Graham.Fountain Posted January 4, 2019 Report Share Posted January 4, 2019 The generic pictures of a TR7 on the Wikipedia page are of a none standard car, certainly not in original paint - body colour sills and back panel, US bumper covers on a supposed 1975 UK car, etc. While it's clearly a nice car, and I'm sure it's owner loves it very much, I think an encyclopedia entry on the TR7 should show what Triumph intended, not someone's later take on the model. That is not to suggest any disapproval of modified cars, that's the owners choice. It's just that, IMO, the initial generic pictures of the car in its encyclopedia entry should show it as it was produced. Hence, has anyone got a set of pictures - front 3/4, side, rear 3/4, etc. - of a good condition car in standard trim and one of the supplied colours? I think the car should preferably be an early one with the very big filler cap. I don't think it's important which market it is, but I can see an argument it should be US spec, as that was where the model was primarily aimed. If there's both, then I'm sure there's room. These pictures will need to be uploaded onto Wikimedia, and the copyright issues dealt with. And that's easiest if whoever took the photo uploads it. But given written leave, I can do that if necessary. Graham Quote Link to post Share on other sites
UlsterTR7 Posted January 6, 2019 Report Share Posted January 6, 2019 Not just the TR7, Graham - I was looking for photos of various cars recently for magazine articles and couldn't find one original, unmodified car, just pics of someone's car at a show that was far from standard - the Triumph Courier van for example has a Vitesse bonnet, the Estate is amazingly rusty, and the Vitesse has the wrong wheels, and so on. If these entries are to be representative of the cars as they originally were, then we need proper photos. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Graham.Fountain Posted January 6, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2019 I wonder that the various clubs don't take the trouble to fix that. I know there are those that disparage Wikipedia because it's openly editable. However, it remains a resource that is very many people's first port of call when trying to find out about something. Graham Quote Link to post Share on other sites
UlsterTR7 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Share Posted January 7, 2019 15 hours ago, Graham.Fountain said: I know there are those that disparage Wikipedia because it's openly editable. Graham This is also a problem, especially with things like historical events where we have entries that bear no resemblance to what I saw in the papers or was taught about in school. It's more a collection of opinions rather than truth. Wikipedia however take time to change things, or to delete incorrect entries, so that it can be a lot of bother to get it done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.