Talk:Variator (variable valve timing)

Untitled

• 23:42, 8 October 2011 FASTILY ^(TALK) deleted "Talk:Variator (variable valve timing)"

Merger proposal

This article covers the same topic as variable valve timing, therefore I propose they are merged. 1292simon (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• oppose VVT is a huge topic, even though WP has scant coverage of it as yet. As we have tolerable cover for variators, just one of the many forms of VVT, the article sizes are unrepresentative at present. If the other VVT methods (which should also cover variable length inlet tracts) were covered to the same level, the VVT article would be huge and unwieldy. What we need here is a good overview of VVT in one article, then related articles on the various systems separately. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the explanation. Strangely, the variable valve timing article doesn't even mention variators. Also, hust a minor point, variable length inlet tracts are not considered a type of variable valve timing, they are a separate concept. 1292simon (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why we need to mention variable length tracts within the same article. Far too much of WP is edited by very small Perl scripts who recognise trivial pattern-matching of text strings, but who know nothing of the concepts underlying a topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013 changes

Hi, here is an explanation for the changes I made:

• Into: trimmed description of variable valve timing and limitations of cam-phasing, to avoid duplification with the article for the concept
• Into: removed unsourced claim about retrofitting variators to existing engines
• Alfa Romeo: removed unsourced technical details about device (eg "piston along helical splines"), as per WP:NOTMANUAL
• Alfa Romeo: removed unsourced claims about reliability
• Alfa Romeo: I think it is best to just identify the engines that pioneered significant changes to the technology, rather than listing every engine to use it (since VVT is becoming ubiquitous these days)
• Volkswagon: trimmed very technical description (WP:NOTMANUAL) to improve accessibility for the average reader. Also, much of it was unsourced
  

Thanks for reading this. If you still think it needs reverting, an explanation here would help greatly in improving the article (and would be much apprecaited). Regards, 1292simon (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"Discussion" doesn't mean ask, ignore, blank two thirds of the article! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It isn't simply blanking, it is implementing the changes I have identified above. Could you please discuss the issues you have with this edit, as opposed to reverting it yet again without even an explananation in the Edit Summary(so that we don't get into an edit war)? Regards, 1292simon (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, these changes are completely unrelated to the merger proposal (which I now agree with you that the pages should not be merged. I mention this in case the comment of "ask, ignore, blank" comment above is due to this misunderstanding. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I've reverted your blanking. Read the sources. There's a lot of dependence here on two sources, but they do support the claims made. Inline cites and more references would be welcome, but none of that is an excuse for blanking articles. Nor do these fail WP:NOTMANUAL. Maybe you don't have any interest in technical detail of articles, but the different operating methods between Alfa & VW are significant and worth recording here. This isn't just the kind of driver's handbook you seem to think they are. The brief mention of other VVT systems isn't duplication, it's context. Nor is the mention of adding variators a reference to after-market engines, but to Alfa's practice in adding them to established engine designs. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

C'mon, can you please try to make it easier to collaborate? Twice you reverted without any comments, you ignored my attempts at discussing individual changes here until I restored the edit, then you nuked the whole edit a third time instead of dealing with the issues you (finally) explained, and you posted an Edit Warring warning on my User Page (a message ironically talks about using the Talk Page to discuss changes, which is what I have been trying to do!). By the way, there's a big difference between WP:blanking and removal of disputed text which appears to be unreferenced...

Anyways, I will keep your points in mind for future edits, hopefully we can soon find something which works for both of us. 1292simon (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've posted an updated version based on your comments. Please note:

• The explanation of broader VVT theory has been retained, but trimmed to minimise overlap with variable valve timing
• Actually, I have no objection to including technical info (as long as it is not too detailed and accessible for the average reader), but it would needs references. Especially for the potentially controversial claims about reliability.
• As a fansite, alfaspider.org is probably not WP:RS. But given the article is under-referenced at the moment, I have left these.
• It seems we had a misunderstanding about retrofitting, however the claim of "relatively simple device to add to an existing engine" would need sources
  

1292simon (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You continue to cause substantial damage across all of these VVT articles. Please desist. Or at least, get something resembling a technical clue first. I've just noticed turbocharged petrol engines is your creation: wow. A random rag-bag of Google-droppings with no coherent thought to any of it, and you have the nerve to start hatcheting other articles? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as for your second edit, when did stripping the page numbers from specific cites in a long source become an "improvement"? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing the page numbers when I brought the refnames together was completely by accident. Sorry about that. 1292simon (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find any page numbers that have been removed. In the intro, the p4-5 numbers are retained. Later on "camshaft's timing belt pulley" never had a page number. And for the last use of the reference, I actually added the page number. However, if there is a page number removed that I haven't noticed, if you could let me know, I will happily fix it. 1292simon (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you've blanked the article yet again, still with no good reason. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The reasons are listed in the dot points above. I have tried to address all the specific issues you have raised, but if there's still problems, let's work it out. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You have unnecessarily blanked two thirds of this article, leaving a gutted article with no useful content remaining.

You have "merged" the variable valve timing articles, such that one merged article is now 40k less than before. I find it incredible that such can be achieved by "copyediting".

Your other articles show no evidence of technical knowledge or competence to put together such an article.

None of your reasons for the mass blanking here stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Can you please stop incorrectly referring to my edits as WP:BLANKING? My edits are not vandalism, the reasons for the changes are detailed in this talk page.

If you can be more specific than "none of your reasons for the mass blanking here stand up to any sort of scrutiny", then we can work together to improve the article. 1292simon (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)