Talk:Opel 8/40 PS

Deletion proposal

The entry has been proposed for deletion by someone who writes (in opaque wiki code, so maybe I misinterpret it here) that s/he thinks it is (the entry) not notable. It is evident that the entry is of no significant interest to the deletionist. But that does not correlate with lack of notability. Contributors in three different language versions of wikipedia believe that it deserves an entry. It comes with respectable sources.

User:Moonythedwarf appears to specialise in nominating pages for deletion. Wikipedia was launched with eye-watering ambitions as to its scope (and usefulness in many other respects). In some ways it has made a good start. Many have contributed and many more have looked stuff up on it. But the proportion of contributors who hang around for more than a few months is disappointingly miniscule. Beviour like that exhibited by User:Moonythedwarf is calculated to reduce further the number of people who hang around long enough to contribute significantly to building wikipedia into something "bigger and better". It's a pity. Maybe User:Moonythedwarf's energies could be more usefully employed on improving wikipedia entries that need improvement (and they all do). Maybe s/he could even bring himself/herself to apply his / her time creating and building new wiki-entries. That would constructive. Success Charles01 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Charles01, I am not the best writer, and instead focus my energy on cleaning up vandalism and spam on-site, and, as of late, the development of my own anti-spam/anti-vandalism toolset. Is that not constructive? MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I found it an interesting page for a model that I was unlikely to have come across by myself. It might be a bit hard for us English speakers to appreciate its spot in history but it is obviously important to the history of Opel and motoring in Germany. The only real criticsm of the article is that it is single source. I did a quick web search and there are a few mentions on web pages here and there that could be used. I can't read German with any fluency, so the German books found on Google books don't help me much but a German reader could make more sense of them.  Stepho  talk  09:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to discuss whether or not Moonythedwarf is a deletionist or what type of edits they typically make. This topic is either notable or it isn't, and it makes no difference who or what Moonythedwarf is or is not. It's nobody's business how they choose to contribute, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. There's appropriate noticeboards or user talk pages to discuss editors, if any behavior violation is suspected, but on article talk pages, focus on content, not the contributor.

No product, even a car, is inherently notable, per WP:NRV and WP:PRODUCT. Some are not significant enough to have their own article and should be mentioned only on the company page or a related car model. I haven't seen Werner (2001) so I'll trust the opinions of those who have seen it to say if it has sufficient coverage, per WP:AGF. It would be nice, though, to have more than one source, and until we do I expect this notability question will recur. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As notable as any other uncelebrated 1920s car. Lots of sources out there, although they are all getting old and mainly in German or Dutch. I added one mention. Keep.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I describe cars of the 1900s-1920s as the lost era, other then the Ford Model T, Vauxhall Prince Henry or the Oldsmobile Curved Dash, a lot of these automobiles are largely overlooked and isn't covered in mainstream publication. Don't help the fact that a lot of them all looked the same since everybody wanted a piece of this newfound industry. Even though there is no AfD going on, I'll always vote Keep.. --Vauxford (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Which model?

1927-28 Opel 7 / 34 PS

1928-30 Opel 8 / 40 PS

This article is unclear. Is it about one model, or two? Should the title reflect that? If the article is structured about one model, with the other tacked on as a section within, the lead at least should match the model named in the title. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's the same car in most respects, but they changed the name when they changed the engine size. It happened back then, though sometimes it didn't happen. and then you get people (pedants, mostly ... such as myself) discomforted that though the name under which the car was sold implies 8 horse power, the formula used by the tax authorities in whichever country it was says it actually became a 9 horse power because they changed the cylinder dimensions (usually the diameter, but in Germany as far as I can rememeber I think they simply added up the cubic capacities, which is more logical. But I may have misrememebered that bit).

I tried - if it was me and it probably was - to make the intro section clear, subject to the constaints imposed by the need not to go on for tooooo long. But feel free to improve it! For what it's worth, your changes usually can be counted as improvements, IM(H)O. I suppose it's a matter of judgment, whether you should have two separate entries: my judgement says not. Not enough difference according to Mr Oswald, the source giver. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy with one article for both, but it needs to be clearer. Mostly it just jars as if it were a typo to have one name in the article, then a different name highlighted at the start of the lead. The Italian article lists both in the title, but that can become clumsy too.

I'm assuming that the name followed the engine change, because that would affect the tax and the price, thus the branding of it. Was this a change? or an option? Did both engine sizes stay in production? However the more important change (in terms of splitting the article, if split) would be about the changed chassis. That's a rather more substantial change, the sort of thing which needs a production line to make one or the other, but not both (two engine models are much easier). The article is stil unclear there, as to how many body styles had a changed chassis. Did both really stay in production over the whole run? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

According to Oswald, the Opel 7/34 PS and 8/40 PS use the same chassis, only the engine is different. So this article is about one car that was available in two models. The 7/34 PS was discontinued in favour of the 8/40 PS for the 1928 production year. From September 1930, a low-level frame became standard on the 8/40 PS. German cars of this era usually had no "proper" model names. The manufacturers marketed them as "4/6/8 cylinder model", "x Litre", or simply "small/medium/large name of manufacturer". The 7/34 PS resp. 8/40 PS indicates tax power (7/8 PS) and the actual power output (34/40 PS). Manufacturers such as Daimler(-Benz) use a type system that helps with their older cars, but unfortunately, with Opel, we just have to make the best out of the PS-numbers. Werner Oswald uses „7/34, 8/40 PS“ for this car. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)