That's what I was planning to do

Precision:

... for me
But I'll try to restrain myself...

You can always post the "not very visible but maybe interesting" in comments, that's a common practice.

For the Sprinter, I acknowledge I may not be objective, as I made a lot of kilometers with Mercedes vans (307 and Vito), so I feel "connected" to these, even when the badge is a little different
About the Hyundai, I just was wondering what car could have such a tortured design before S 415 GT identify it. I think this one should have been in comment, more than the Sprinter...


I don't say the others are less worth listing than mine. Some are a lot more. I just said they are less visible, so I didn't think it was a logical reason. And I waited for the validation to upload the second picture.
But if "hardly visible" = "not worth listing", in IMCDb habits, that's Ok for me.

Until now, trying to identify background / hardly visible vehicles was partly a way for me to be able to recognize more vehicles, as I'm not that familiar with US sold cars. And as I already said, I thought also (I have a huge ego ) that it might help people like me but who just "use"/visit the IMCDb. I'm just a French Jean Dupont/John Doe, and if I wonder about a particular car in a US tv series episode, others do certainly too.
But I think I won't bother to do it anymore, as it's not really pleasant to see one's work just deleted without knowing why⁽¹⁾
__________

(1) In episode 2.03, the 2003 Ford E-Series, the Crown Victoria or the 1998 Sonoma are not more interesting than the deleted Camry. As I have no hint to see where and why I'm mistaken, I don't see the point to carry on with background vehicles...

The Sprinter is not really worth listing, for what is seen of it...
(to me the Hyundai wasn't much more worth listing though, in the corner of the pic like that)


And about the "I have plenty of examples of less visible vehicles in the IMCDb", that's an usual comment when we say that something is not worth listing, but:
- there are a lot of things that should not be on the site, at some time we weren't strict enough (and still the case)
- it is difficult to judge from static pictures

Hello everybody!

I know I'm a newbie here, and thus not really trustworthy
But I think I try to follow as much as possible the "IMCDb habits" for identifying a vehicle. Some of you know how much I can be boring ask and ask again to understand how the things works

So I find really irritating to see a part of the ID I propose (Unforgettable episode 2.01 and following) being deleted without being asked why I gave a particular complement or a special MY. And the same when a car I propose is deleted.
What is my choice, now? Just put "Unknown" on each vehicle I may have identify, so I am sure I won't waste time searching the exact ID and trying to see on IMCDb how this vehicle is already exactly identified, as it obviously doesn't matter?

I can't wait for the comment part of the adding page in the IMCDb 3.0

By the way, if an admin is Ok to check again these cars, and validate if she/he agree with these ID, I thank her/him for it
- 2003 Ford E-350
- 1995 Ford F-350 Regular Cab XL (maybe with a "selection zone"?)
- 1998 GMC Sonoma [S-15]

__________

I just have to suppose that the Dodge Sprinter was deleted because it was on the same picture than another car. The "not written rule" of a single car on a picture? Obviously, it doesn't disturb when done in comments.

For the second, a background 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid taxi (that I selected because I first wondered what it was, so I assumed some other people should too), I don't understand. Not enough visible on the picture? I have plenty of examples of less visible vehicles in the IMCDb...
For that one too, I have 2 pictures for a better identification, but how to say it before V. 3.0?
Should I put it in the comments too, or try to propose it again?