Talk:Timeline of motor vehicle brands

Comments

Work on this index is well underway, but needs to be opened out for contributions from as many other users as possible: notably, there are lots of links in the "See also" section that need to be moved, one by one, to the body of the article, to be placed under the correct year and country heading. This involves visiting each page, to look for the start date of each company. (I find it helpful to have Wikipedia open twice, once for editing this page, and once for alternating between clicking on a link on this page and clicking on the 'back' button.)

At the moment, this a bit of a dry old index. However, this could be improved greatly by adding a comment paragraph immediately after each year heading, to serve as a commentary for the entries that follow. Unfortunately, I will need to leave this to someone more expert than I to undertake.

This page presently cuts off at 1969 (just before the oil crisis of the 1970s, and the rapid changes to industry that occurred around that time), but perhaps it could cut off earlier than that (1950, for example). Perhaps someone might then argue in favour of creating a similar page for brands since that cutoff date, to give a flavour for the dynamics, particularly in Asia, since then. Yet other contributors might argue that it all be done on this original page, and that it should not cut off at all. TheAMmollusc (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC) with subsequent edits to this last paragraph. TheAMmollusc (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC) and another edit to this last paragraph. TheAMmollusc (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As well as the paragraph of commentary, of course, it would be interesting if anyone could include photographs (of busy streets, for example) that depict some of the mix of models that were actually seen (though this would also need those models to be identifiable). Also, any notes about how designers were being influenced by each other. (Again, I'm sorry that it will not be me who can do this... but will have to leave this to a greater expert to do). TheAMmollusc (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In the Sources section, the phrase 'selectively from' is a euphamism for 'not yet fully exploited'. TheAMmollusc (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of the problems tags that have been added to this article

Five problems tags have been added to this article. These are via templates for: overlinked, trivia, too many see alsos, condense, ref-improve

The first is hardly surprising, given that this article sets out to be an index of all the articles that can be found already existing on Wikipedia on this subject. I can understand the second, but can vouch for how this article has already served as a very useful tool for me (for sorting the order of articles out in my mind, and for finding duplicate articles). The third was true, but indicates that I was wrong to have labelled it as "See also", since it was giving the wrong impression. The fourth, not exactly what the name of the template conveys, is concerned by the large number of section headers; again, I agree with this, and have made a first attempt at addressing this this by pushing them all down to subsections, and adding a more substantial structure at the section header level. The fifth is true, but at least all the material is in the form of wikilinks to pages that are each subjected to scrutiny for validity and notability (if any fail, and are deleted, then they will be removed from this index, too).

I have, therefore, changed the name of the See Also section to Unsorted, and I continue to work at moving this material, bit by bit, into the article (as the tag had advocated). I have also tried to add some structure to the section headings, but would welcome any other attempts to improve this. I have also indicated, at the start of this talk page, how it would be good to be able to find an editor who could add commentary at the start of each section, along with photographs (and references in the refs sections, of course).

Personally, I believe that this page can be made into a useful source for a particular way of ordering this information. I will continue to work at it, but it could take me some time :-( TheAMmollusc (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Article contributions and tags

TheAMmollusc, I think you did a lot of work and commend you. I looked over the article and noticed it has so far not drawn much editing interest.

In reference to the "hidden article" category, "Articles with too many wikilinks", I think an important aspect of the article is the "Wiki-links" that tie a lot of articles and individuals together and feel by necessity this article will include what could be considered an over-abundance of links. I can not imagine how the article could be edited to exclude these links so this would be an exception to "the rule".

I also noticed that at least some of the tags were added without an edit summary and I dislike that. I feel a difference between a "fly-by-tag" and a verifiable tag is the reasoning, that should not be assumed as understood. I will make some improvements and add references to get some of the tags removed.

I edited a timeline template that is inline with the article and will add it. According to your dates (1860 as opposed to 1890) it needs to be tweaked some;

I will also add some "Main" article links such as;

Main article: Antique car

when I get the chance. There should not be a problem with references as any verified sources used in other articles can also be incorporated here right? Otr500 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please feel more than welcome to start moulding this article into a more useful shape, to become a useful tool to the general readership. For my part, I will continue to do the mundane, bread-and-butter work of considating the material that needs to be included, to enable others (such as you) to do something more useful. I am nearing the end of the list of Defunct USA motor vehicle manufacturers (I am up to those beginning with 'S'). After that, I need to add the non-defunct ones (Ford et al). After that, I plan to go back to adding structure to the existing lists: I think I got as far as 1908. Then I have a few other WP categories to data-mine.

If you have ideas on how to develop this article, then please do go-ahead (and don't hesitate to ask me to change direction to, if the above plans of mine aren't quite in line with what you envisage being useful. TheAMmollusc (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to say, on the subject of the number of wikilinks in this article: this, of course, is the main point of the article :-) The various "Defunct motor vehicle manufacturers" categories are excellent, inasmuch that they are automatically maintained... however, they all end up as unstructured lists (well, sorted alphabetically, but that is all). This attempts to add structure to the information that is already available on WP: to act as an annotated, structured index to those articles. TheAMmollusc (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I could add, as a sort of a post-script, that, in effect, what I am aiming at is establishing the page a bit like a virtual motor museum. The logical way to do this is to organise the exhibits chronologically, and then add a bit of information about them on a simple plaque on the floor, and to let the visitors wander round gaining a feel for how motor vehicle designs have evolved over the decades. TheAMmollusc (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Imperia-Abadal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)