Talk:Mercedes-Benz TN

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trucks Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Diesel 1989 Award??

What is a "Diesel 1989" Award (as best I could translate it from the Germlish text in the article)? A Google search yielded nothing. Unless someone can track down what the real name was of the award that the M-B engines won, I think reference to it should be stricken from the paragraph. —Quicksilver^{T @} 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone tell me if the mercedes T1(first model)are still produced apart from india(force motors)? thank you h.grewe [email protected] Tel. 27 71 5162233 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.2.2 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Gröblinghoff?

This reference was added back in 2013 by an ip. I did a few searches but can find practically no reference to this book except from wiki mirror sites. One guy named Axel mentions the book as "his" back in 2009 in a German forum, could this be something self published? I don't doubt the veracity of the cited content, just curious. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's okay to close this as have created an RFC below with all images of the rear, –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rear view image

There is clearly a difference of opinion regarding the preferable image for the rear view of this vehicle. If File:Mercedes-Benz T1 of the Hradní Stráž, rear left.jpg is option A and File:Mercedes t1 h sst.jpg is option B, which one should we use and why? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll create an RFC now showing all of the rears we have - please bear with me. IMHO showing everything we have is better than just picking 2 images. Bear with me. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rear vehicle RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as per the #Implementation below. (#3 has been chosen as the rear image). –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which image should be used to show the rear of this vehicle? –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

!votes

*1 - My personal opinion is that 1 and 7 are the best images however with 7 it shows rust everywhere whereas with 1 it's just a bodged paint job/fix. That being said lighting-wise 7 is better than 1. Obviously we're not a brochure but I don't see a need to show a vehicle covered in rust when we have an image of a near-spotless one (paint job aside). Anyway that's my 2p. –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7 - Having relooked at the images I would agree 7 is the best image, #5's contrast ruins the image, With #3 it's too much rear, with #1 the rear seems dark and obviously with #2 you can't see much rear which defeats the whole purpose of why we're here really.

Out of the images we have I would say 7 is the best. –Davey2010^Talk 19:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No preference between 3, 5, and 7. IMHO those are the ones that prominently show the back of the vehicle. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 23:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3 gives a nice, clean view of the rear of the vehicle. I think it's the best choice. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 3 are the best of a crummy lot. Many appear to have been modified, including #7 (fender extension, camper-style window) which would otherwise be the best one. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 5, because the image should not be the same vehicle as the infobox (or any other image in the article), and the windows are not pained over, and it's not painted a weird color. Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 is the least bad for various reasons, IM(H)O. Looking at some of the other votes, 7 is ok in terms of angle, but the colour of the van and the colour of the background are unnecassarily close, and the van itself is in a terrible state. Also it appears to have a home-made chimney coming out of the top of it. 3 I don't care for the angle. Due to a combination of where the photographer stood and what s/he did with the zoom there is an unnecessary amount of distortion of the van's shape, looking along its side. 5 is ok, but the sun is on the wrong place, meaning that the side in full sun is over exposed and the back of the van is underexposed. But maybe that's a quibble too far: it's not a bad picture. I think this would be my second choice. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 5, no large preference between them. 2 doesn't show enough of the rear. 1, the lighting casts the rear in shadow and doesn't show much of the rear anyway. For 7 (I suppose my 3rd choice), Charles01 raises a good point about bg color and the van isn't in the best of shape. 3 or 5 both prominently show the rear, though 5 does have the advantage of giving a bit more context as to the van's size. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 14:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3, 7, or 5 are the best images, from the ones presented, for showing the back of the vehicle (without other distracting vehicles in the photo). -sche (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11 has the best angle, but the van has a bit of rust and is awkwardly parked. 2 and 3 show vehicles in good condition but don't have the desired 3/4 view. The rest are all generally unusable, although maybe 12 could be cropped. Of the three usable ones, I'd lean most towards 3, with 2 as my second choice. --Sable232 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

Since the RfC seems pretty clear that image 1, the current image, is not the best image, I've gone ahead and updated the page by putting image 3 in its place. I chose image 3 because it has the most favorable mentions in this RfC (by my count 2 had 4, 3 had 6, 5 had 5, 7 had 3, and 11 had a single mention). If anyone else thinks that a different image from this RfC belongs there, they can go ahead and change the images; I just don't see any reason why the first image should languish on the page given its level of support. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for changing the image and for your well-thought out analysis User:Danre98, It's greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.