Talk:Spyker F8-VII

Fair use rationale for Image:F8-VII.jpg

Image:F8-VII.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Split of article

Wouldn't it make sense to split the VJM01 from this article, seeing as it is a car in its own right now? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. And they are still just the same cars repainted and with a few little tweaks. What would you talk about? Its development? Its engineering? All covered by this article. You would have a very small section of "didn't do very well in races" reportage, and that would be it. Pyrope 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the new shark fin and soon the seamless-shift transmission one could say the car is under development so I agree with the split. 190.199.128.205 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is much more development than there was before, and I still think that it should be split. Cadan ap Tomos 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... a new gearbox and slight mods to the bodywork. No, still the same car. Why are you so keen to subdivide information onto two separate pages, most of which would be duplication of the other? This makes no sense. We shouldn't be aiming to make as many pages as possible, we should be aiming for the best pages possible. Splitting this into two pages will not add anything, and the current and potential future length of this page certainly doesn't justify a split on size alone. If you are really keen on splitting hairs as finely as possible might I suggest you find your way to one of the zoological WikiProjects, where creating unreadable, pedantic stub articles seem to be a condition of membership. Pyrope 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Split declined, insufficient info now, and likely in the future, to split. With the amount of background information that would be taken directly from the parent article it would effectively be a WP:FORK. Just get ready for the new article on the Force India car for next season. Deiz talk 11:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In Czech Wikipedia is this article divided into 2 articles. I think that on the English Wikipedia can be similarly. 82.100.0.155 (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)