Talk:Brumm

References

Advertisements are self published sources, as is the company catalogue. What we need are more reliable third party sources. The article is very badly written, overly promotional and in its present state not worth keeping. I shall take another look next week and if it hasn't improved, start a deletion discussion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Response

Most of the places where Jezhotwells says citations are needed, they ARE placed at the ends of the sentences. Admittedly, the citation method is APA, but works better than cumbersome in-line citations. Follow these citations down to the references listed. I'll move some of them into better positions. OK, I've added three more references and rewritten the article more precisely.

So we have one WP:RS, the book (Edward Force. 1992. Classic Miniature Vehicles Made in Italy. Schiffer Publications. ISBN: 0-88740-433-2) and some adverts and typewritten newsletters. Please read WP:RS and demonstrate how these newsletters are reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Brumm Catalog, as stated, is an official company catalog published by Brumm !! Their crazy quotations are just that - crazy. They are not lauded - just put in because they give a true taste of the company approach to their own vehicles - and the image is kind of wacky.

So you are inserting copywrighted materila into the article. Please read the WP:Five pillars. This is an encyclopaedia.

Sinclair's Auto Miniatures was a well-known company operated by Dave Sinclair, that sold all kinds of diecast from the late 1960s through the mid-1990s. Dave Sinclair's catalogs in the 1970s contained much useful 'period' information on Brumm vehicles, from that era. Most collector's are familiar with Sinclair. I've added information about Dave Sinclair - well-known collector and vendor.

PLease find some reliable sources that subtstantiate the information baout Sinclair.

I do try to use flowery descriptors / adjectives to spice up the articles. It makes them more interesting to read than a rote description of vehicles. I try to give accurate descriptions and when I praise I think it is accurate. When I don't, I don't. I will review the adjectives here and try to tone down or alter to make more accurate. Many adjectives, I've changed, others, I've kept similar or the same because I think they are accurate.

As noted above, this is an encylopaedia, not a place for you to demonstrate your flowrly writing skills.

Overall, though I don't think Jezhotwells sees the historical accuracy of the article - though yes, more sources should be used...there simply aren't very many third party sources on many of these European diecasts, though I don't use Edward Force much here and he should be included so I'll work on that. Force, a review work sponsored by the company, and the official website have been added.

I see no historical accuracy at all, as I find no verifiable, reliable sources, establishing the notability of the article subject.

Proposing deletion is a vast over-reaction. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Edits here...--Cstevencampbell (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As Jimbo says, "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."[1] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Flowery Writing

In such a public forum as this, there will always be contributors who like to critique more than contribute. They say "fix this" and come back later to see what influence they had. And we are grateful for the condescension, if not their ability to spell.

The references are from authorities on Brumm. Information on David Sinclair has been substantiated better. Observations of the models and company are often made from the real models themselves and their packaging - what better first hand information than that? Having every observation come from written sources is not better analysis nor superior proof.

The article reads much better. I dare readers to improve it. That would be welcome, since it is the nature of Wiki-world. I will continue to improve it. About the brief quotes from the catalog (which may or may not be copyrighted) - they give a good sense of the company's inner view - should they be paraphrased?

I think some Wikipedians have a low standard when it comes to writing style - what will make a truly excellent entry - a dull, plodding, factual article - or one that is very authentic and yet experiments a bit? One that gives a feel for the subject? No writing is ever perfectly objective - such a thing does not exist. I know of many encyclopedias that have flowery writing - and they are excellent, creative, and well edited works, including, The Encyclopedia of Appalachia published by the University of Tennessee Press or The Encyclopedia of the Mid-West published by University of Indiana Press.

Shouldn't Wikipedia aspire to be creative - not ponderous? --Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC) --Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia shoulod not aspire to be creative. It is an encyclopaedia. Please read the WP:Five pillars, please try to understand what is going on here. Please understand the notability and verifiability policies. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Defining Flowery (not Flowerly)

Beyond the adjectives and adverbs Jezhotwells doesn't like, I see no conflict at all with the five pillars. It says "beyond these five pillars there are no rules" so good writing is IN. Note the increased verification of David Sinclair as a collector and authority. Jezhotwells keeps saying, "No, it is an encyclopedia, so it can't be creative". There is nothing in the five pillars that says it cannot be creative. Flowery language doesn't mean inaccurate. So this is all jezhotwells opinion. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note on David Sinclair moved here

(Note: Dave Sinclair is a well-known collector and vendor of diecast and other automobilia. He started selling diecast vehicles in 1964. Sinclair nearly single-handedly brought specialty European diecast to the U.S. during the 1970s. Information from his newsletters and catalogs is respected period information on the subject (see Levine 2009.)-- Also see: Donnelly, Jim. 2012. Dave Sinclair. Personality Profile. Hemmings Classic Car, #88, January, vol. 8, no. 4 pp. 54-57.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Cstevencampbell (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brumm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326205919/http://www.brumm.it:80/ to http://www.brumm.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)