Wikipedia

Talk:SEAT León

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Trigenibinion in topic Accent
Learn more about this page

"Lee-on"

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The SEAT León (IPA: [liːˈɒn], "lee-on")..." What the hell? Is it me or that person doesn't know Spanish? -- NaBUru38 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on SEAT León. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on SEAT León. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on SEAT León. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Vauxford" image

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
 
Vauxford's preference is for a picture he appears to have produced himself.

I dared to replace this image with one that I found significantly less bad. "Vauxford" reverted my edit. I asked him to take his difference of opinion to this talk page but I see he hasn't, so this is me. Curiously (or not) "Vauxford" is the fellow who linked "his" image to the article in the first place. I appear not to have been the first person to have replaced this image on this page. "Vauxford" reverts the edits. I think this picture - which appears to have been produced by "Vauxford" - is pretty dreadful, but I am aware that - at least up to a point - these things are a matter of individual judgment. Maybe other people can take a moment to tell me what is good (or bad) about it. Please. Meanwhile, here's what I think:

  • The front is over-exposed because of the light source. Blame the sun? Or wait till it's moved round a bit before taking your picture.
  • The side is badly under exposed for the same reason.
  • The level of reflections on the paintwork is distractingly high. That's often a problem with dark blue cars that are highly polished. There are ways to reduce the problem by waiting till the sun moves and/or by figuring out how to use a lens filter. But that has not been done here.
  • The road surface has been painted with a yellow grid. That makes it a less pleasing background than it might be. The problem is compounded because of the reflection issues, so that there is a yellow grid pattern reflected down the side of the car. Not helpful for wiki-readers trying to figure out what the car looks like.
 
Not perfect, but usefully better IM(H)O. The lighting highlights the panel gaps and creases rather than concealing them. "In your face" reflections along the bodywork are absent. (It might be better without the green car in the background, though.)

The fellow has persistence, but I question his judgement and his application of self-awareness. He is unusual because of the number of pictures he uploads to wikipedia. Some of them care perfectly ok. Several are rather good. "Vauxford" trusts himself to assess the quality of his own pictures. That would be fine if all his pictures were wonderful and especially if his judgement were perfect. But that does not apply to any contributor.

Anyhow, do people think this blue car example is the really best image we can manage of a Seat Leon? I think wikipedia - and the entry - deserve better.

Thank you (if you did) for sharing your thoughts

Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

From my last summary: I already done it up to be slightly better, the facelift example should used. The other one is outdated and can be used further in the article.
 
If you look back on the previous versions of this image you will see what I'm trying to describe.
 
See the back wheel of this car and you notice the weird foggy/fuzzy patch which is another irritating flaw with the filter.
Charles01 I don't see exactly how I'm unusual with the amount of pictures I uploaded? It can be a problem self-assessing photos to use in articles so I often hope people would be happy with them, if not then I'm more then happy to discuss it with my peer(s). Lens filters can be bad or good, this is a much older photo before I started to become better at what settings to use. The thing with polarizing filters is they are great for reducing some reflection on these particular cars but depending how parts such as the headlights reflects from, result in birefringence (the weird rainbow effect). Another flaw I have with this filter is that it cause weird fog patches in areas. Because of these flaws, I use the filter far less and go without. --Vauxford (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's fine, but who are these lucky people who you condescend to identify as your peers? Instead of discussing the rather bad picture of a Seat Leon that you keep dumping on wikipedia readers, you give us a little lecture on other pictures that you have uploaded which (even...) you seem to recognize are not very good. Um ... yes indeed. But, so what?
There is absolutely no requirement to place a "latest version" picture at the top of a wiki entry on a car. As far as I remember that is something spelled out quite clearly on the little guideline by OSX and others which you and EurovisionNim like, when it suits your curious purposes, to treat as an oracle. What we are trying to create is an on-line encyclopaedia, not a sales brochure for the car makers. If we had a wonderful picture of the latest version of the Seat Leon available, that would be a sensible candidate for inclusion at the top of the entry. But this ain't it. Here we have a picture which looks to me rather a bad picture. And you do not attempt to tell us why you think it is not a bad picture. If, indeed, that is what you think. Do you think the reflections don't matter because .... ? Do you think the yellow grid patterns down the side of the car are things of great beauty? Do you think there are other things about it which you are much too busy to tell us about, but which make all that bad stuff a small price to pay? Well, my friend, as you may one day spot for yourself, you have much to learn. There's absolutely no shame in that. And to be sure, there are lots of pictures on wikipedia that are even worse. No doubt some by you and maybe indeed some by me! But why do you think wikipedia readers deserve to have your less than successful experiments imposed on them as here?
Your statement that you are more than happy to discuss" is, on the face of it, bizarrely untrue. You run away from discussing your own problem picture. But, please, why? Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Charles01 How am I running away from my own problems!? I been waiting for you to reply this whole time. I never liked the CARPIX guideline because it was flawed so I went and did my own judgement which both had good and questionable outcomes. You are overthinking what I'm saying, I had no intention of being condescending to other users just because I used the word "peers". Pretty much all Wikipedias with a active userbase on automobiles tend to have the latest model, it just a mental rule of thumb unless otherwise. I'm fully aware of the reflections and I don't think it a problem unless it severe, it nearly impossible to photograph a brand new car without having stuff in the reflections unless it white. You expect that every car you take are in open areas such as fields or proving ground? You obviously have some form of grudge with me just by how you are speaking to me, despite the problem my photo have it, I think it will do for now but I'm mostly frowning upon your usual brash responds as this won't solve anything other then causes more trouble.
I don't know why most users use the latest generation as the main infobox, but my guess is when a viewer look up a car, they will expect the latest generation to show that the article is up to date, if they want to find a older generation which they might recognise more then they can click on the article and view that section. --Vauxford (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Accent

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I can not find any mention of Leon written with an accent. Google with "Seat león" logo and I don't see any accent. The title of the article (and the text) should should be a reflection of that reality. --VanBuren (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you search in Spanish, you will find that it is written with an accent as it should. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SEAT_León&oldid=1210287552"