Talk:Alfa Romeo Giulietta (1954)

Alfa Romeo Giulietta (nuova)

Shouldn't the new Giuletta information be a new page seperate from this one as it is a new model and it has a new name. qwertytam 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a page for the new Giulietta. Please create one! Even if the new car was often simply called the Alfa Romeo Giulietta, the new car is so different it needs a page of it's own.

Something like this page on the Italian Wikipedia.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_Giulietta_(nuova)

Can you translate Italian to English? If no one else ceates the page, I will probably make a new page when time allows. The info in this page can stay too, but there can be a link to the Main Article (on the new Giulietta). --Xagent86 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't translate Italian to English:( But will create a new article. What title thought - Alfa Romeo Giulietta (nuova) or Alfa Romeo Nuova Giulietta?

Also do you know if the images on the Italian wiki are able to be used on this wiki as well? qwertytam 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Alfa Romeo Giulietta (nuova) and we can have a redirect page with name Alfa Romeo Nuova Giulietta. We don't need images right away, but we should look and see if we can use ones from Wikipedia Commons site it possible. --Xagent86 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

hmm. Yes I think Giulietta (nuova) might be the go, as I'm guessing that it was marketed as the Giulietta. But then on the italian wiki page for Alfa it refers to 'la Nuova Giulietta(1977)' which I guess is saying - the New giulietta. qwertytam 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a start on a Alfa Romeo Giulietta (nuova) page, but I have to logout now... hopefully you can improve it. We can change the name (move the page) latter if we think we need to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xagent86 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Forgot to sign due to typo - later on I need to find all the links to the Alfa Romeo Giulietta page and see if they should really go to the Alfa Romeo Giulietta (nuova) page. --Xagent86 04:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PS, HP and kW

Is it neccessary to have all of three? Most english language Alfa Romeo owners manuals I have seen, either list BHP (and KW in brackets), or in one example from the 1960s, simply BHP SAE, even though bore and stroke are in mm and total displacement is given in cc, there is no mention of kW or PS. Futhermore, can we really state the original figures were PS? Otherwise, unless we can be certain the original data was PS, it is incorrect (as well as being original research) to then convert the numbers to hp. In the David Owen book, the figures given are in BHP (80 BHP for the Giulietta Sprint, 100 for the Sprint Speciale) and the same with most other english language publications. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 09:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure about those power ratings, maybe they are bhp, quite many sources doesnt tell exactly what is the standard for power listings, there is errors in many cases, very often bhp and PS are mixed up. But maybe kw and bhp are enough, needs then fixing some older model Alfa pages and find exact ratings.... That template makes 3 automatically, thats the reason for them. . btw is there any english term for PS? or is bhp the way british magazines lists these? it sounds quite odd to have german PS term in english language wikipedia, why thats have been chosen? which seems to be WikiProject Automobiles way to impress power, see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions, we could use cv for italian vehicles.. :) anyway kW is the current standard--Typ932 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

the templates are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Automobile_conversion_templates, I would like to have also bhp to kW, template, which is now missing.. --Typ932 10:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your reasoning, having now seen the guidelines on WikiProject Automobiles. They seem a bit odd, but they might have their place. However they don't overide the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources or of no original research. If we are to claim that the original 1950s Horsepower data from Alfa Romeo is in PS, rather than HP, we should be able to show those reliable sources. If we take a figure of 80 Horsepower (e.g. Giulietta Sprint) from a source and decide that since some European car horsepower figures are in PS, then this must also have been in PS, and then conclude that we should display this as 80 PS (78.9 hp/58.8 kW), then I believe we have carried out original research, which is something we should not do in an encyclopedia. But maybe this discussion should be on the WikiProject Automobiles talk page. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 13:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To address an earlier comment, I'm not so much interested in modern cars, but I've noticed Australian and New Zealand new car magazines use kW and have for a few years now. I haven't looked at many modern British magazines lately, but I seem to recall most use bhp. Regarding Alfa Romeo, most english language publicatons use hp or bhp. For example David Owen's books on Alfa Romeo (at least the ones I've read) use bhp. So does almost every motor racing publication. So does the Alfa Romeo UK site. I suspect that in 1953, the dynos used at Alfa Romeo, weren't able to differentiate between 80 bhp and 78.9 bhp on a reliable basis, so it probably didn't matter. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 13:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think those older models figures could be changed to bhp (or hp) needs some verifying of course. Ill ask if such template could be made for automatic bhp (kW) and even PS conversion. --Typ932 14:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just did some minor proofreading. I like the article a lot. Andacar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alfa Romeo Giulietta (750/101). 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/20080504142236/http://www.pestalozzi.net/sb/alfa_giulia/index.html to http://www.pestalozzi.net/sb/alfa_giulia/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504142236/http://www.pestalozzi.net/sb/alfa_giulia/index.html to http://www.pestalozzi.net/sb/alfa_giulia/index.html

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) 22:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Year of the huh

Who thought including photos without the model year was a good idea? Or, at least, what series? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Except one should be keen to avoid those unproductive p**sing contests between folks who can't agree on a definition for a model year. And then you have those photographers who upload halfway decent pictures of cars even if they don't know what they are or when they were announced/made/sold. (Yup - it has sometimes been me) But I tried a little more info for the image at the top of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta (750/101) page. Feel free to correct or improve. And have a nice day! No, really ..... Charles01 (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)