Talk:Haynes Manual

VfD

This article was subject to a VfD which resulted in a keep vote. The discussion may be found here. The article has greatly improved from when it was first listed for deletion [1], and the VfD probably helped to get the article noticed and subsequently greatly expanded. Harro5 22:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

The article is way better now than it was yesterday. I'm not sure about the point of listing every car for which a manual is available though. Would it suffice to say (and be more maintainable) that many of the more common cars are covered? Friday 13:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• If it were a list of the shops in the world that one could buy Haynes manuals from, it wouldn't be a terribly useful or maintainable list. But a list of the vehicles for which a Haynes manual exists is both useful (to those who want the answer to the question "Is there a Haynes manual for my car?") and maintainable. Whilst it is difficult for any arbitrary Wikipedia editor to compile and maintain a list of all shops in the world where the manuals are sold, it is comparatively simple for any arbitrary Wikipedia editor to compile and maintain a list of all vehicles for which there are Haynes manuals. Furthermore: Wikipedia articles on bands contain lists of the albums that they have created, Wikipedia articles on writers contain lists of the books that they have written, Wikipedia articles on actors contain lists of the films that they have acted in, and Wikipedia articles on South Park characters contain lists of the episodes in which the characters have died. Why should an article on Haynes manuals not include a list of the vehicles for which there is a Haynes manual? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 13:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I guess I'd been assuming people wanting to know if their car is covered would use the Haynes website, maybe using a page like this [2]. If we're just cutting and pasting from a website, I don't see the value. But then again I suppose I don't see the harm either. BTW I completely agree that in some topic areas, the number/length of articles is completely out of control. In this case, between the 40+ makes, the sometimes large number of models per make, and the number of years, I thought it was too much. But if people want to add it, I'm certainly not going to go trying to delete it. Friday 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am quite unpleasantly surprised there is no list of Haynes manuals. I came here specifically hoping to see what manuals had been produced by Haynes specific to my needs. I am further shocked to see you did have one and it was deleted? That's a bummer. What good is a Wikipedia entry on manuals w/o listing them? Both in and out of print? Anyone looking up Haynes Manuals already knows they are Haynes Manuals, doh!

As to the list being incomplete- that's nonsense. How many entries in Wikipedia are actually asking users to submit additional info, meaning many existing Wikipedia articles are somewhat incomplete. Outdated? That's EXACTLY why that list was important, if i can find a listing of manuals somewhere else (no luck so far) they will likely only list the manuals currently in print.

As to unencyclopedic, who cares? What's the goal of Wikipedia? To emulate Funk & Wagnel, or to disseminate useful information the public needs and wants? This isn't Oxford University, it's the internet! Form over function belongs to the Victorian Era, not modern web data libraries.

Again, I'm quite dismayed the information I was hoping to find on Wikipedia may have been deleted.

Keith Robinson, Ct USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.52.210 (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

my appologies 99.2.52.210 (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

list

The list is unencyclopedic, incomplete, and outdated. It's far more appropriate material for the Haynes website, or for the website of a bookseller. I'll be removing it in the next few days if there are no well-reasoned objections. -- Mikeblas 03:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• After two months with no comments or improvements, I've removed the un-cited content and the unencyclopedic directory of available manuals. -- Mikeblas 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You evidently didn't read the rest of this talk page first. Read it. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 11:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I did. You're for it, and Friday is against it, but won't take action. I took action. The list is unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a directory. An external link to the list is appropriate, but including the list in this article serves no use, churns the article, and crowds the rest of the content. -- Mikeblas 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Your action is wrong, as is your idea of what is unencyclopaedic. Your position will only become a consistent one when we see you removing all of the discographies from musician articles, too. After all, they, too, could just as easily be externally linked to, and they, too, crowd articles. Go and erase some discographies and then come back here. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Musical releases listed in the article describing the band or artist are a very different matter than reproducing a list of all the titles produced by a publisher. The list here pretty clearly falls into the latter category, as the books don't have a single author and aren't descriptive of a representative style or mode of artwork. I've again removed the list. If you still disagree, I think we should seek a third opinion. -- Mikeblas 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Offering a third opinion here (in case it's still needed). A copy of Haynes's vehicle coverage would be redundant and inevitably out-of-date. If someone doesn't see their vehicle listed on the page they'll check the Haynes website anyway just in case Wikipedia's list is out-of-date. Maintaining a copy of the list on Wikipedia just creates unnecessary work. Regarding the comparison with discographies etc., I don't see this as valid for several reasons:

• there is not always a complete, up-to-date primary source for discographies like there is for the Haynes list,
• many works listed on musician pages have or may deserve their own articles - Haynes Ford Focus 01-05 et al. will never need their own articles,
• discography lists convey information that cannot be inferred from a single sentence - "covering a wide range of makes, models, and years (300 models of car and 130 models of the motorcycle)" gives me a pretty good idea of what the Haynes titles will be,
• many lists on Wikipedia are unnecessary and arguing for consistency with them will only spread the list-mania. -- AbleRiver 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Assembly is the reverse of disassembly

Can someone confirm or correct the oft-quoted phrase "assembly is the reverse of disassembly" and provide context, please? Thanks Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. I just got rid of my car so, for the first time in over 20 years, haven't a Haynes manual to hand. I think it is "Replacement is the reverse of removal". A complete pisser because you think you are nearly done then realize you have another two hours to go-- but now upside down and without instructions. SimonTrew (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

From Manual 0814 (1996):

'Reassembly is a reversal of dismantling'

'Refit in the reverse order of removal'

'Refitting is a reversal of removal'

'Refitting is the reverse sequence to removal'

'Refitting is a direct reversal of the removal procedure'

However, from Manual 1711 (2003) (different car, different authors):

'Refitting is a reversal of removal'

'Refitting is the reversal of removal'

but the most commonly used wording is

'Refitting is the reverse of the removal procedure'

This unscientific and unencyclopedic sampling suggests a slight tendency towards more consistent wording as the years pass . . .

86.176.113.141 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

History

In the history section it could be added that in Australia, Haynes publishes manuals for exclusively Australian vehicles. Also they acquired several other manual publishers along the way. These include Gregory's (formerly Scientific Publications) & Rellim which had both been publishing car workshop manuals since the 50s, before even Haynes was established.

Terrybebb (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haynes Manual. 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/20090308021439/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2004/85-04 to http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2004/85-04

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

2018 manual for ford custom van.

Do u do a manual for 2018 ford custom desil van 86.8.156.155 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)