result can be more art house than encyclopedia.

So no, if an opinion is sought, I don't care for either of these pictures. Nor am I impressed by references to wiki guidelines from Carpix. They were extensively rewritten by a fellow who subsequently got excluded from the party for edit warring. I think he may have been quite old. A warning to us all! They were rewritten to support the way he took pictures. He used a very expensive camera which is great. Some of his pictures were very good. A great many really were not. As one of you wrote above, what constitutes a good image is a highly subjective judgement. You know - or should know - when you have it right. But you should also know that everyone has different opinions. I try and avoid inserting "my" pictures to articles (except where filling an obvious knowledge gap) because I do not expect to be able to assess "my" pictures objectively. If you clump around uploading a large number of indifferent pictures taken by yourself and describing them as high quality then, frankly, you do not invite respect and, which is more important, you do not enhance wikipedia.

But if you want my opinion - even if you don't - here are a couple of pictures from commons that appear to me to be usefully more suitable than the ones you are discussing. For some reason neither of them is a photograph by me. Guess I just need to keep on trying.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Charles01: Bit off-topic but reading your thoughts. I, don't know what to say, if you were mentioning OSX then he one of the user that inspired me to photograph cars on the road and how to photograph them, a practise I been passing on to several people. I do know he ran into some problems. Reading a section like "If you clump around uploading a large number of indifferent pictures taken by yourself and describing them as high quality then, frankly, you do not invite respect and, which is more important, you do not enhance wikipedia." made me rethink the practise I do. The way I photograph vehicles was from inspiration of other users and their advice and practises and simply picked them up their skills over time, but it unnerves me if I'm following people's practises of photographing a vehicle is generally frown upon by the rest of the community, I been doing this because I really think the images I took enhance Wikipedia. 80% of the pictures on a article about automobiles were taken by people like OSX and IFCAR, and a few others which I all look up to when contributing, now I question myself if I'm really enhancing Wikipedia or not. I strive to photograph vehicles of our lifetime to enhance Wikipedia and gain general respect from other users, I don't do it to upset people and have no intention to do so.

I only replace images when I really think it deserve to be replaced because it superior in quality, lighting, angle. There many image I left alone because I think there the best one for the page. I made this discussion because I wanted to reach consensus over the two images, not here to ridicule Eddaido's picture of choice, the image I think is better was taken by me, yes but I only done it because I think it was subjective. I think you misunderstood what the topic was about but I might be wrong. Like I said, I have no intention of replacing existing images because I think mine my better, because often the case they aren't so I leave them. --Vauxford (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No wish to unnerve nor even to offend. Sorry if I do. I was out of England for a few days so maybe the oblique approach to discussion that in England (and, I am told, in Japan) passes for politeness is a little lacking in what I wrote. Some of it does indeed appear a little bit "direct". So sorry for that. But these are my thoughts/opinions. No one expects you, me, and Eddaido to agree every time on what is a better picture between two or three or six. There is no such thing as an unarguably better picture objectively speaking (writing). That is why in this, as in so much else, on wikipedia you have to try and reach for consensus. That (I think) is what Eddaido and maybe others are trying to say (write) and that is what I am trying to communicate, if maybe in a big footed manner. And sorry (again) for the size twelves.

But if I hardly ever link one of "my" pictures from commons to wiki entry unless I believe there is a genuine gap, there is a reason. Of course I like the way I take pictures, but I do not think I can possibly be expected to assess any individual picture I have taken in comparison to those taken by Eddaido or by you. So I try and leave that for others, those without what the Americans sometimes call "a dog in the fight", to do. Fun language, American...

For what it may be worth, I think the pictures you have uploaded in recent months have been light years "better" than those your were uploading six months ago. That's good. You may agree with me or not. But either way, I do not think you are the best person to "mark your own homework". Picasso knew he was a genius. That's fine. His brilliance sang through loud and clear. But would or should you uncritically accept everything he produced at his own evaluation of it? Of course not. And greater scholars than you or I will ever hope to be have no doubt earned good money by "dissing" his work in print as "art critics".

Stepping back from Picasso, I have looked again at what I wrote after getting home yesterday, and I still think the picture of the white car does the job better than either of the ones you and Eddaido were discussing. Must you agree with me? Of course not. Should you nevertheless respect and try to take into account my opinion? Well, that would be nice. And it might even help you improve your own judgement and take even better pictures as time goes by. Am I right or am I wrong? Probably both. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that as the article is primarily about the whole car, a lead image that best illustrates the design of the whole car should be selected. Sure the silver car image shows the radiator, so might be appropriate in a section describing the radiator's uniqueness, but as a lead image it's not best suited. The red car image does better illustrate the whole car, but has a rather distracting background. How about this one:

.

-- DeFacto (talk). 08:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I was wondering if any more opinions might be forthcoming. Till now, not: so I'm back again.... Other things being equal (but they never are) I would prefer a red car to a white one. Don't ask me to try and explain why: I can't. Except that it's quite difficult with automatic camera users employing simple "point and click" tactics (which generally includes me) to avoid the car itself becoming over-exposed with white cars, leading to a loss of detail on those creases and panel gaps. The photographer of this white car has skilfully or luckily (or both) avoided that pitfall. I think he may have selected the right lens filter: maybe he waited for the right light conditions. The red car picture that you propose still has distracting reflections down the flank and other reflection issues around the windows and grille, but at least - unlike on the red car we had before - you can't see the car parked next door reflected in its paint work. And Hallelujah ...

I think, because of the reflection concerns, I would still prefer the picture of white car I already suggested above. But I would certainly not feel the urge to become involved in a wiki-pissing contest over the matter if you were to insert the image of "your" preferred red car and not "my" preferred white car. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: @Charles01: I agree that the white example look better looking, much more then my example, it didn't help that I photographed it in a crowded square. (It was a classic car show after all.) Got a nice background and no parked cars next to each other. --Vauxford (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses

I deliberately stayed away from this ignoring the one notification i got. So I'd no idea of this discussion's surprising extent and I'm sorry I stayed away so long. I hope I get to be forgiven.

Eddaido's

Vauxford's

What happened for me was this: your changes of image were brought to my attention by the WP system (whatever it is called) and I looked at them with increasing unhappiness, I finally became upset enough to do something when I saw the Daimler replacement. To me it illustrates the habitat of and kind of people who might have bought new little (Jaguar-)Daimlers. Yes the photo is taken very low but it has to be one of the most familiar car shapes for anyone interested in cars or do I show my generation? And the only unfamiliar thing about the car is its grille - which is really the subject of the article aside from its engine.

I don't take photos, I hunt for suitable images to illustrate articles. Often I can find nothing suitable. Sometimes after quite difficult correspondence, sometimes its easy, I can persuade some members of Flickr to chase up the photographer concerned that they got it from and they get the licence changed to one acceptable to Commons. Such a one is this image of the Morris Ten.

I like this Morris Ten image very much because on top of the car being (to my mind) perfect the background is such that the picture could have been taken in 1933 the day the car arrived home for the first time. I find your substitute Morris picture, the lower one, beside a Monday Nite food cart just depressing. But I had to agree, if it came to a fight with you Vauxford I might lose because it seems "my" image is rather dark and doubtless has other failings. That and the loss of the gorgeous MGs (which may have since been restored, hope so) together with the other niggles just got to me when I reached your new Daimler image.

I notice you and Tony Hisgett seem to follow each other about taking pictures. Many are almost identical - I have spent time making myself sure one is not a crop of the other. Does this coinciding happen because you operate together or because you are challenging his shots? (or is he challenging yours?)

Back to the questions. I would like to stand away and let the three of you decide. One thing, the car in the Daimler image cannot have wire wheels. Best to all three, Eddaido (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: I know this is unrelated to the discussion but may I asked who Tony Hisgett is? --Vauxford (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I might ask who is De Facto. If you put the search term Hisgett into the Commons search box - as I just did - it comes up with 23,171 images. Does that help? He has new images on Flickr which I have not uploaded (an exasperating process when I find virtual duplicates already in Commons) because they are so very nearly identical to your uploads of almost the same date. Very slightly different position of camera and photographer. I thought you might be blood relatives visiting these places together. Am I wrong? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Never met him. --Vauxford (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is an example so you know what I'm talking about. The one on the right *seems* to have a less crowded background. Eddaido (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)