Subject: Incorrect spelling/listing
23/09/2013 @ 10:39:20: antp: Incorrect spelling/listing
Good question, I have no idea but indeed one of the two naming style should be chosen.
30/09/2013 @ 07:43:45: J.D.: Incorrect spelling/listing
.
30/09/2013 @ 16:09:27: J.D.: Incorrect spelling/listing
.
03/11/2013 @ 13:15:47: Ddey65: Incorrect spelling/listing
There are a lot of Ford C-Series trucks covered on one page in various episodes of CHiPs
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=547697

This isn't one of them:
http://pics.imcdb.org/12851/snap494.2.jpg
It's actually a Chevrolet or GMC Steel-Tilt Cab.

Plus, there are years and year ranges to Ford C-Series trucks that are being overlooked.
1963-67:
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_577113-Ford-C-Series.html
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=548480

1975-84:
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=489940

The one in the CHiPs episode #3.11 is from 1961 or 1962. The one in episode #405 was made in either 1975 or later. For the other two it's anybody's guess.
03/11/2013 @ 14:48:02: antp: Incorrect spelling/listing

Plus, there are years and year ranges to Ford C-Series trucks that are being overlooked.


These were from yesterday, not yet to be considered as missed comments :wink:
And also, the "non-unidentified" thread suits more to this kind of info than this one which is for mass-changes requests.
08/12/2013 @ 16:59:39: Ddey65: Incorrect spelling/listing
New info; This police car is fine:
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_189981-Chevrolet-Impala-1978.html
But the rating is wrong. Since it's involved in a chase, it should be three stars, not one.
12/12/2013 @ 02:51:36: Ddey65: Incorrect spelling/listing
I need to have a title corrected:
http://www.imcdb.org/movie.php?id=1772752
13/12/2013 @ 19:38:00: ptr: Incorrect spelling/listing
i just say it but every Tofas with black bumper is Sahin
01/01/2014 @ 05:34:02: Ddey65: Incorrect spelling/listing
Big Time Rush's final episode ended in 2013, not 2014.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1131746/combined
http://www.imcdb.org/movie.php?id=1131746
01/01/2014 @ 11:18:36: antp: Incorrect spelling/listing
Now that the current year has changed, you'll find a lot of shows in similar case...
05/01/2014 @ 16:51:41: Ddey65: Incorrect spelling/listing
Now that the current year has changed, you'll find a lot of shows in similar case...

I just found another one:
http://www.imcdb.org/movie_799922-Wizards-of-Waverly-Place.html
But how do I find the others?
05/01/2014 @ 17:30:41: antp: Incorrect spelling/listing
If I knew... :grin:
01/02/2014 @ 18:05:11: Ddey65: Incorrect spelling/listing
This image is named for the wrong truck:
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_669799-Chevrolet-C-Series-1968.html
It's supposed to be for the Ford C-Series truck up front, not the Chevy pickup in the distance.
01/02/2014 @ 18:21:38: night cub: Incorrect spelling/listing
This image is named for the wrong truck:
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_669799-Chevrolet-C-Series-1968.html
It's supposed to be for the Ford C-Series truck up front, not the Chevy pickup in the distance.


This is why we should always use the highlight button when there is more than one vehicle in the capture. the Admin probably saw "C-Series" and automatically assumed it was for the Pickup.
19/04/2014 @ 15:10:25: eLMeR: Incorrect spelling/listing
Hello!

(I didn't find any related topic, at least in the "Naming convention" category. Sorry if this is a double topic)

The 2011+ Chryler 300 is build on the Chrysler LX platform, so as its predecessor was.
So why is there only 5 out of 50 "new" 300 within the IMCDb dedicated page? Is it a choice of the IMCDb crew to make a difference with the former model?
If so, the 5 mentioned above should not have this code... Otherwise, shouldn't the 45 others join their pals? :boidleau:
19/04/2014 @ 16:53:06: antp: Incorrect spelling/listing
Doesn't that also apply to the first gen?
Maybe not very useful in that case
20/04/2014 @ 00:25:59: eLMeR: Incorrect spelling/listing
The "new" 300 is more or less a new body built on the same platform as the 2004-2011 model. A kind of huge facelift. And as the LX code is put on almost each "1st" generation in IMCDb, why not doing the same with the second?
In fact, it could be useful to tell the difference with the 1993-2004 LH platform, which was the one of the previous Chrysler Concorde / 300M... if the LH code had been set on more than 7 cars (on 232 cars that should be identified that way) in IMCDb :boidleau:

So, more generic question: should the IMCDb use the LH/LX codes, or not? Is it worth a "mass change model"? Right now, I think having these codes just for a few random cars is not helping in anyway.
20/04/2014 @ 10:45:41: antp: Incorrect spelling/listing
I do not known, if it is not so important to have that code it can wait for the next version of the site.
Or else I can put it to all 2004+ Chrysler 300, but each time new ones will be added they most likely will lack the code.
20/04/2014 @ 21:30:32: eLMeR: Incorrect spelling/listing
I think you already know my answer, if I'm the one you ask that question :smile:
For me, the LH and LX codes should be set, so:
1 - your future work for the IMCDb 2.0 (3.0, if the current one is already the 2nd generation?) will be eased;
2 - if people check a little existing cars before filling the form, some of them may add the code for the car they identify (and then back to point 1 for your future work...).

If the code solution is chosen:
- LX plateform (+ LD, LC and LY derivatives) cars(1);
- LH platform cars.
_______________

(1) The Maserati Ghibli III is made on a Chrysler 300 plateform. The rise and fall of luxury car makers... :smile:
20/04/2014 @ 21:44:06: antp: Incorrect spelling/listing
Current is v2, so next one will be v3
We do not use platform codes in general, these are too vague.
e.g. VW's platforms cover too many models, they have more precise chassis codes.
In the case of the Chrysler 300, LX seems used for more than just the platform though.
... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 22 
Back