Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Replacing Tables With Infobox automobiles

So far, I've replaced 7 tables with Infobox automobiles on 7 pages for today. Sooner or later, all Infobox-like tables will be replaced by Infobox automobiles. I may have the chance to replace all automotive tables with Infobox automobiles for this week. Let's make sure every infobox-like automotive table is dead. -- Bull-Doser 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

11 done ;9--— Typ932^{T | C}  20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you searching every vehicle on the "Vehicles by brand" type, just so we could kill every infobox-ish table? -- Bull-Doser 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) to see if anyone operating a bot could do this for us, since there are 500+ instances of the template, it would be tedious to do this manually. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we were talking about old table infoboxes not generation boxes, or Im missing something? Btw whats the meaning of this

"This article is part of the automobile series." in some articles, could it be removed?--— Typ932^{T | C}  11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it should. -- Bull-Doser 12:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparent crusader/vandal

Looks like we've got a bit of a crusader on our hands. Ab7fh seems to be trying hard to promote his website, a discussion forum related to certain Ford-built SUVs, by inserting it in as many articles as possible despite repeated deletions due to enthusiast forums falling outside the guidelines for appropriate external-link inclusion. Yesterday he began taking his crusade to inappropriate areas by asking the fatuous and disingenuous question of why external links are permitted in Dodge Dart but not in Ford Explorer, Ford Ranger, etc. I attempted to explain the differences between adding bona fide external links and promoting one's own site, between external links that comply with Wikipedia guidelines and those that don't. He does not appear willing to understand those differences, and today deleted all the external links from Dodge Dart. I have restored the links, none of which is an enthusiast forum, and admonished Ab7fh not to repeat the vandalism. It looks like others have also tried to educate this individual without success, so I suspect he will attempt an edit war. Let's try and contain this problem before it grows larger, shall we? --Scheinwerfermann 04:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I posted on your talk page, this should go to ANI, hopefully for a speedy resolution and a blacklist of the spammer's site. --Sable232 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This happens - you can try to explain - but linkspammers always have a hard time accepting it. They present dozens of somewhat reasonable-seeming arguments...but you can't let them do it. Quote this at them: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I've been engaged in an annoying 'debate' with a linkspammer over on Mini. It's not the same guy - but it's really upsetting. So: Revert as necessary. You might try adding a wiki comment into the actual article asking people to discuss adding external links on the talk page beforehand...that might help. But it's just like any other situation when you have a difficult editor...you just have to slog it out. It might help to point out that these links aren't going to help his blog get up the Google pagerank because Wikipedia quietly tags all external links with some magic HTML that tells Googles search engine: "Please don't add Wikipedia's reputation to the pagerank of this link". That makes us considerably less interesting to most linkspammers. Oh - and if he points to another page with a link to a blog or a forum, thank him profoundly for finding this mistake and go in there and clean it up. SteveBaker 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox automobile generation is gone

Just so you all know. This change was done with no discussion. --Sable232 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess we should revert. I see no reason for that. PrinceGloria 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaaand it's back. ;D Edit war in 5, 4, 3, 2... Lewis Collard! (natter) 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that Infobox automobile engine had been killed as well. I reverted it, because there is absolutely no way it could be justified. I must say that I am sick and tired of OSX unilaterally making significant changes to templates that are in such wide use. --Sable232 00:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information, User:Pomte at the village pump suggested that I redirect the generation box, since it was identical to the standard Automobile infobox. If you check archive 9, DeLarge and myself suggested that we purge the affiliated infoboxes, and received no objections. Saying that there was no justification for such edits is wholeheartedly wrong. Therefore, if we could come to a consensus to this, I would greatly appreciate it. By the way, I apologise to those that found my edits annoying. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Woah, there. I suggested purging the "similar" field from other infoboxes.[1] Now, as it happens I think we're wayyyy too infobox-happy in this wikiproject; but I'm in the minority on this right now, so I don't think stuff like this, this, this etc should be done without a bit more discussion. Editing a template affects every article that transcludes it, which means edits to popular templates (and subsequent edit wars if the orignal edit is undesirable) have massively larger server hit than regular page edits. That's why so many templates are protected, and why it's much more important to discuss template changes in advance.

In the case of the generational infobox I agree that two identical templates are unnecessary, but what you could have done was come here, confirm that there wouldn't be a problem, and then redirect. You might have gotten a lot of users suggesting that the two templates be modified to reduce the overlap.

There's a limit to boldness. --DeLarge 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit here clearly states your recommendation of purging the affiliated infoboxes, and as with the Holden timeline, I fixed up ALL redirects that I could find. Also I don't see why I would have reach a consensus, just to see if it was okay to modify a template that was really only edited by me anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold statement for someone who has only made one edit to {{Infobox automobile engine}}. It would have been nice for you to come to the Talk page and whined about excessive infoboxes as a pox upon Wikipedia first before eliminating a template that you couldn't comprehend. McNeight 06:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OSX, you're pointing to exactly the same diff I was. I was not recommending deleting or redirecting the other infoboxes; I was recommending purging the "similar" field from all the infoboxes it appeared in. That's exactly whay there's a limit to boldness; you misread my statement entirely. In the previous paragraph of that same comment I said that we should only be dealing with the "similar" field, because any other edits (e.g. about "class") were more divisive and should be handled separately. --DeLarge 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected DeLarge, now that I have thoroughly re-read your statement, and can see where I went wrong, and I am sorry for that. But do feel that McNeight was just a tad rude, when I was referring to the Holden timeline, not the engine template. Now would it be OK to finally get rid of the darn generational infobox since they are identical? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(as a sidenote) Even thought maintaining separate infoboxes might seem superflouous (sp?) as of now, they are here with regard to the possible future use of infoboxes in some more automated Wikipedia factures, such as automatic list generation et al. PrinceGloria 10:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, looks like I stirred up another hornets' nest. First off, I don't entirely disagree with eliminating the generation infobox, because as far as I know the only reason for it was that it didn't have the "Manufacturer" line, which was forced to appear in the other infobox. Removal of the engine infobox is what perturbed me. I went to look at the Iron Duke page and found that all the infobox said was manufacturer. The engine box has nothing in common with the other two, and I fail to see any logic in redirecting it. And this was done to a template spanning 112 pages without any discussion or notice. --Sable232 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

seems that generation template has fuel capacity info but the main template not, is this the preferred way?--— Typ932^{T | C}  21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems stupid for the generational template to have anything that the main template doesn't - because lots of cars don't have generations - and hence don't use the template. Why would you not want to know the fuel capacity of a car just because there was only one generation of it?! SteveBaker 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Supported by WikiProject Automobiles

If there is an article without a notice that it is supported by WikiProject Automobiles, do we just add the template and wait for a review, or must it be discussed. The article in question is the Caparo T1, although I am rewriting the article. Should I wait until after I have rewritten it? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the template has anything to do with it. The articles I maintain don't use the template (I really hate all of this kind of extraneous junk decorating articles these days) - but all three have been rated by the review process several times. I just added them to the list in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment whenever I felt they had changed enough to warrant an upgrade to the next level (eg when I'd passed WP:GAC and WP:FAC). Clearly it would be unfair on the people who do the assessments to overdo this - but I don't see any harm in making one rating request now (you should rate 'start' or 'B'), another when you make WP:GA (at which point you are clearly a 'GA' and maybe they'll give you an 'A' and go for the third after you pass WP:FA - which should be a mere formality since you know the article is an 'FA'. Going for an early assessment (maybe even when the article is just a stub) allows the assessors to allocate an importance grade - that doesn't depend on how good your article is - but on how important the subject of it is to Wikipedia. (eg Automobile is a more important article than Bumper sticker no matter how well either article has been written!) SteveBaker 02:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... huh? Sorry, that was very confusing for me. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 21:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What he's basically saying is that there's too much talk page userbox graffiti on WP. A similar opinion is expressed by User:Doc glasgow: "Wikipedia has too many boxes. Userboxes were bad enough, but now we have the infobox virus, and dozens of superfluous navigation boxes spouting up all over otherwise decent articles. We have a multitude of boxes on talk pages claiming ownership by some project that typically has contributed nothing to that article, except of course the box." --DeLarge 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - and I was also trying to convey the fact that the template has nothing to do with rating. To get your article rated, you have to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. SteveBaker 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing that up. I have added the articles to be assessed. =) —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Talon

At the Eagle Talon article, one user with two accounts keeps inserting poor images of a heavily modified car, despite it being reverted by myself and another user. I've already reverted twice, so I can't do anything about it for a few more hours, so if anyone can get rid of the images for now or arrange for a more permanent solution, it would be helpful. IFCAR 17:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

While we are at it - do we really need a separate article for the Talon? FWIK, it was just a rebadge of the Eclipse... PrinceGloria 22:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New to this whole Wiki-editing thing, but I would agree that the Talon (and Plymouth Laser, for that matter) could be consolidated together. The three cars differ only in detail for the most part. --Duncan1800 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan1800 (talk • contribs)

Yep, I am one of the users that keeps reverting it. I have already gotten the article semi protected, since they were both new users and IPs doing the editing, but they both managed to get around the semi protection. I am now requesting full protection in order to finally solve this. They have also taken to trolling the talk page. I am going to create a sockpuppetry case since the two accounts are the same person. Karrmann 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the page is protected. Karrmann 11:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I filed a checkuser and sockpuppetry case against teh guy, as I have evidence that link MikeTSIawd and an IP to Spoolintsi. I just want anyone involved in this conflict to come and back up my claims, so we can get these guys blocked, adn hopefully end this conflict before it gets completely out of control like the Infiniti G20 or Amc Matador incidents. Karrmann 13:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed that they are the same guy, I am now requesting that they be blocked. Karrmann 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, through the processess and talking to some freindly admins, the user and his sockpuppets that were edit warring on the page have all been blocked, and I am having the page unprotected. It looks like this dispute is over. Karrmann 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tuner cars article

Recently I discovered an article called Tuner cars, all it ever do is describe modified sportscompact cars in a negative manner, which is probably written by a import hating V8 dreaming wannabe owner (aka Coolmanedward) and checking his contribution record, all his other edits have been are vandalisms. Also to ask, have anybody heard the term before used on sportscompact cars and I don't mean to describe cars by companies such as Koenig or Gemballa, which is what I associate with and shall I nominate this for AfD, lets have your opinion on this. Willirennen 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Send it to the glue factory. This is already covered by other articles, such as import scene, car tuning, hot rod, etc. Lewis Collard! (natter) 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a common enough term (127,000 Ghits), so you don't need to go to AfD. Have a thorough look through for salvageable, unduplicated content, and merge/redirect. --DeLarge 11:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: WP:NPA. --DeLarge 11:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point was that there's way too much overlap with other articles. There's also no salvageable information in the article: it's entirely unsourced and full of personal opinions. AfD, therefore, is the best option, or blank and redirect (less hoops to jump through that way!).

I'm not sure why you pointed me to no personal attacks. Lewis Collard! (natter) 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA directed at User:Willirennen; should have been specific about that. --DeLarge 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, I didn't write that article at all, all I am trying to do is telling you what should I do with it, as well as I'm just trying to say, as a non-American, I have never heard of that term before, all I know is in the UK (where I live), they are referred to as boy racer cars. In my opinion, I think a redirect would be a good thing. For what is worth salvaging, the only thing worth salvaging is a little bit of it for Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians, considering how it is used as a stereotype on Asians. Willirennen 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Exotic car images

Today I went to the Eyes on Design car show and got many free licensed images of rare and exotic cars. They are under my commons category, and you can insert them into articles if you want. Karrmann 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New hoaxer

Be on the lookout for any new edits made by 72.80.151.43. They seem to be making mostly innocent looking changes regarding model years (most of which can be easily proven wrong), but they are slipping in some non-existent and sometimes offensive model names. As you can see at Special:Contributions/72.80.151.43, this user has been very busy (and bored out of their mind, apparently :) in the last two days. I normally don't bother warning anonymous users, but left a "test3" warning on their page given the number of edits. If they try another round, I guess it's blocking time. --Vossanova ^o< 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see somebody did notice it. I have too little time to take care of that, but this is certainly the return of our regular hoaxer. PrinceGloria 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's kill them and eat them. :/ Thanks for pointing this out. Lewis Collard! (natter) 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

302

How do we deal with the Ford 302 being advertised as a 5.0 when the actual measurement is 4942 cc? I recently reverted an anon who changed "5.0" to "4.9" because it was NEVER advertised as that by Ford and is NEVER, EVER referred to by anyone as a 4.9. However, my revert was reverted. As much as I would like to just say "302" the English-unit haters wouldn't like that. --Sable232 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are now three mentions within the Ford Mustang article that explain that the 302 V8 is known as the 5.0. Moreover, the article about this engine, Ford Windsor engine#302, clearly indicates that this is a 4.9. Ford Motor Company's marketing and advertising departments stretched it from 4.9 L to a "5.0". It is true that Ford promoted the 5.0 as a model name and the engine was sold as a "5.0", but that does not change the fact that the engine has 4.9 L in actual displacement. This marketing "hype" was also conducted by other automakers. An example is American Motors' 304 V8 engine. AMC marketed it and even badged some of its models (such as the Gremlin X) as "5.0 litre" (see: the decal on rear panel in this ad from 1972) long before Ford came out with its 5.0 advertising. Nevertheless, effective ads and promotion does NOT change the size of the engine. For the purposes of detail and accuracy, automobile engines should be described in their actual size. Wikipedia is not part of corporate promotional departments. CZmarlin 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you say "Ford 4.9" it is always assumed one is referring to the 300, which is the primary reason the 302 was said to be 5.0 liters. Say "4.9L V8" and nobody will have a clue what you are talking about, and there will be anons changing it back to 5.0 on a daily basis. Calling it a 5.0 isn't marketing hype, it's being clear, especially for those Wikipedia readers who don't know what the actual metric conversion is. All mentions of the Pontiac 350 call it a 350 even though the actual displacement is 354 cubic inches.

Again, calling it the 302 would be the most accurate and clear option. --Sable232 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that describing it as a "302 engine" is better than the automaker's marketing hyperbole. The 302 description also clearly shows the lineage of this motor. It seems that too many people think that it was a brand new engine when advertising started to promote it as a "5.0". Mentioning the actual metric conversion is necessary for accuracy, but the engine should be called what it is a 302. The model name of "Mustang 5.0" is not a problem because that is how the car was designated by Ford. Therefore, where reference is to the actual engine: it should be 302, but when the article discusses the model badging or option names: those remain as 5.0. I hope this would make things clear to all readers. -- CZmarlin 22:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

More BS regarding fair use

File:1972 Custom Cruiser.jpg It appears as though the fact that it is nearly impossible to find a 1970s station wagon to photograph isn't a good enough explanation for using an image that was released to the public by Oldsmobile, in part, for this purpose. Thoughts, please. I am sick and tired of having to deal with admins who can't seem to comprehend that. --Sable232 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Insert a large fair use rationale and it'll be fine. I uploaded fair use images for Plymouth Laser and Eagle TAlon because one didn't have an image for a certain facelift, and the Laser had only one image available, and the car in that one was in poor condition. Karrmann 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I already had. In fact, this image was tagged as replaceable before, but was kept. (The user who listed it for deletion anyway is User:Quadell, one of the most ravenous fair-use image deletors I've seen.) I wish we could have a clear position on using these images. I suspect that the conditions under which the automakers release these images means we are more than welcome to use them, since there can't be any copyright issues. Those images are released by the manufacturer and freely used by automotive journals.

What would be even better is a position on this from a major automaker. --Sable232 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They'll never give away their rights to anything - forget that. You've got to find an enthusiast who has one - that kind of person is usually only too happy to have a photo of their car in Wikipedia. SteveBaker 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick look on Flickr, but had no results of the same model. However, if you are in search of an image, Flickr is a great place to start. Most images are not released under an applicable Creative Commons license, but I have found that emailing the photographer, and asking them to relicense their work highly successful. (see: File:1997 Ford EL Falcon GLi.jpg, File:2004-2005 Ford BAII Falcon XR8 interior.jpg, File:1996 Holden VS Berlina.jpg, File:2001-2002 Ford AUIII Falcon SR.jpg and File:1980 Holden VC Commodore L.jpg) Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also found eBay Motors, cars.co and other car sales sites to be a useful source of photos. They have some significant advantages over Flickr: Firstly, you can always contact the owner of the car (who is typically the copyright owner of the photo), secondly, they are selling the car and (rightly or wrongly) see it's appearance in Wikipedia as being a good selling point, thirdly, in a few days/weeks, they'll no longer own the car and often have no particular desire to own the photograph anymore (On FLickr, people are posting photos because they like them as photos), fourthly, images are very accurately described because the owner of the car is describing it very accurately! How many other times could we add the milage and (perhaps) restoration status of a vehicle to the image description? SteveBaker 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

olds 350 diesel

71.50.23.127 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the invite on your talkpage. I about six months ago I purchased a 1983 seville that has the 350 diesel engine. It has only 29,000 miles on it. The car has been kept in the garage for a long without being started or driven after the death of previous owner. I have read the articles about the problems concerning this type of engine. I really would ponder the question, is the engine worth keeping or is there some other option? Is there another gasoline engine that will work in this car? I was told that it was possible to change out the cylinder and center heads of a gasoline engine and convert the diesel over. Thanks for your comments and anwsers. Abbason.

As long as you don't try towing with it or put any unnecessary stress on it, the diesel engine will be fine. GM built these engines on the cheap and didn't reinforce the crankshaft. But since it's a diesel, people just assumed it was built for heavy duty applications. Now this isn't a forum, so unless there's something about a particular article, try Yahoo Answers instead.Mustang6172 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep a full set of glow plugs handy. The car will eat them like candy. Also IIRC, there is no water separator on that engine which means that if enough water builds up, you can have hydro lock. Best to treat the fuel with some sort of additive, I know Standyne is a good one.--Analogue Kid 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing "competitors" in the article text

Even after the "similar" field is gone, many articles include paragraphs that are nothing more than "this car competes with the following cars:"; essentially a form of "similar" in paragraph form. Is this acceptable/desirable? IFCAR 12:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For me it is not, for the same reasons as the field. You can hardly find a source - actually even automakers have trouble finding hard data what actually constitutes their competitors (GM once discovered that many people decide between a Corvette and a high-speed motorboat). An exception would be a reference to an automaker explicitly stating that they intend to rival this or that, IF it was notable in itself. PrinceGloria 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much what I was going to say. Listing it out like that is awkward anyway, and the number of potential "competitors" is too large. But, as PrinceGloria said, if a vehicle was intended to rival a certain car, that should be mentioned. --Sable232 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To make my statement clear - ONLY when there was an explicit statement from a manufacturer, or perhaps a reliable impartial source (like a dedicated book on the car or the company), or maybe Lee Iacocca wrote this in his autobiography it MIGHT be considered mentionable if it is especially notable (for example the competitor's features determined some of the model's own characteristics). Normally, I'd consider this both unverifiable and trivial. PrinceGloria 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An example would be the Ford Taurus. It was originally designed specifically to one up the Accord and Camry. Karrmann 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with PrinceGloria that some competitors are unverifiable and trivial, particularly when it comes to older cars. Perhaps the best examples are the pony cars. It is helpful to list the competitors of the Mustang that was introduced in 1964 (calendar year) because it took the direct competitors Camaro to 1967, Javelin to 1968, and Dodge Challenger to 1970 (model years) to respond. A short description of the competitive environment helps to set the context of the particular model under discussion. It also directs the readers for additional information about the market and the competitive environment. Do we have to take Lee Iacocca to explain this to us? Although his autobiography is good, but it only covers one point of view and a limited time period. There are enough verifiable third party sources that list the direct competition. For example, Motor Trend and Consumer Reports have done direct comparison tests over the years. One big problem is that vehicles change in their classifications and target markets. For example, the first generations of the Honda Accord were nothing like the market segment that Ford was aiming with its Taurus as pointed out by Karrmann. The original cars were only "econoboxes" with sporty pretensions, but they were also plagued with early rust problems and recalls. Then there is the issue of "competition" when some may "decide between a Corvette and a high-speed motorboat". To stretch the example, I would not be surprised that some deadbeat dads also decide to have a Cadillac escalator (opps, I mean escalade) rather than the alternative to make their child support or alimony payments! There are many options for the consumer's money, but I think an article should include a short list of direct competitor's models at the particular time! CZmarlin 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I don't think stuff like the Mustang is what's being discussed here. That was a car which, as you demonstrated with your wikilink, was so successful in defining its niche that they named a class of car after it, and you'll find plenty of external sources to verify that kind of thing. Heck, you'll find entire books about the pony car class and how the Mustang started it all. The Mini had a similar effect in its little niche. What you won't get is reliable sources (outside the dedicated car press) discussing in any depth who the competitors are for the latest generation of mid-sized Chevy, Dodge pick-up or Honda supermini. Where a car doesn't define or redefine a class, we don't need to namecheck a bunch of similar cars, especially when such namechecking is typically unsourced, subjective and parochial. --DeLarge 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DeLarge, you are correct that newer vehicles are often hard to categorize because the markets have become more fragmented and automakers try to differentiate their products ... some are only different due to their nameplates and advertising themes. However, what I was talking about were the older cars (as noted in the first sentence. Forget the easy example of the pony cars, but take the case of the so-called mid-size cars or intermediates. This class grew out of the 1956 Rambler Six, to include numerous competitors. It underwent significant shifts with the price of gasoline and changing consumer demands. Having a list of competing nameplates from the other automakers at each juncture would be helpful to explain some of the design, style, and sizing changes. Just my $0.02 — CZmarlin 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See, I think the best place to describe these historical shifts would be at the car class articles themselves, i.e. pony car, mid-size car, muscle car, etc etc (and looking over those, boy do they need sourcing -- one reference in 44k of text across three pages). Saying "the Wakisaki GTX started off targeting the humble Stetson Bajingo, but over time grew to become a prestigious competitor to the Bratwurst Bahnstormer" doesn't actually tell you anything unless you're already familiar with the competitors' cars and their place in the market. We should be tailoring our content on the basis that we're a general prupose encyclopedia and our readers don't necessarily know that much: "the Wakasaki GTO started off as a humble mid-size car for buyers on a budget, but over time grew to become a prestigious competitor to the premium vehicles imported from Europe" says more, yet namechecks less.

Compare our WikiProject to, say, Books or Films. They're able to describe their article subjects as thrillers, comedies, romances, etc without having to add "...like A, B and C, which came out the same year" (I'm basing this on the content listed at WP:FA). Yet those genres I mentioned are as well defined as car classifications. --DeLarge 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are times when you do know the precise reason a car was created - exactly which competitor it was set up to beat - or what the rival companies created in reaction to it. That is certainly likely to be notable. So if it can be sourced and written into compelling prose (ie *NOT* a long boring list or a table or anything like that) - then for sure it belongs in the article. The trouble with lists and tables is that every random person who reads the article thinks of another thing to add - and pretty soon the list/table is bloated with irrelevent, unsourced, ill-explained cruft. People who only wish to add another car to the 'competitors' or 'similar' ones will be considerably dissuaded by the challenge of writing some actual prose and tacking some sources onto it. I continue to believe this kind of somewhat subjective data does not belong in the infobox because that is standardized information that we expect to be able to collect about every single car in the encyclopedia - and it's only stuff that is needed "at a glance" by people who aren't interested in reading the entire article. SteveBaker 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I Am In NYC

Hi, I just recently went to NYC today, and took 9 car pictures. You can go to them @ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bull-Doser and click on an image to see. -- Bull-Doser 21:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is great to see that you're producing some halfway reasonable photographs nowadays. Just keep up the good work. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I will be back in NYC in 2 weeks, since my family went on vacation. I am currently in Mexico City. -- Bull-Doser 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's great! We absolutely need more photos of Latin American cars, like Chevrolet Montana/Tornado, Chevy C2, Ford Ecosport etc. PrinceGloria 13:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And now, I am in Mazatlan, Mexico. -- Bull-Doser 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, but could you aviod shoting pictures of cars with passengers in them, who aren't aware that they're being photographed. The man in the Audi station wagon seems a little put off ;-) (It just doesn't make for a good picture) Also, try taking your pictures in such a manner as to reduce the glare. Your pictures have improved greatly in quality but please consider these two suggestions. Signature^brendel 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yamaha V8

User:Raiderboi8888 has been blanking the 4.4L section in Ford Yamaha V8 engine and has created two different articles with that content. I recall reading at one point that the 4.4L used in Volvos was the same engine family as the 3.4L SHO. Could someone more familiar with this chime in and warn the user if necessary? --Sable232 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly Yamaha V8 engine and Volvo/Yamaha, being two identical articles, need to be merged. preferably the latter into the former as "Volvo/Yamaha" is far too ambiguous a title. Thereafter, if need be, "Yamaha V8 engine" can be moved (and it probably deserves to be, since a quick Googlesearch uncovers unrelated V8s from the same manufacturer.[2][3][4]

Beyond that, we have the perennial issue of people not citing sources. Your version of Ford Yamaha V8 engine says it's made "in its Bridgend Engine Plant in Mid-Glamorgan in Great Britain". User:Raiderboi8888 claims it's made "by Yamaha Corporation in Japan". No references for either claim. This might be the root of the problem? RB8888 thinks the info on the Ford/Yamaha page was wrong?

I'll merge/redirect Yamaha V8 engine and Volvo/Yamaha just now, and leave a message on the user's talk page explaining why. Beyond that I think it's up to the contributors of Ford Yamaha V8 engine to tidy the page. After all, RB8888 could be argued to be doing the right thing by deleting the paragraph: removing "controversial" (i.e. challenged), uncited material. --DeLarge 09:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I've seen forum posts saying the Volvo six cylinder is built at Bridgend, but not the eight. Now supported by a semi-reliable source.[5] Also, I keep seeing reference to the engine being "specially-designed"[6] and similar terms. Even the existing article says "officials of all three companies involved insist that the Volvo V8 is not related to the SHO engine", so it looks like that page may have been cleaned up, not vandalized.

2nd addendum: From Canadian Driver, "Volvo's new XC90 V8 model features a new 4.4 litre V8 engine built in Japan by Yamaha to Volvo's specifications." We now have a verifiable reliable source. Still want to "warn" the guy about his blanking? Looks like he was right to remove that paragraph. --DeLarge 10:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd addendum: While looking at Ford Yamaha V8 engine I see that the "similar" field still affects {{Infobox automobile engine}}, and that particular page is an example of its usage to excess. I just want to double-check, nobody minds if I remove it from the template? --DeLarge 13:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The main issue is whether or not the SHO V8 and Volvo V8 are the same basic engine. If yes, one page. If no, split. I did know that a connection between the two has been "officially" denied, but considering the circumstances with the 3.4L it's no surprise. I recall that the 3.4 blocks and heads were made by Ford and shipped to Yamaha for assembly. Karrmann would know more about this, I think, or at least have a resource to check.

Regarding addendum 2: Wrong information should be corrected, not removed, IMO.

Regarding addendum 3: Please do, it's even worse in this template than it was in the others. --Sable232 22:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong information should be corrected, not removed - well, ideally, yes - but if you see something and you know it's not true (and assuming it's not referenced in some way) - then if you don't know what to replace it with then removing it is the very least you can do. Better by far to have no information than wrong information! SteveBaker 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for Popular Culture Apperances for Cars

Stemming from an apparent edit war on the Chevy Camaro, IMCDB.org has a rating system where cars in the various TV shows and Movies are rated on a scale of 1 to 5 stars. Copypasta from the site:

• 1 star: vehicle that has no interaction the story, character or one of the other vehicle. Some may be visible less than one second, some may be visible for a long time.
• 2 stars: a short action, or a minor action, like a crash or a taxi that leaves one of the character. For cars used by a character only in a short sequence we also sometime use this rating, since the car is not visible for a long time in the movie.
• 3 to 5 stars: this depends of the importance of the vehicle in the movie, the time that it is seen on the screen and the importance of the character that uses it. It is quite difficult to explain but usually when the car has at least three stars it means that is seen for at least few minutes in the movie.

I propose that we institute a similar system here on Wikipedia. For example, using the Delorean_DMC-12 article as a starting point, car appearances should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as to the importance of the car in relation to the media. So for example, the appearance of the Ford Mustang in Bullitt, Gone in 60 Seconds (via Eleanor (1973 Ford Mustang)) and The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift would be considered to be noteworthy to mention, while appearances from say, 2 Fast 2 Furious are excised out.

So going by the IMCDB example, the policy could go like thus (for lack of a better example):

• Main car - car is either the star of the show (The Delorean_DMC-12 from Back to the Future or Eleanor (1973 Ford Mustang) from Gone in 60 Seconds, KITT from Knight Rider) or is used extensively by one (or more) of the main protagonist(s) or antagonist(s) (Toyota AE86 Trueno by Takumi Fujiwara in Initial D, The General Lee from the Dukes of Hazard).
• Secondary car - car is used by major secondary characters (see Wangan Midnight) or is featured as part of an extensive roster of other cars (i.e the Ford GT in Gran Turismo 4). Car importance will be handled on a case by case basis.
• "Roster" car - car is part of an extensive roster of cars (i.e. Video games like Gran Turismo, Forza Motorsport, Need for Speed, etc.). Roster cars can only be mentioned in passing as appearing in the media in question and doesn't require extensive descriptions (i.e see Delorean_DMC-12#De_Lorean_in_popular_culture for an example.
• Background cars - cars that only appear as background props or in other non-Main or secondary situations. These sort of apperences should not be added to Wikipedia.

Of course, then we'd have to deal with Motorsport next like NASCAR, WRC, etc.....--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed both here and at User talk:Sable232/Standards with reference to the specific website. The advantage of following it exactly (as opposed to making up our own guidelines) is the greater adherence to external sources with less reliance on original research (which is what any self-penned notability guide would be). As you'll see in the linked-to discussion, only five-star entries (and maybe certain borderline four star entries) would be acceptable.

The trouble is that such content is an absolute magnet for cruft, so I think we should be fairly firm about cutting it out unless there's very good reason for it, e.g. the DeLorean. After announcing my plan to cull the trivia section from Mitsubishi GTO, another editor created a dedicated sub-page (a la User:SteveBaker's previous actions on Mini). Rather than have it stand alone, I eventually morphed it into Mitsubishi vehicles in media and moved all MMC cruft to a single page. It is of course a load of rubbish; bullet points galore and not a single citation that I can see. This may be the way to handle persistent pro-trivia edits. --DeLarge 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that my 'sub-article' containing the list of movies with Mini/MINI (BMW)'s in them was the victim of a successful WP:AfD (insane IMHO - but deletionists rule these days). You can still see (and update) the contents here: http://www.miniownersoftexas.org/wiki/index.php?title=Movies - but sans convenient WikiLinks to the movies themselves. (Grrrrrr!) SteveBaker 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That now begs the question: why isn't such a "guideline" out on the main page? Plus it's not that hard to try and make paragraphs outta lists. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It didn't seem to get much beyond the discussion stage, to be honest. I think it probably should be up there, though. And I agree about the paragraphs; aside from being straightforward to write, paragraphs are (marginally) more difficult for passing cruftiphiliacs to edit than bulleted lists. --DeLarge 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

With paragraphs, at least we can cut out people just randomly adding stuff in. At least it requires some forsight and perhaps some mentioning, to a point, about the inclusion of the car. I can try to work out a solution, but I have too much on my plate right now. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are not recommended to be used for anything that can be covered by prose anyway. Just for further reference, I agree with having the regulation as discussed in Sable's page made official and put in the main page. PrinceGloria 04:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An aside: Apparently the standards were tried once before. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Standards This hasn't been edited since August 2006. Only reason I found it was because I was going to add that link to the main page and put this regulation there. About time to finish this up, no? Maybe get the articles around here up to a higher quality. --Sable232 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remeber corectly, we don't list famous owners, nyaa?--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. You are focussing on "How important was the car to the movie". The criteria (that we have already agreed upon) for a mention of the movie in the car article is: "How important was the movie to the car?". NOitce the difference there? In some cases, such as (my two favorite examples again folks!) Mini and MINI (BMW), the movie "The Italian Job" was so important to the sales of the former car that BMW paid to have a remake of the movie made using the remake of the car! This worked perfectly for them - causing a massive spike in MINI sales within weeks of the movie being released. Ditto for "The Prisoner" (TV show) and Mini Moke. Hence, mention of those in the car articles is 100% justified. Required in order to adequately tell the story of the car. But there are other instances of cars taking the lead role in a movie where that fact had little or no impact on the car. When a beat-up Citroën 2CV featured as the 'lead role' in a 007 movie car chase - I'm pretty sure it did nothing for the history of the car - and whilst a mention of the car in the movie article is entirely justified, a mention of the movie in the car article would be "trivia" - which Wikipedia is currently stiving to eliminate. A Land Rover called "Lucifer" played a pivotal role in the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"...again, no impact on the history of the car - so no mention in the car article. So the guidelines presented above are useless for car articles. They would (of course) be entirely relevent to articles about movies where one has to answer the question: "Is the car used in this movie so important to the plot that it deserves to be mentioned in the article?". The precise same reasoning must be used for the notability of books, famous owners, TV shows...and anything else that isn't directly about the car...in the article about the car. SteveBaker 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Steve on this one. You are suggesting that we add a ratings system to these pop culture sections, thereby expanding them and focusing more attention to them. This is completely counterproductive. We should not have these "pop culture" and "trivia" sections at all, and I have been working hard to get them removed from automotive articles. Rarely is this sort of pop culture trivia important to the actual article. You don't see a list of movies that have featured a ham and cheese sandwich. You don't see a list of celebrities who own a Seiko watch. But for some reason, certain users always feel inclined to add this sort of useless information to car articles. Sure, it's fun to compile these kinds of lists, but rarely is this kind of trivia ever important to the car itself.

Pop culture sections, trivia sections, and lists of celebrity owners should be removed from every automotive article unless the information is directly related to the development, production, or sales of the car. If, for example, sales of the Audi S8 went up 650% after its appearance in the movie Ronin (hypothetically), then that might be worth mentioning. But 99 times out of 100, pop culture trivia does NOT belong in an automotive article. Jagvar 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think people are underestimating IMCDb. The 2CV mentioned by User:SteveBaker was in For Your Eyes Only, and it gets only four stars. They do seem to be quite strict that way, which is what we need. I don't think anyone's suggesting that "if it gets five stars on IMCDb it must be included" -- it's the other way around: if it didn't get five stars it's therefore been demonstrated by an external source to be insufficiently important to the movie. If it did get five stars, then we can have a closer look at whether the situation warrants a mention (with an expectation that sources can be cited, as always). It's one of the few cases I can think of on WP where we can actually cite a source when deleting material. --DeLarge 11:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You aren't listening carefully to what Jagvar and I just said. IMCDb is great for telling you how important the car was in the movie. It tells you NOTHING about how important the movie was to the car - which is our criteria for including information about the movie in the article about the car. You said it right there "insufficiently important to the movie"...that's not the criteria we're seeking to test!

• A car might maybe only play a bit part in the movie - but somehow the movie might have become a HUGE influence on the sales of the car - or promoted a change in the culture of its buyers or caused a design change or a special edition version of it. This was the case with the TV show "The Prisoner" and the Mini Moke. The car only got 4 stars on IMCDb - so your rule would force me to delete that information - but no article on the Moke could possibly be complete without mentioning the TV series! Mokes became trendy in the late 1960's only because of that TV show - no TV show - no more Moke! So your rule fails miserably in this case.
• The reverse may also be the case - in movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy", a 1959 Series 1 LandRover plays a lead role and justifiably gets the full 5 stars on IMCDb...but the movie had absolutely no effect on the LandRover - no more sales, no change in culture, no design changes, no special edition...nothing. Mentioning that the LandRover appeared in that movie is "avoidable trivia" for the LandRover article - and precisely the kind of thing we're trying to outlaw with this policy (although the LandRover should certainly be mentioned in the article about "The Gods Must Be Crazy" - it wouldn't be the same movie without the hilarious antics that revolve around the damned thing refusing to start!). Your rule would force article maintainers to accept all sorts of annoying trivia on the basis that IMCDb provides the requisite number of stars! NO WAY!

So the star ratings from IMCDb tell you nothing useful about how the movie affected the car - and that is our criteria - it's NOT how the car affected the movie. Your proposed policy would simultaneously rule out critical information whilst providing a green light for the trivia merchants. Forget IMCDb! SteveBaker 11:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) It's not that I'm not listening or reading, it's that I'm not agreeing. While I do agree that IMCDb's role is to reflect a car's part in a movie, to say that there is never any reciprocal relationship is just disingenuous. 99 times out of 100 IMCDb's assessment will be that a car's role in a movie is not of pivotal importance, and that will support our edits to remove mention of a film from the car's article. I'd like to think that the edit war over the mention of police AMC Matadors would have been a little shorter if this IMCDb entry had existed at the time. The exception of the Mini Moke doesn't negate the general effectiveness of the site. Further, we won't be introducing a "rule" -- we're only a WikiProject; the best we can manage is a guideline -- but despite that, for the occasions when IMCDb doesn't fit the bill, that's exactly what WP:IAR is there for. The existence of one guideline in one wikiproject does not trump any of the five pillars, and if you've cited sources to support you there's nothing to worry about. I'm simply seeing this as a shorthand way to deal with the incessant edit warring that goes on with passing cruftists inserting pop-culture references.

I'm not going to push for anything where there's no consensus, and since there's an obvious split here there's probably no place further to go right now. But that doesn't mean one side is right and the other is wrong, and to date I've seen more people favour IMCDb as an external resource than oppose it. I don't know if your arguments have changed any other minds since the previous discussion, but this particular user would still support such a guideline. --DeLarge 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that IMCDb is useful - but understand that this issue is a contentious one in many car articles. Even suggesting that IMCDb is a valid way to resolve those debates is dangerous because the information is telling us the wrong thing - it actually provides more support for people who are trying to violate our guidelines than it does ammunition for people who are trying to implement our guidelines. Adding it as a rule would be downright wrong - but even making it a suggestion is extremely counter-productive. SteveBaker 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is anthropomorphic cars such as those credited as appearing in Grand Theft Auto series, should that be removed immediately. Willirennen 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify this? I don't understand what you're talking about. Do you have an example? SteveBaker 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

cars that have a likeness to a real life car but are not credited as so... ren0^talk 07:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah - that's why I didn't understand your question. Anthropomorphism means "attributing human characteristics to non-human objects".

So let me rephrase your question: The background to this is that video games designers often design vehicles that embody the important characteristics of real vehicles - whilst having enough differences to avoid getting entangled in copyright/trademark disputes with the car manufacturer. So should we mention these in the article about the car?

Well, the policy remains the same: If this protrayal of the car was an influence on the history of the car then this reference belongs in the article about the car - otherwise it's "trivia" and is not allowed. - so in my article on the MINI, I don't mention The Italian Job (video game) - because it had no influence whatever on sales or design or history of the actual MINI car.

Come to think of it, I don't recall any instance that a videogame had that kind of influence on the history of a real world car - much less the messed up cars you so often see in games. So - no - unless there is documented, referenceable data that these games influenced the cars' history then it doesn't belong in the car article. Unless that influence is documented, go ahead and delete these references wherever you find them. But that has nothing to do with whether the car in the game was an exact depiction or an inexact one. Anything that had an influence on the history of the car is worthy of mention. SteveBaker 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: videogame influence on vehicles: Gran Turismo allegedly created enough North American interest in the Subaru Impreza WRX to make the U.S. importer bring the car Stateside. Ironcially of course, this rare example of pop-cultural influence which has a reliable reference[7] doesn't appear in the WRX article, which is a fairly godawful mess. --DeLarge 11:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these guidelines any closer to getting beyond the discussion stage? I'd like to better understand how these sections should be handled but I don't see a clear consensus here. Are we supposed to leave them alone for now, clean them up, or just remove these sections altogether? Anyway, I had the idea to make separate list pages for cars that have had many appearances (got the idea from Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and List of Indiana Jones appearances). That way the information is there for those who are interested, but it no longer has a negative impact on the quality of main article. I made an example here. It needs a lot of work, but I didn't want to put too much effort into it if it's not going anywhere.~ Dusk Knight 03:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Very similar articles

Hi WikiProject Automobiles. I notice that the Transmission (mechanics) and Gearbox articles are very similar (in fact, undoubtedly one was copied from the other at some stage). Perhaps they should be merged or one should be a redirect to the other? DH85868993 11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Second time today I've come across this; British or European English article is created, U.S. English article follows later, first article is eventually merged/redirected to U.S. article. Same thing as happened with coupé convertible and retractable hardtop. Anyhoo, "gearbox" was merged on May 13, 2005, became a disambiguation page on June 25, 2005, was reverted to a redirect on February 3, 2006 and then became more or less what it is now, a duplicate of the "transmission (mechanics)" page, on May 30, 2007 when an anonymous IP did a copy/paste. I guess it just needs reverted, which I'll boldly do just now. --DeLarge 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point DeLarge!

In this case, I think there is good justification for there being two articles. A gearbox is a very general thing - it's not about cars (although most cars have several of them - my Mini has at least five gearboxes but only one transmission. The five gearboxes are: one for each windshield wiper, another inside the wiper motor, yet another connecting the starter motor to the engine and one more to transmit power from the engine to the wheels). A transmission (as it's name implies) transmits power from the engine to the wheels - and it something that's pretty much unique to a car. The article about gearboxes should talk about gearing in general with a brief mention of automotive transmissions. The article on transmissions should say that a transmission is (in essence) a collection of gearboxes, including the main gearbox, one or more differential gears, a clutch of some kind...etc. SteveBaker 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here would be able to take a look at Non-synchronous transmissions, which is in a terrible state. I have suggested that it be merged with manual transmission, however the author does not agree. Kevin 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Image captions.

Something which bothers me about infoboxes: When generational infoboxes were recently added to MINI (BMW), the two photos originally had very descriptive captions that said precisely what model year the car was - what the colour is called (not just "Orange" - which you can see - but "Hot Orange" - the official name of the colour). When rolled into an infobox, the title of the photo disappears - and that important information is lost - to be replaced by (IMHO) less relevent data about the dimensions of the car, etc.

IMHO, there should be a way to retain the caption on these photos because there is valuable information there that would otherwise be lost to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 July 2007

By hovering your mouse over the image the caption should appear on the screen, however a change could easily be made to the code in the infobox to display the caption down the bottom. BTW, would it be more appropriate to rename the article to Mini Cooper? OSX (talk • contributions) 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:OSX: No, the article is correctly named. The article covers all three MINI models: The MINI One, the MINI Cooper and the MINI Cooper'S. The two 'Cooper' models are the up-market 'performance' versions. People in the USA assume the car is called "MINI Cooper" because the down-market "MINI One" isn't sold in the USA and therefore all MINI's are Coopers here. However, elsewhere in the world, they are all just "MINI's". The MINI One is superficially very similar to the Cooper models - but it has a lower trim level and is much more fuel-efficient than the Cooper. There is even a diesel version of the MINI One (called the MINI One/D). But the One is very basic - it doesn't even have air conditioning. For that reason alone, it is presumed that it would not sell well in the USA. SteveBaker 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree w/ OSX, a simply change in the infobox mark-up could allow for the caption in cases such as BMW MINI article to show. I'm a proponent of the gen infoboxes as they are an easy, consie way to convey some key generation-dependent info and give our articles a sense of unity. I think adding a simply option to enable pic captions on gen-infoboxes will resolve the probelm Steve pointed out. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is important info you can use [[File:MINI Cooper S Convertible 2005.jpg|250px|2005 MINI Cooper S Convertible]] ''Orange Mini'', I have used this if the picture shows some specials models, which needs explanation --— Typ932^{T | C}  06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hovering the mouse over the image shows the caption, and one can always click on the image to see the full description. But I suppose the infobox could be modified to show the caption if it's necessary. --Sable232 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bentley Azure (2006)

The Bentley Azure (2006) page is just a very brief stub and requires expansion. Also, it needs to be updated, since the Azure is now in production, and this was written when the car had not yet been released.

I would re-work the page myself, but I'm incredibly swamped this week (researching and writing about cars for an actual paying job -- sorry, but work trumps wiki). If someone could take on this page as a project, I'd appreciate it. If not, I might have more time next week to have a go at it myself. Jagvar 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of having a separate article? There is much more content, both in the article and to be covered, about e.g. the Corsa, and somehow it can all be contained in one article. I'd understand splitting if the article became unwieldly long, but in this particular case... PrinceGloria 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile platform

I am just asking as to whether it would be OK to update Template:Infobox automobile platform to mimic the look of Template:Infobox automobile. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be the only auto-related infobox which doesn't follow the standard look, so that seems reasonable. --DeLarge 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

yep --— Typ932^{T | C}  20:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! However, I removed the similar field as per previous discussion, and also the suspension fields as they are unnecessary, and have been removed from the other automotive templates. If anyone has any objections, feel free to reintroduce the suspension parameter. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The hoaxer returns

I'm back on this project after a wikibreak... good to be back!! Unfortunately the hoaxer's returned, adding fake info to Dodge Spirit, and he created two fake articles which are listed at AFD - Ford Calrema and Eagle Skye.

Dodge Spirit should be watchlisted so we can revert this one easily. --SunStar Net ^talk 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)--SunStar Net ^talk 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good opportunity to remember the importance of WP:V - always cite sources and require other editors to do so. Regards, High on a tree 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted both articles under CSD G3 as vandalism and closed the respective AFDs (Eagle Skye AFD & Ford Calrema AFD). I decided not to count User:TonyWonderBread's opinion based on his other edits and comments at AFD. Any more hoaxing and I'll be glad to see it off. On a more positive note, I'll be going to the Auto Salon motor show tomorrow, which won't be good for any production models, just modified cars. Are there any specific requests? I'll be taking my camera anyway, but if someone wants pics of something specific like Brembo brakes or a bolt on turbo just leave a note on my talk page. I'll be leaving at midnight UTC today so be quick! James086^{Talk | Email} 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Old merge proposals

There are two merge proposals that have been sitting for more than a few months and haven't received many votes. I hope a consensus can be reached so the articles won't be frozen in time for another few months. Talk:Automobile layout and Talk:Vehicle brake. Leedeth 06:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject BMW and Mercedes-Benz

This new Wikiproject has come to my attention, and I am very worried that it is going to do more harm than good. User:JoePane is listed as one of the two group members. For those of you who don't know, JoePane is a malicious (12-year-old) vandal who uploads copyrighted images claiming them as his own. I implore you all to please keep a close eye on what this group, and particularly what this user does in the days and weeks to come. If this user uploads any images, please list them for deletion immediately. Jagvar 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken some time to see what this 2-person "project" has done on Wikipedia, and it looks like all they've done is uploaded copyrighted photos, lied about licensing, and inserted lists of useless pop-culture trivia into several BMW pages. Can we PLEASE do something about this? Jagvar 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the latest images from JoePane and left a very clear note on his talk page [8] though it seems he will be away from Wikipedia for some time (he added a template saying he'll be away). As for the project I don't think there's anything wrong with it but encouraging Wjs13 to join WP:CARS instead might be more productive. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Escalating dispute, User:Totoz

Just taking this through the formal dispute resolution procedures. Having tried talking to the user and getting only trouble, I'm following the next step, discussing it with third parties, e.g. subject-specific WikiProjects.

Outline of the problem: I noticed that the user had uploaded File:Kia Ceed gray front.jpg, claiming "fair use", which is obviously not the case. We have an entire Kia cee'd category on the Commons,[9] and there was already a free image on the page. I tagged the image for deletion and removed it from the pages it was on, and while I was there I removed the forced thumbnail sizes, as recommended by WP:MOS#Images. I left the user's other Kia image upload alone, however: File:Kia soul.jpg is a concept vehicle, and the FU rationale was therefore much stronger.

I also noticed other recent edits he'd made, which included removing the {{reference}} template from the entirely unsourced Hyundai article, without providing any citations.

Had a look at my watchlist this morning, and the user had tagged fifteen Mitsubishi-related images for deletion by striking out their FU rationale, even though they were all concept vehicles. He had even tagged a free image as a fair use image for deletion.[10] He had also edited Mitsubishi Motors to add thumbnail sizes or remove images from the page, and reverted my previous edits. He also posted a "warning" on my talk page.[11] To be honest, for a new user he's quite adept at using the various templates and markup code; I'm not convinced this is someone who's never used Wikipedia before.

Anyway, I took a deep breath, and posted what I felt was a polite and concise explanation of my actions on his talk page in an effort to diffuse the dispute and prevent it escalating.[12] Within a few minutes, he'd copy/pasted the text with only minor changes onto my talk page.[13]

I'm now throwing this open to a wider audience, to solicit opinions and support my actions to date. Regards, --DeLarge 10:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not good. It seems obvious that User:Totoz has no real intention to be a constructive editor, but nonetheless he will most likely be given chance upon chance to "improve". I would have liked to speak to him/her personally but am unwilling to deal with the vandalism that will likely occur to the Holden vehicle articles that I have contributed to as a result. What I would suggest is that you let an admin aware of the situation (preferably one who you are in close contact with) and see what they have to say. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 11:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

He has a point in that File:Mitsutech banner.jpg has not given the source image used to create the banner. "Self made from Commons and/or other free images" is not enough. It should give the links to the source images. // Liftarn

He doesn't "have a point". His edit summary was "rm non-free image. you can't claim fair use when a free photo is already on the page",[14] but fair use wasn't being claimed, and that was the only image on the template. If I didn't cross my t's and dot my i's when I uploaded the photo that's one thing, but that had nothing to do with the user's pointy disruption, which was merely a copy/paste of my edit summary to Kia cee'd. --DeLarge 13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. One of the images[15] that User:Totoz tagged for deletion was in fact uploaded by me. User:DeLarge only added fair use claim. And Totoz's edit summary ""rm non-free image. you can't claim fair use when a free photo is already on the page" is even more appalling, like DeLarge stated above, since a free photo wasnt available on the page. I can't help but to feel that Totoz has something personal against DeLarge (just because DeLarge tagged and removed his images correctly, Totoz started giving deletion tags on all of DeLarge's uploaded images). Calling DeLarge a vandal is just rude. Every fair use claim that DeLarge wrote was done in a correct manner. I'm even thinking about contacting Mitsubishi Motors PR department and asking them to clarify if all press releases (and corresponding pictures) fall into fair use claim. It's a long shot, i know but the whole image uploading on wikipedia is getting harder and harder. I doubt Mitsubishi would file a legal claim against Wikipedia for uploading pictures of 15 year old concept cars. I'm thinking about removing the picture that i uploaded (see above) since it's getting to much controversy. Me and DeLarge are working hard to make Mitsubishi Motors related articles one of the best of all automotive related articles on WP, but having articles without images would make that goal even harder to achieve. --MitsuFreak 14:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted File:Kia Ceed gray front.jpg; obviously replacable fair use. I think this is an attempt at personal harassment against De Large. I've got to go now but I will return tomorrow (well just before midnight UTC) and leave a message on Totoz talk page. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

he is doing it again![16], i'm reverting, appropriate actions should be taken.. will leave it to admins...--MitsuFreak 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

now he has started vandalising my and DeLarge's user page[17][18][19], branding us a sock puppets. If he had the time to check our talk pages and ip numbers he would see thats not the case.--MitsuFreak 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

MitsuFreak and DeLarge are socket puppet. not personal attack. i edit image from DeLarge then, this guy MitsuFreak revert in just 5 sec.(every image) They protect each other and protect same page and images. these are clearly non-free image and he is a socket puppet. this is the point. Totoz 19:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i dont want to deal with him, i left him a message on his talk page (User talk:Totoz), i'm going to work in real life, requesting that his vandalism on my user page be reverted, thank you, cheers--MitsuFreak 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

but, you are socket puppet. open your ip.Totoz 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Well, I guess you did a pretty good job of making my argument for me. Next step is probably WP:ANI... --DeLarge 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, [20] if there's any more trouble report to ANI, I will be offline for the next few hours. The way this is going I would not be surprised if s/he is blocked by the time I get back. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

remove non-free image

i found these non-free image. this image uploaded by user:DeLarge. do you think that these images are free? user:DeLarge is author of these image? these images are clearly authorized and free image? these images are created by user:DeLarge? no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boulay_sup_cabrio.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitsubishi_i_hello_kitty.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hsr-range.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitsubishi_sup_concept.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitsutech_banner.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitsubishi_rpm7000.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitsubishi_suw.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grandis_RISE.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2003_se-ro.jpg

this image maybe copy & paste from other website.(unauthentic source) maybe some motor magazine? (clearly illegal)

if this image is free, then why delete 'File:Kia Ceed gray front.jpg' ? what is different?

i thumbnailed 'File:Kia Ceed gray front.jpg' 200px.(small) and this image is low resolution image.

i upload only 1 image, but this guy user:DeLarge upload so many non-free image.

anyway, One thing is clear, those images are clearly non-free image.

personal attack? is this my intention? no. I JUST TOLD YOU. WHAT IS DIFFRENT WITH 'File:Kia Ceed gray front.jpg'?

WHY THESE IMAGES ARE FREE? Totoz 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

MitsuFreak and DeLarge are socket puppet. not personal attack. i edit image from DeLarge then, this guy MitsuFreak revert in just 5 sec.(every image) They protect each other and protect same page and images.Totoz 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not free, nor am I claiming to be the author. In every case that I'm aware of, the source image on MMC's website is referred to. They're credited to Mitsubishi Motors, and a fair use rationale is claimed for each one, for each individual page on which it appears. They, like File:Kia soul.jpg, are concept vehicles, and therefore difficult to obtain free images for. The exception is File:Mitsutech_banner.jpg, a GNU-licensed derivative of File:Mitsubishi i 1.jpg, which is itself a GNU-licensed photo for which modification is permitted.

The Kia Cee'd, on the other hand, is a publicly available, mass-produced car. If you want a picture of it, you only need to go to your nearest Kia dealer. Criteria one of our fair use rationale is that "no free equivalent is available". This is not some conspiracy against you. It is Wikipedia policy. That's why you're finding multiple editors opposing your actions.

Regards, --DeLarge 19:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, then If you want a picture of it, you only need to go to your nearest mitsubishi dealer. ok? do you think that those images are free? huh? you make a make a contradictory statementTotoz 19:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Concept cars are not displayed in dealers' lots. That's why your image of the Kia Soul was not tagged for deletion, but your image of the Cee'd was. I don't know how many different ways I can explain this. --DeLarge 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

but, YOU upload promotional car images,too.Totoz 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be confusion as to what kind of images can be obtained from a dealership. DeLarge is suggesting that free images can be taken of vehicles on a dealer lot, Totoz in his last post is referring to unfree images taken from brochures acquired at a dealership. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly: Totoz claims that MitsuFreak and DeLarge are socket puppets. I very much doubt this. If you look at MitsuFreak's talk page - you'll see several long and lively conversations between the two. It would be exceedingly unusual for a sockpuppeteer to go to so much trouble. Secondly: There is indeed a HUGE difference between non-free/fair use images and non-free images that cannot be justified under fair use. In the case of concept cars (and especially the ones that were only ever shown as computer imagery), there may well be no possible way to get a free photo and fair use may well apply. In the case of relatively common production cars, there is almost zero case for using a non-free image and such images should generally be removed and replaced with free images. As DeLarge points out - the number one criteria for allowing a non-free image under fair use is that there is no possibility of getting a free image. Hence, Totoz is quite utterly in the wrong on both scores and really ought to apologize to DeLarge. SteveBaker 23:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A tense situation

So I was pondering today whilst editing the Buick Ranier article. What tense should we use when describing vehicles that are no longer in production? I see on cars such as the Chrysler Cirrus that we say "The Chrysler Cirrus was a mid-size 4-door sedan sold in the United States from 1995 to 2000;" But this sounds kind of funny in a sense. I mean it's not like the car died and we had a funeral for it. There are still plenty of examples on the road today. Should we say the Cirrus is a car? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I figured it should be discussed so a conclusion can be reached and standardization across articles can be achieved.--Analogue Kid 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Chrysler Cirrus is a car which was in production from 1995 to 2000", as long as examples still survive. To make a parallel with yourself, I would refer to you in the present tense as long as you remain alive, but your birth or infancy would be referred to in the past tense. The car has not ceased to exist, only its production. Alternatively, you could reconstruct the sentence slightly, e.g. "The Chrysler Cirrus, a mid-size sedan, was produced and sold in the U.S. from 1995 to 2000." --DeLarge 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DeLarge. I prefer this form: "The Buick Rainier is a mid-size SUV that was produced by General Motors". The way I also see it is that as physical examples still exist which are, not were Buick Rainiers, then they are "present tense", and if production has now ceased, then it is "past tense". -- de Facto (talk). 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree too - present tense. These cars still exist. I can't write about something that I drive most weekends in the past tense, it's ridiculous! I might be inclined to shift tenses when discusssing cars that are literally only museum pieces - but for cars that people are still driving, you've go to stick to the present tense. SteveBaker 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I switched an entire article to the past tense because I was told to do so to meet Wiki Standards, which tense are we using? I aggree on present tense. If an automobile is out of production even thirty years there are still enough left to classify it as "is" instead of "was" As discussed, some text will be past tense ie. The 1955 Chevy was available with a 265 V8. This is past tense only because sentence discusses the cars previous avaialibility. They still exist so...Many 1955 Chevy Bel Airs "have" 265 V8s. Articles should be in present tense mainly because in past tense the reader might assume a particular automobile might not exist (at all) when in fact it does, regardless of how many. are left.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Automobile layouts

I noticed this a few months ago and it annoyed me at the time, but I've been neglectful about ever doing anything about it and I should really try and kick-start some debate.

In October 2006, User:Samstayton moved MR layout to RMR layout, saying "The mid-engine design is of two types. Rear-Mid engine RWD/AWD and Front-Mid engine RWD/AWD. To avoid ambiguity new title has been added."[21] He also moved FM layout to FMR layout at the same time, with an identical edit summary.[22]

Without wishing to debate the differences in these layouts in great detail, how much are these article titles original research? The RMR layout page has eight external links in its references section, and I can't see "RMR" or "rear mid engine" in any of them. MR layout, on the other hand, is a term I've heard many times, probably most significantly in the context of the Toyota MR2. About half of all the inbound links to RMR layout seem to come via redirects from MR layout as well. Is there anyone else who's seen the term "RMR layout" used regularly elsewhere, in reliable sources we can cite? Or does a revert of the move and some tidying up (e.g. fixing the {{Automobile layouts}} template) seem like a better alternative? --DeLarge 22:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd like to point out that I have heard of "RMR layout" and I'm not claiming the user just made it up; I just think that the more conventional "MR layout" is far more widespread, and as per WP:COMMONNAME we shouldn't be trying to encourage the adoption of a new, less common term over the more popular incumbent one.

Official state vehicles

Hi, I hope you don't mind, I added the {{WikiProject Automobiles}} template to the discussion page of the article about official state cars. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern Vehicle Lineup/Timelines

Is there anything that dictates the formatting for timelines of the modern vehicle lineups (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Modern_North_American_Toyota_vehicles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Acura, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Modern_North_American_Nissan_vehicles). Some people are adding MY2009 vehicles to that timeline (citing WikiProject:Auto as the reason), yet no MY2009 vehicles have been officially announced. All the 2009 vehlcies on those timelines are based off of speculation, rumours, and/or "insider" statements, as opposed to actual PRs from the companies themselves. Butterfly0fdoom 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people just love to ignore WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. WP guidelines and policies seem to be an optional extra for a lot of project members here... And as far as I'm aware, this WikiProject's never laid down any rules about timelines/templates, so I'm not sure what people would be "citing". Do you have any diffs to clarify as I can't see any? Regards, --DeLarge 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

K. Well, this IP address (69.140.35.242) keeps adding MY2009 to some templates. I've reverted the Toyota template too many times, and I only found out the Nissan and Acura ones are mucked up, among templates (I think the Pontiac one has MY2009 speculated, as well).Butterfly0fdoom 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's not a lot you can do besides reverting, given the infrequency of that IP's edits to templates in general: 5-6 times per month. As for guidelines, this WikiProject doesn't need any -- everything's already covered at WP:CRYSTAL. --DeLarge 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

March R

Can someone who knows about Nissan competition cars have ago at cleaning up the March R article which seems to have been very slightly translated from the Japanese. Alternatively, is it beyond hope. Malcolma 10:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, not this again. It used to be at Nissan March Superturbo R, which I tagged for merging with Nissan March Superturbo in November 2006.[23] This was finally done on May 13 2007 by User:Radagast83.[24] The author of Nissan March Superturbo R then created March R two days later. I'll just merge and redirect all over again. --DeLarge 10:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy 21st To Bull-Doser

Just to let ya know, we Wikipedians like to wish you a happy 21st to the oldest automobile (photographing more than 20 a day) photographer on Wikipedia. -- Bull-Doser 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh? You are wishing yourself a happy birthday?!? SteveBaker 14:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He's just taking the initiative. Happy Birthday. vlad§inger ^tlk 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Bull-Doser! Enigma3542002 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll drink to that, Happy Birthday. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Automotive Photographers

Looks like OSX has jumped in the IFCAR/Bull-Doser fray! Here are the photographers.

United States: IFCAR
Canada: Bull-Doser
Australia: OSX -- Bull-Doser 03:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And I wonder if I have mentioned that I have fallen off the fray. I have been told by local law enforcement that if they see anyone randomly taking pictures, to report them as being a terrorist. I swear that I did not make that up. Karrmann 05:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Was this the shopping mall security guard, or an actual policeman? And neither have the authority to deny you the right to take photographs in a public place, unless it breaks some other law (IE pedophile taking pictures of kids at the beach). IFCAR 10:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Download and print off the following documents which assert your legal right to take photographs in public places. Carry them with you, and present them to any law enforcement officer acting beyond his/her legal authority. Memorize as much of them as you can, specifically the sections in "Permissible subjects" and "How to handle confrontations" in the first link. Be unfailingly polite, but firm and self-confident.

• "The Photographer's Right", a handy single page guide written by Oregon Attorney Bert R Krages.
• "Rights of Journalists on Public Streets", a six page guide written by the National Press Photographers Association. Note that press photographers have no special privileges that ordinary citizens do not. --DeLarge 11:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Great sources.

One of them mentions getting the media involved. While that may sometimes be too extreme, it can definitely work. Locally, a shopping center's anti-photography policy was struck down by the county after a photographer complained to The Washington Post and several articles were written on the subject. IFCAR 11:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Explorer4x4 has entered the fray!! -- Bull-Doser 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ford Taurus peer review

I have just placed Ford Taurus up for peer review. I would really appreciate it if you guys would please give me any info I can use to improve this article. You can leave your thoughts at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ford Taurus/archive3. I will really appreciate it! Karrmann 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19

Per a discussion with 4u1e; we've agreed to put the article on peer review; feel free to comment on possible improvements that could be made here. Thanks. Davnel03 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviews

Seeing as everyone is advertising their car related peer reviews why don't we add a section to the front page that contains them all, just add one when you create a new request? Also please check out Wikipedia:Peer review/Ferrari P4/5/archive1 cause that's also had no replies other than the JS. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1957 chevy 4 dr convertible

67.38.21.216 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)can you tell me if they ever made a 1957 chevy 4 dr convertible we saw one at the dream cruise in detroit michigan aug 2007

Ridiculous Commons categories

I know this isn't technically the right place to put this, but there's probably a better chance people here will know/care:

When articles include a link to the Commons for additional media, they should actually go there. In many cases, they don't. They instead go to a list of subcategories that no one unfamiliar with the subject matter could possibly decipher and choose from. For example, Toyota Corolla and Cadillac Escalade. How many users could know whether they want a photo of a TJ or YK, or a GMT926 or GMT936?

Some are arguably worse, like Honda Civic, which not only separates the cars by generation, but doesn't label them properly. For example, a photo of all Civics from the 2001 to 2005 model years are found in "Honda Civic 2000."

Does anyone disagree that all media for "Cadillac Escalade" belongs simply in "Category:Cadillac Escalade" (and so on) where it is easily accessible and not scattered among incomprehensible chassis codes, or can there be a consensus for making such a change? IFCAR 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely go ahead and change these categories. Model names ought to be used instead of chassis codes. Cadillac Escalade pics ought to be in one Cadillac Escalade category. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to, except that I don't know how. Could someone either do it or explain to me how to do it? IFCAR 00:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm only interested in the Corolla here. Before someone created the subcategories, the Corolla category was becoming overcrowded. When you're looking for images of an 80s Corolla, you don't want to go through lots of images of new Corollas. Anyone interested in Corolla models understands the model codes, and those that don't understand them could either look them up in the Wikipedia article or simply categorize their images in the common category. --Boivie 06:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But someone looking for Corolla images in general won't know where to go. The Commons categories don't link to the Wikipedia articles for model designations.

Maybe for the cars with lots of images, it would make sense to put the images both in a main category (for some users) and the subcategory (for others). But Category:Toyota Corolla should not just be a list of potentially incomprehensible links to subcategories. IFCAR 13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge or Seperate

I wanted to get an idea as to the communities feeling on where to draw the line on individual pages for individual trim levels. I placed a merge tag on EK9 Honda Civic Type R as I feel it would be best to merge it into the Honda Type R page or perhaps a new Honda Civic Type R page. There are some pages for single generation singel trim level vehicles like the AE86, but personally I that that unless the model has a life of it's own like the Sprinter there is no need for pages dedicated to a individual trim level of a single generation. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This trim level page sould be merged to Honda Civic Type R page.--— Typ932^{T | C}  07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That particular page should be merged, as it isn't an encyclopedia article -- it's simply a photo gallery and list of specifications. That's what fansites are for. --DeLarge 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the below VW Golf GTI discussion for my 3 cents on that, as I believe they are relevant. Thanks! PrinceGloria 19:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardtop-related questions

Hi, I don't intend to keep the experts among you from proceeding to contribute more important informations - but there are four questions regarding four-door hardtop styling cars I asked on the Hardtop discussion page some weeks ago. I'd be pleased to receive answers.

Cheers, joeditt 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Category proposed for deletion

FYI, I've proposed Category:Bandini for deletion. Discussion here. DH85868993 10:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to delete it. If someone creates articles for the various Bandini cars it can always be brought back Malcolma 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Volkswagen Golf GTI

Hello all,

A couple of folks have decided on the talk page that the GTI trim of the Volkswagen Golf deserves its own page. The reasoning is that VW sells the GTI as a separate model from the Golf/Rabbit. When I asked on that page what made the GTI unique, I was told that a different transmission and the Launch Control feature made it completely different from the Golf. So the fact that I can get a 6-speed automatic with a Pontiac G6 on the GXP model instead of a 4-speed on the base trim means it's a totally different car then too, right?

The general consensus here has been to keep the style/naming/etc. that is found in the "home country". In Germany, the VW website shows under Ausstattungsvarianten (trim lines) the GTI, R32, and even the Edition 30. Thus, I feel the page should not be moved.--Analogue Kid 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the reasoning is different than Analogue Kid presents it. It doesn't matter the car is called the GTI in the US and not the Golf GTI. The page I support would be Volkswagen Golf GTI and would be in line with the Honda Civic Si and BMW M5 pages. These top of the line sport models take on a life of their own that is different than a single trim level. The GTI has considerable history seperate from the Golf. When I was working at a Honda dealership we treated the Si as a separate model distinct from LX and EX Civics because it shared so few parts, I think the same holds true for the GTI. As for the GXP example, at this point it clearly doesn't warrent a page, but if over time the GXP builds up some history that is distinct from the G6 hey why not make a page. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, given the highly significant effect the Golf GTI had on the marketplace (if it didn't actually invent the "hot hatch" it was certainly the most significant model in that class by an order of magnitude), there's a very strong argument to separate it. Nevertheless, while I'd like to see a nice, referenced article detailing that history and market impact, I think what we're going to end up with -- especially based on what's currently at Volkswagen Golf -- is a U.S.-centric, unreferenced fanboi POV fork concentrating on the latest generations. Sigh...

And it should be at Volkswagen Golf GTI, of course. The argument that it's not a Golf is a load of codswallop. We even have a quote in the VW Golf page from a U.S. VW marketing honcho saying "the [fourth generation] GTI is the sport version of the Golf..." We're supposed to disregard thirty years of history because of a marketing decision in one overseas market for one generation out of five? Especially when that market probably isn't even the GTI's biggest? I think not. --DeLarge 18:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to split an article is when the original article starts too grow unwieldy (like over 40kB) and the creation of "daughter" article(s) would help divide the content into more manageable pieces without creating redundancy or confusion. I don't know about this particular example (didn't have time to look into that), but I remember Golf's article was pretty long, so dividing it into generational sections MIGHT make sense (unless it is long because of numerous meaningless and unencyclopedic stuff dumped there along the way). Each generation had its own GTI, so I think they could be covered by each generational article (and briefly described in the generational summaries in the main article). I believe creating a separate article for the GTI would mostly boost the GTI fan circle ego's rather than bring any tangible encyclopedic benefit. Just my 3 cents before delving deeper into the case and using my knowledge of Golf and the GTI. PrinceGloria 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree more or less. Was have some disparity in car articles right now. Some are broken up into seperate articles by generation i.e Mercedes-Benz E Class while others are broken down into general trim level Honda Civic. I don't think this is a big problem, but it does create some confusion for editors. The Golf page is not broken up in any way at this point and personally I feel that it would be best just to make a GTI page and pull out some of the info from the main page rather then break it into generations. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Its just not confusing editors but readers also, I would prefer splitting by generations more than splitting engine/trim levels, if you are trying to find info specific generation you have to go thru many different pages, the GTI Golf isnt that much different than base Golf so it shares much same info, German Golf article is made that way--— Typ932^{T | C}  20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

When an article gets up over maybe 24k, I'd consider splitting it if there is a fairly natural way to do that. Until then, I'd say no. But this article is up at 64kbytes - it's HUGE, so you should certainly be looking for a way to split it up into more manageable proportions. If the GTI/non-GTI split does that then it's a great idea. You'll need to add a fairly substantial section to the Golf article to say enough about the GTI to avoid people having to read another article if all they wondered was what it was - and you'll need to add some history into the GTI article to say what it was developed from because you'll have lost the context of the original article. But yeah - go ahead and split it. (NOTE: This is not a precedent to split a 10kbyte article about one type of car into one article for one transmission type and another article for another - firstly, the article has to be over maybe 24k to be worth splitting - and secondly you need to make the split in such a way as to avoid minimal duplication of information between the two articles. Also, there is no point in splitting off a couple of paragraphs of a 64kbyte article in order to get a 63kbyte article and a stub. You've gotta find a way that evens things out a little better. You can't always do that though - some articles just have to be that big. SteveBaker 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What is an automobile?

Since motorsport often involves cars, with the exception of bikes, and some obscure sports, there is quite an overlap with WikiProject Automobiles. This presents problems when it comes to article tagging (talk page banners with quality & importance). For example, Lotus Mk1 might be appropriate under WikiProject Automobiles but other cars like Ferrari F2007 would probably not be appropriate. To quote the scope of WP:CARS though, the goal is "to compile articles on all types and classes of automobile, automotive parts and technology." I think we should establish a guideline and try to draw a line as to what types of cars should & shouldn't be counted. Discuss away! James086^{Talk | Email} 12:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The solution is quite simple. WP:CAR should cover any stock autos and their technologies and parts. WP:Motorsports should cover all vehicles used in motorsports, be it cars, trucks, motorcycles, dragsters, or snowmobiles. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To expand on that, if a road-going version of a race car exists (for example, Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR), then I'd put that under Automobiles AND Motorsport. A race-only car (Chrysler Viper GTS-R) should fall under WP:MOTOR (or one of its subsidaries). I also agree that Formula One cars (or any formula cars for that matter) which share no road-car relation should fall strictly under the various motorsports projects. The359 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That's perfect. There may be a few overlaps like Dodge Vipers run at Le Mans, but by and large the two projects will remain seperate. And if there is some overlap, so be it, this won't be the first example of it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no problem with some overlap, it certainly happens a lot with WP:MOTOR due to their being so many smaller subprojects. The359 00:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

359's suggestion sounds sensible. I hope that doesn't mean we won't continue to help each other though? ;-) And we have to remember that all systems of categorisation are wrong. You can't help it, there will always be items that fall into more than one category - the trick is to remember that the categories are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Here endeth the pontification. 4u1e 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before. A race-car is not necessarily an 'Automobile'. A long while back (you'll find it in the archives somewhere) I looked up the word 'automobile' in over a dozen different dictionaries and one common part of most of the definitions was that an automobile is designed PRIMARILY to transport passengers and driver from place to place and has between 2 and 6 seats. A formula one race car is clearly not an automobile under that definition - and indeed we don't include those kinds of cars within our project. Ditto for motorbikes, pickup trucks, mini busses, go-karts, etc. Some cars are dual-use though. Plenty of street cars are used to race - and lots of race-cars eventually become supercar-type street cars in order to meet homolgation rules or whatever. In those cases, the article will be supported both by Project Automobile and other projects...this should come as no surprise - lots of our articles are already supported that way (eg all of the Australian car articles are also supported by Project Australia as well as us). This is generally no problem - the only issue that bothers me is in the realms of article quality assessment. Clearly an article may be rated important to us - but unimportant to the other project(s) or vice versa...no problem with that...but if one project rates it 'Start' grade and the other says it's 'B' or something - then maybe we have a problem because this could be confusing to readers and people like the Wikipedia CD-ROM folks who use those ratings. SteveBaker 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality gradings probably shouldn't differ in practice - as stub is a stub in anyone's language. In practice while there may be some differences we're unlikely ever to be more than one level off, and surely that can be dealt with by discussion between projects? GA and FA are determined elsewhere anyway, so it's only Start, B and A that we could be disagreeing about (and personally I find A is of little use in practice. By the time you've got a GA through a proper assessment all remaining effort might as well be focussed on FA) 4u1e 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ford Taurus FAC

I put the article Ford Taurus up for FAC. You can lend your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus. Karrmann 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I only see the previous discussion. Was a new entry made?--Analogue Kid 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - but it seems to have been rejected with just one comment...the dreaded "I don't like the quality of your prose" thing...which nobody ever knows what to do about. Here is the archived "discussion": Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus/archive4. SteveBaker 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Guilty of being the one who administered the coup de grace, I'm afraid. Some of the prose stuff is very basic - a couple of specific examples were raised at PR and not fixed. That's why I thought the best solution would really be just to get an external copyeditor in to do a thorough job. Try the WP:LoCE if you don't have any other resources to call on, but you'll probably have a wait on your hands and the result may not have the depth required, since structural work is needed as well. I've not got time (yes, that old chesnut) to go through the article in the depth needed. I'm happy to go through a sample section again with Karmann or someone else, to go through specific examples of the general points, if that would be helpful. Drop me a line at my talk page. Cheers. 4u1e 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and listed Ford Taurus at WP:LoCE. With a bit of luck someone will have the time to go through it. Cheers. 4u1e 09:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New categories

I've recently created Category:Racecar constructors. I'd like some advice on whether it should be a subcategory of Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers or Category:Car manufacturers or both. A corollary question: I've also created subcategories for relevant countries, e.g. Category:French racecar constructors - is it appropriate for these categories to be subcategories of the relevant "Motor vehicle manufacturers of <country>" category, e.g. is it appropriate for Category:French racecar constructors to be a subcategory of Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of France? Thanks. DH85868993 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New 1 Series Article?

I think that there should be a new 1 series article for the US version, the current 1 series focuses highly on the European version, any advice, I'm open to suggestions, thanks. Current 1 Series article- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_1_Series Laxplayer630 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why there should be new article?, or how much these versions differs from each other? edit the current version to suit us specced car or make new section to us spec differencies..--— Typ932^{T | C}  20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Automobile articles lacking images

I've created a list at User:Crazytales/desk/Automobile articles needing images. Add to it to fulfill our dream of conquering the world illustrating every car article on Wikipedia! —Crazytales (o rly?) 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We already have Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cars. Malcolma 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, didn't even know about that category. THanks for bringing it to my attention. —Crazytales talk/desk 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at some of the articles in that category (specifically, I went through all of the articles that started with the letter 'D') - quite a few of them do have perfectly good photographs already (I cleaned up the tags on those), some seem to be asking for photographs for every single varient of the car - and whilst that's a laudable goal, I'm not sure it warrants making the article part of the category. What's the plan here? Should this category be used for articles that already have a photo but just need more? I think we almost need a second category - one for articles with no photos whatever and another for articles that have photo(s) already - but which would be more complete if they had the complete set. From the point of view of people who might actively go out and hunt for pictures, the former list might direct our efforts more accurately. Furthermore, there are a lot of those articles that don't have a Wikiproject Automobiles tag on them - we ought to make an effort to try to find and tag articles like that. If we want to comprehensively improve car articles, we first need to find them all! SteveBaker 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia strikes back

The article Citroën DS was, some time ago, subject to a lot of trivia — so after discussion on this project, it was split, and Citroën DS in popular culture was created. The latter has recently been through an AfD, and pretty wholeheartedly deleted. But not before a lot of the content was "merged" back in to the main article, by somebody who was potentially ignorant of the history of it.

I think it's entirely reasonable to simply clean up the main article again, in line with our consensus on trivia (but without recreating the deleted sub-article, of course, since it's been through an AfD.) But personally I don't want to be the one to do it a second time, in case it's seen as a personal matter. Anybody else like to take a couple of minutes to do it? – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Same goes to Saab (automobile), its full of .hit--— Typ932^{T | C}  21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to remove the trivia list from the DS page but was reverted, it looks like consensus is not that strong. We should probably make a case on the DS talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the consensus is broken yet — what we have is more like some people who are surprised at a big deletion, and sure, perhaps they disagree, but the majority seemed perfectly happy the first time the section was removed. – Kieran T ^(talk) 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The trivia at Saab Automobile loks more like bits of information, not actual trivia. It should be worked into the article(s) instead of being in a list. // Liftarn

Another Peer Review

Yes, I've submitted another and I was hoping to get some feedback. People here know more about car articles than your average editor so I hope someone has time to take a look. The article is Koenigsegg CCX and the peer review is here. Thanks, James086^{Talk | Email} 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Car Picture Hoaxer

Well, looks like Lotus L-12 has stolen car pictures from the Internet and uploaded it to his Wikimedia Commons account. Is it okay if we block him? -- Bull-Doser 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue needs to be raised at the Commons. Get links to the original photos, and then have them deleted from the Commons as demonstrable copyvios. Also, please consider posting at User talk:Lotus L-12; it's not considered polite to have such discussions without alerting the user in question. --DeLarge 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming standards

We've got a disagreement over naming at Talk:Mazda Axela. This car is called the "Mazda 3" in markets worldwide, and is called "Mazda Axela" in Japan. Some of us want to use the most common worldwide name for this car, some want to use the Japanese name. It's been asserted that there's a standard to use the home market name, but I've not been told where to read about this standard. Generally, we use the most common name, when in doubt. Anyone have thoughts on this? Please join us on the talk page. Friday (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the standard is documented properly, and it should be. Basically, the logic is that we should try to have a consistent standard throughout the Autos WikiProject. Using the "common name" might work occasionally, in the vast majority of cases it's very difficult to figure out what the most common name is. Nissan is probably the most confusing example; Sentra, Sunny, or Pulsar? March or Micra? 240SX, 180SX, 200SX, or Silvia? (And I defy any passing reader to make sense of the godawful spread of info we have across those pages.) Others I can think of offhand would be VW Golf or Rabbit, and many vehicles by Mitsubishi; what's the "most common" version of the Pajero/Shogun/Montero? Or the Challenger/Shogun Sport/Montero Sport/Nativa?

So how do we quantify the "most common" name? Sales? And if so, is it annual or cumulative? What if one market, e.g. the U.S., dominates annual sales, but it's only sold there for a short period, while it's sold elsewhere for many years? Do we go by the number of markets a name is used in? If so, how significant should those markets be?

The "home market name" is a rule adopted out of pragmatism. It gives us consistency across multiple articles, works in every occasion (every car has a home market somewhere), avoids accusations of systemic bias, and sidesteps potential conflict when there's room for dispute. And as long as articles are written properly, with inbound redirects for all alternate names, and all those names highlighted in bold and mentioned in the opening section, there should be no confusion for the reader. --DeLarge 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a one-size-fits-all standard is problematic. In this particular case, it's quite obvious what the common name is- the name is the same worldwide except in just one country. The entire English-speaking world (and almost all the rest of them, too) agrees what the name is. And this is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Friday and DeLarge for doing a huge chunk of what I was supposed to do. May I suggest making this more prominent by submitting for WP:NAME? We also really NEED to revive the Standards & Guidelines page and display it prominently in the front page. PrinceGloria 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. Friday - "obvious" is hard to measure in objective terms. Besides, the names of cars are determined by manufacturers, not "the world".

No- that's like saying the name of a person is determined by the parents. Yes, people have an official birth name, but if they are better known by some other name, that is the name we use at Wikipedia. Cary Grant, for example. Friday (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cars and artists are two different things. Which is why we have separate standards for them. You are being demagogic here, even if you might not realize it. PrinceGloria 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting we follow the closest thing to a standard that we have in this case. Friday (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to mention it, since PrinceGloria seems determined to edit-war over this sort of thing, but a very similar example is found at Mazda_6. This car is called by the worldwide name rather than the Japan-only name. Both are mentioned, of course. Friday (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This was changed from "Mazda Atenza" sometime ago, I presumed on the same occassion as in the Axela's case. PrinceGloria 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more important that we don't engage in pointless revert wars and debates than it is to get choose one name over another in the title of the article. Clearly (a) There must be redirects from all the names of the car to the article and (b) There should be a list of all the names it goes under clearly presented at the top of the article - preferably in the very first sentence. Beyond that, I don't think it matters which name appears in big letters at the top of the page. Just pick one for chrissakes - then get on with getting the remainder of the article up to standard. If we have a guideline already then that's a simple way to end the debate - let's just do what it says and stop wasting valuable editing time. SteveBaker 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I noticed this issue was that people occasionally comment on the talk page "What is an Axela? It's called a Mazda3 in every part of the world except one." I agree it's a small issue, but if one name is even slightly preferable to another, that's what we should use. Friday (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

People put all sorts of comments on talk pages - but so long as you have it clearly spelled out in the very first paragraph of the introduction, they really don't have much to complain about. I'm really not concerned about people who read the title of the article - don't read even one paragraph further and immediately go to the discussion page to complain. Truly - such people are not worthy of further consideration. Now, on the other hand: if the question "What is an Axela?" and the question "What is a Mazda-3?" aren't answered clearly within the first paragraph (or better, the first sentence) of the article - then we have a major problem that should be fixed (irrespective of which name you gave the article). But continual edit warring and endless debate is pointless. It's not going to improve the encyclopedia measurably - and it'll certainly take valuable time away from editors who could and should be making more productive use of their skills and knowledge. You say that name-A is slightly preferable to name-B, someone else thinks not. So - no - I don't think one name is preferable to another...at least not if it's going to cause any kind of protracted debate. Everyone concerned should just shut the heck up and follow the guidelines. That's why we have them. SteveBaker 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The home market name standard makes sense. It is difficult to convince Americans sometimes that they are not the only country in the world that matters, and that's probably the root cause here. If it's a Mazda Axela in Japan, then that's what the page should be. It's true that if the article is well written, it should make note within the first few sentences about it's other handles.--Analogue Kid 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why try to make this be about nationalism? That's just silly- one could just as easily argue that Japanese nationalists are insisting on "their" name. This is about writing for a worldwide audience. The car is known by the same name in the entire world except one country. Friday (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Look - the very first paragraph in the article says: The Mazda Axela is a compact car manufactured by the Mazda Motor Corporation in Japan. Outside of its home market, it is marketed as the Mazda 3 (spelled "Mazda3" in North American marketing). - that's good enough. We have to have a means to end these debates - in this case you might be right, in other cases you might be wrong. But you are going to have this debate FOREVER unless someone gives up. There is no way either side is going to back down - there is no absolute golden Wiki-rule to follow - how can this debate possibly come to an end unless you accept that we have ProjectAutomobiles guidelines for precisely these reasons? What other outcome do you seriously expect to have? Do you think that your opponent will suddenly say "Oh! I'm sorry, I see your point now, you were right all along." ??? No - that's not going to happen. So what's your fallback plan? Keep reverting until someone gets banned from Wikipedia for disruptive editing? So the two sides have to put away their axes and cudgels and look at the guidelines. If the guidelines say "country of origin" - then that's that...the great oracle has spoken - and like all great oracles, it's not always 100% correct - but at least it's authoritative. Yeah - if I had my choice, I'd call it "Mazda 3" too - but in the event of massive disagreement, I'd agree that we have to come up with some way to end it. So give it up and get on with making the article as great as it possibly can be. Live to fight another day. SteveBaker 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an axe, and I haven't been edit warring. I was trying to make the strongest case I could for using the worldwide name for cars which have a worldwide name. If people don't agree, I suppose it's not big deal. The closest guideline I can find to apply is that we call things by their most commonly used name. That's what I'm advocating here. Friday (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to thank Friday (talk) for pursuing this request... I would still like to hear from someone as to where this standard is posted for users to read (naming standard which refers to home market) and also what type of provisions are in this standard for cases such as this where all markets except 1 (which happens to be the home market) use a common name - but then we are forced to use the home market name because of a standard which has not yet been provided in this thread... Chris1069 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Proposed_naming_convention#Home_market_name_or_most_common_name.3F. But, that page seems to hardly get any attention, so I dunno if it will be noticed there. It may be a small issue, but I still believe one answer is better than the other, and we should use the best answer we can come up with. Friday (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Argument for argument's sake is sometimes pointless, but I now profess to make a point about a pointless argument. (If that wasn't clear, don't worry - I don't quite understand it either.) So, what's the most common title for Mazda's well-known little roadster? In Japan, they call it the "Roadster" (or, alternatively, "Eunos Roadster"). In Europe and much of the rest of the world, it's called the "MX-5". And in North America, it's the "MX-5 Miata" (at least until recently). So what's the supposed "most common" name, then? Wikipedia has a redirect function for a reason - therefore, it wouldn't hurt to be consistent with the standard and simply redirect as necessary. God forbid anyone actually learn something new - "you mean they don't call my car a Miata in Japan? Wow..."Duncan1800 02:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan1800 (talk • contribs)

Opel Sintra repeatedly vandalized

I guess not many people have the oddball U-body on their watchlists, so you might have not noticed my struggle with a persistent vandal infusing the article with his or her "wisdom". If somebody could please start an apropriate procedure againts that, I would be most grateful (I am not sure what should be done + don't have much time). Thanks! PrinceGloria 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP? However, as it's a single IP I reckon it'll be declined as a content dispute (see WP:PROT).

I've reverted the latest changes ro restore the ELs and converted them to inline citatons, but to be honest neither version is entirely NPOV. Also, there's statements in virtually every paragraph which I'd say need cited for support. Even if it was as bad as the review claimed, I'd like too see a lot more such statements cited, to give greater credence; without further corroboration, a pro-Sintra editor could claim that the survey reported by Yahoo was a one-off. --DeLarge 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not vandalism - it's a content dispute - so you aren't going to get anyone banned or blocked or have the page protected - not gonna happen. You have to find references to back up your position and quote them in the article - then you can demand similar references from the other person and if you're right and they are wrong then they won't find any. Failing that you have to fall back on "some people say ... and other people say ..." kinds of compromise. But I don't think it's fair to say that a car is terrible without finding some pretty solid references - otherwise it's just your opinion and we already know for 100% certainty that not everyone holds that opinion. So you need references. What did reputable magazine reviewers say about the car? What did the insurance industry say about safety, reliability? Was there a survey into "initial customer satisfaction" - a JD Powers kind of thing? Did the car sell in huge quantities or was it an utter flop...there should be sales figures somewhere. Facts please! SteveBaker 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In User:PrinceGloria's defence...

• The latest edits to the page were mere reversions. While doing so, the IP managed to remove the only cited content in the page, and also removed all the categories and interwiki links as well.
• I'm not exactly sure what we're supposed to do with this, but witness the identical additions to Talk:Pontiac Trans Sport, Talk:Oldsmobile Silhouette, Talk:Buick Terraza, Talk:Opel Sintra, and Talk:Pontiac Montana. Copy/pasted OR of some description. Intended for the article mainspace?

I posted welcome templates at the IP's talk page saying "hello", "can you sign your comments", and "please don't delete talk page contents while making your own additions", but since the user seems to be on a dynamic IP (see User:217.234.11.205 and User:217.234.61.142), communication will probably have to be done through article talk pages. --DeLarge 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't mistake what I'm saying - both DeLarge and PrinceGloria have acted correctly throughout difficult dealings with a pain-in-the-ass IP editor. Never a good thing. But WP:VANDAL defines vandalism as: ...any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.. I don't believe that this PITA editor is deliberately trying to screw up the integrity of WP. This person merely has a strong opinion and is trying to get it across. It's bad, it's a pain, it might even be editing abuse - but it's not vandalism. To quote further from WP:VANDAL: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. This person did indeed delete all sorts of things that shouldn't have been deleted - but perhaps this person is a clueless newbie? Maybe the deletion of references and talk entries are accidents. We're supposed to WP:AGF - and that's more than possible for an IP user who's prior editing history we can't trace. So by all means let's consider what to do here - but calling the person a vandal isn't helping - and it won't get them blocked or the page locked out. Right now, it's only the reputations of DeLarge and PrinceGloria that give me any clue as to who is right and who is wrong here. Looking at the edit history, I see someone saying that the car is junk (without much evidence) and someone else deleting that and putting other things in instead (also without evidence)...plus some newbie editing errors. If I didn't know you guys of old, I wouldn't know which side to take. SteveBaker 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I agree with you on that. The V-word is overused on WP these days, and this isn't an example of it. Otherwise I'd have posted a vandalism template at User talk:217.234.11.205 --DeLarge 23:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit to a Westlife moment and taking an easy way out, as there is no good word for "no vandalism but quite like it" in popular use here, but removing a legitimate source that would counter the inserted POV comments would constitute "compromising the integrity of Wikipedia" to me. PrinceGloria 09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Had another look at the page, and the... "misguided" edits are continuing. I restored the version of the main article to the one with cited content, and left a message on the talk page warning the user not to remove content where it's cited. Just a matter of being patient until he gets bored? I guess I'll watchlist the page as well. --DeLarge 11:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

image fair use

File:1981 wagon.jpg has been tagged for deletion. I suspect all three images on Chrysler Town and Country (pre-1990) have the same problem, as they are replacable and the article doesnt cover the cars in the images in great detail. Anyone want to replace the images or expand the article sufficiently to bolster the fair-use claimed. John Vandenberg 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And another : File:79_LeBaron_Salon.jpg John Vandenberg 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the images, that's a poor page and ought to just be deleted outright. It covers the period from 1951-1977 in one giant swath, then gets the years wrong for the mid-size T&C. Above all of that mess, though, is the fact that T&C models of this era are better covered under other headings under Chrysler (Newport, LeBaron, etc.) than with a whole other page.--Duncan1800 02:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Got an idea from another WikiProject

As I am becoming sick and tired of removing and telling users off for posting links to forums and pop culture crap and looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms page which they have a guideline on top of the page, one of it is banning pop culture references unless it is very highly notable. Can't we have a similar guideline one for people to refer to when these are removed, what do you think. Willirennen 12:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided (esp. no.4) and WP:NOT#LINK for the external links, WP:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE for trivia/pop culture. That last one's only an essay, but from the recent AfDs of literally hundreds of "...in popular culture" articles, it has wide acceptance. It's always better to go straight for the core WP policies and guidelines first, since any unilateral WikiProject rule which explicitly contradicts them is instantly invalidated. No need to create special rules for ourselves when there's general rules already out there which serve the same purpose.

Ooooh, that reminds me, I was going to draft up a WP:NAME-compliant guideline for WP:CARS. --DeLarge 12:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Classic vehicles

This has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 11#Category:Classic vehicles. I only noticed this by chance. You may want to contribute to the debate. --DeLarge 17:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, you probably only have a day or two to vote, since it was going on for four days before I noticed it. --DeLarge 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's heading for a delete - I agree with the rationale and added a Delete of my own. SteveBaker 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted...and rightly so IMHO. SteveBaker 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler 180 at GAC

Dear all,

There was considerable work done on the Chrysler 180 article, but I never had the time to finish the section on the Chrysler Centura (Australian version). Today, I've been bold and moved the content somebody else inserted into the article on the Centura to a separate article to be able to nominate the remainder as a Good Article Candidate. I am telling you that because:

1. Perhaps somebody within the project might be a keen Good Article reviewer and would like to review the article.
2. I would appreciate any comments even if they are not in the formal GAC review (though I encourage you to join the Good Article Reviewers cohort)
3. The newly-formed Chrysler Centura article needs desperate help (we can use the same soruces as for the Chrysler 180, though I believe there are bound to be more on the Centura itself).
4. I would also like to know your opinion on whether the article should be kept separate, remerged or else...

Thanks, PrinceGloria 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to artificially split an article just because you want to put it through GAC. GAC is there to measure article quality - not to drive the structure of the encyclopedia. It may be unfortunate that a merge of the Centura article sets back work on getting the 180 article through GAC - but that's just unfortunate - it shouldn't prevent the merge if that merge would ordinarily be logical. Arguably (if the articles should logically be merged) someone should reasonably oppose GAC acceptance on the grounds that the Centura is not adequately covered by it. I understand that this could be frustrating - but c'est la vie. Please note however: I cannot comment on whether the Centura article SHOULD be merged with the 180 stuff - I just point out that IF it should THEN GAC should not hold up that merge. (Not only that - but if you pass GAC, THEN merge all of that poorly edited stuff in, there would be a good case for removing GA status from the article - so you'd have to go back around the loop again anyway). SteveBaker 17:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear - it was my understanding that either way it made sense, i.e. both a unified article or two separate ones, on the grounds that they DO work as separate articles without overt repetition, but OTOH they deal with what CAN be described as a single entity. That said, at least with present structuring, the part on the Century would be pretty much separate from the rest of the article, so I was leaning more towards the split. I did it, and thus made the remaining article eligible for GAC, but I am still seeking opinions on whether the split made sense or not, regardless of GAC consideration. PrinceGloria 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I could also use some help developing both articles, as indicated above...

Model vs. Calendar Years

This discussion has surfaced here. Can there be a discussion here to settle it? IFCAR 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This seems like a no-brainer to me. Cars have, in any case I know of, a model year. Sure, we could mention when it first came on the market if we wanted, but the manufacturers call it by model year, automotive writers call it by model year.. why would we do something different? Friday (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I agree. Certainly for anything made in the last 20 years, the model year would be the appropriate thing to talk about when you are taking about changes in the design and such like. Obviously you need to use the actual date where appropriate for date of introduction into some particular market or some other historical detail. But if you did want to talk about the actual year then you'd need to specify the month and day too - possibly even the VIN number if you are talking about cars shipped all around the world. For cars more than (say) 50 years old, the concept of model year wasn't so deeply ingrained and we should probably take it case-by-case for older vehicles. SteveBaker 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What Americans seem to have a problem grasping is that cars don't have a model year outside North America. If a Peugeot 407 built in 2006 is identical to a Peugeot 407 built in 2007, Peugeot doesn't refer to them as if they're different models. In addition, months and years of introduction are different from market to market. On occasions, a body style of the previous generation is sold alongside a body style of a new generation. On other occasions, the previous generation is sold alongside the new generation as a budget model. And, finally, some cars will remain in production in third world countries years after disappearing from their original market. Now, tell me why we should use a North American marketing concept instead of a verifiable date of industrialization? --Pc13 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this really true? I just checked BMW's web site, in the original Deutsch, and there were references to model years there. Certainly for cars that don't have a well-defined model year, we shouldn't pretend that they do, but this seems like an issue only with certain cars. Definitely we should remember to write for a worldwide audience, not a North American one, but how much of a problem is this really? Friday (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't to me - there are always, after all, announcements for commercial release and/or production dates. But I'd sure like to know why it is for the dozens of changes I've had to revert this year in Audi A4 because people have some urge to say the B7 Audi A4 started as a "2006 model" when production started in October 2004. And yes, Friday, when it was an anonymous IP, it was an American one, to address your concerns about my own bias. As for www.bmw.de, there have been three simultaneous releases of restyled vehicles with new engine options, but those changes are clearly labelled as "from September 2007", so no need to use any "model year", when there is a clear release date. Three others were restyled or redesigned earlier in the year (the 1 Series from February through May, for instance), and that would have been enough for a '08 tag in the American market, but not in Germany. As for the Mercedes-Benz C-Class in particular, MB USA is selling those as "2008" because they debuted in North America eight months after we've had them in Europe. And all C-Class sedans sold in America as "2007 models" were, in fact, produced in 2006. No W203 sedan was assembled in 2007. --Pc13 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The infobox template usage tells > production: year range when the car was produced, so this clearly should be the production time, not model years. You can call it whatever you want in the main text, but the only need of calling it by model years if the car has got facelift or some bigger difference to previous years, but I dont see it necessary as the main text should have facelift info with differencies and year when it happened in main text.--— Typ932^{T | C}  19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, we do need to put down conventions in an explicit and highly visible way. I am under the impression that the convention to use calendar years (in infoboxes ONLY and in article bodies PRIMARILY) is still standing. PrinceGloria 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, blame the idiot Americans as usual.

It was suggested earlier, and unfortunately it fell by the wayside and I never managed to take it further: The model year article is very sparse and only refers to American and Australian identification practices. Expanding this article to include all systems (maybe renaming?) and then linking the "production" field in the infobox to it would be the best compromise.

As I have pointed out before (and been largely ignored, I'm sure) it isn't always possible to find the actual date of production start or end, and if a date does come up, can it be cited? This is one of the reasons why I'm opposed to using calendar years for North American car production. Besides, of course, the fact that model year production has been the North American standard for a long time, and attempting to guess if production of a model actually started in that model year or the year before. Using calendar years could confuse the typical Wikipedia reader.

Yes, yes, "ignorant jackass American who thinks it's the only nation in the world." --Sable232 03:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem keeps arising - Model years are basically only used in the US. This whole argument started in the Mercedes-Benz C-Class article. The C-Class model W-204 is produced in Germany and South Africa, neither of which are in North America. Production and sales started in early 2007. Why then do people insist on referring to it in the text as "2008 - present"? I mean that's not even temporally possible! Paul Fisher 12:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Auto Index [25] lists production dates in calendar years for almost all model manufactured around the world over the last decade or more, with some previous models too. It is not THAT hard to find that data. PrinceGloria 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One obvious flaw in calendar years is that there can be two generations of car produced in the same calendar year. What is a CY-2007 C-Class, a W203 or a W204? Model years solve the problem. IFCAR 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, treating two cars available in the market in the same year as if they're from different years is confusing and misleading. Two (or three) bodies of two distinct but concurrent generations is standard procedure in Europe, calendar year can easily be applied to ongoing production of body variants. And budget variants can continue for several years. See the Renault Clio for an example, even though the Clio Mk.III has been on sale since 2005, the Clio Mk.II remains in production. Model years also fail to address regional variations, such as the fact the Opel Corsa B and C (Mk.II and III) are still built in South America, when the Corsa D (Mk.IV) is now sold in Europe. --Pc13 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wading in late to the discussion... this is a regional variation, and I reckon should be treated the same as imperial/metric dimensions, i.e. for primarily U.S. market vehicles, use the model year. However, what I'd personally prefer is for "MY" to be explicitly specified, so that non-Americans reading an article about an American car can understand that the article is following the regional marketing standard. When we use inches instead of millimetres, it at least says "in" after the given dimensions, even though there's little room for ambiguity. Yet with something as interchangeable and easily confused as (CY)2007 and (MY)2008, we make no mention of which standard is used? --DeLarge 13:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, we should limit and standardize the data presented in infoboxes - therefore, I am for presenting calendar years ONLY when referring to production dates in infoboxes, with indication in the body of the article what the "model years" were (e.g. "The Diggiloo Diggiley was launched in the United States in 2007, as a 12008 model"). While we are at that, I believe our infoboxes are becoming a dumping ground for all kind of "important" stuff people dump there. I think we should make it very strict and clear what goes in there. My pet peeves that I would like to see go to:

1. All kinds of "comments", like stating which names is for which market/period, breaking down production dates into markets/versions of the car etc.
2. Entire engine specs in infobox
3. Info pertaining to different generations in main infobox, like - if the car had different classification during its lifetime, it is all listed in the main infobox rather than generational infoboxes like it should. The main infobox is only for the info pertaining to ALL generations.

I know I should be bold and do it, but maybe somebody would take care of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Standards so that we could start using them! PrinceGloria 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here to talk about this very thing (among others). I have found the phrase model year confusing. The usage I have seen doesn't even link to the article which attempts to explain it. I understand the principle, and for American and Australian cars the phrase model year could be used in the main body of the article (with the words model year wikilinked). Though in the lead section and the info box the year of production, the year of release and the year the car was discontinued should for the sake of common sense and clarity refer to the actual calender year. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest to American readers, the trend in the UK has been for cars to mainly sell by the year of registration. Since 1963 British license plates showed the year the car was registered, and from 1967 the month of registration was August - leading to the bulk of car sales taking place in August. A significant change took place in 2001 - from that date cars had two license plate changes every year - one in March which gives the last two digits of the year (01 onwards), and one in September which gives the last digit of the year proceeded by a decade number started at 5 for the 00s, so September 2001 was 51. This will take us up to the year 2050. The year of registration is the year the car was sold, not produced. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DeLarge, use "Production | MY 1986-2005" where necessary and use "CY 1975-1991" where necessary.

I also agree with PrinceGloria regarding the excess of stuff in the infobox, it has long annoyed my to see "2.5L 120hp 100 ft-lb I4" instead of "2.5 L Iron Duke I4". --Sable232 02:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, MY does not refer to "production", but rather "marketing", so I'd keep model years out of the infobox... PrinceGloria 07:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That just creates another problem; if calendar years are put into place across the board there will be rampant unverifiable OR, at least in the realm of North American cars (especially those from long ago, where the information probably doesn't exist in the first place). --Sable232 01:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is that much of a problem, ESPECIALLY with American cars, unless you are referring to some very early models (when the concept of model years wasn't that well developed anyway). If there is no source confirming production dates at hand, we should of course use model years, perhaps with a note indicating those are model years, and search for a source containing production dates. There are enthusiast clubs for almost every North American vehicle (or at least ones made in the US and Canada), and they can be very helpful here. Please name the vehicle you have the problems with, perhaps people here, including myself, can help you. PrinceGloria 07:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Add SMART to category "City cars"?

Would the Mercedes SMART match to the category "City cars"?

Official SMART website

There are two main model families (fortwo and forfour) with several variants (e.g. coupé and cabrio) available.

-- Mario R. 213.169.107.61 08:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The ForTwo and the original SmartCar: no - definitely not. Our article on City cars defines the term as: small, moderately powered automobile intended for use in urban areas. It is more substantial and faster than a neighborhood electric vehicle ("NEV") and has four seats, unlike microcars which are two-seaters; they are typically between 3400 mm and 3600 mm long. These cars have been sold in Europe since the 1960s, and now are an official car classification. The original smart and the FourTwo are both considerably shorter than 3400mm - so that makes them MicroCars.

The ForFour is a four seater - which might make it a city car or maybe even a supermini...it's debatable. I can't find anywhere where it's length is listed - but it's based on the Colt chassis and that's 3800mm or more - so probably we're talking supermini. SteveBaker 18:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Current best-seller superminis like the Punto, Fiesta, Corsa, 207, Clio, Ibiza, Fabia and Polo are around 3,90 metres long. The ForFour isn't that big (3,75 metres), more or less like the current Micra, 1007, Agila, Swift and Yaris. Since these intermediate models (words like "AB segment" have been heard) have about the same equipment, engines and price than "regular" superminis, these are usually classified as superminis rather than city cars. Of course, the ForTwo is the most well-known example of microcar. -- NaBUru38 19:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PSA Peugeot Citroën

What is the PSA company structure, now Peugeot SA (is there Peugeot SA company?) has same revenue as PSA Peugeot Citroën, are Peugeot and Citroën just PSA brands or are they independet companies as listed public in infobox?--— Typ932^{T | C}  08:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't have. While the Peugeot family runs the PSA Group, Automobiles Peugeot is, like Citroën, a brand from the PSA Peugeot Citroën Group. --Pc13 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Peugeot Concours Design

New article I have created from Requested articles, would appreciate it if someone could look over it, rate it etc. --carelesshx _talk 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions

I've noticed more and more infoboxes being cluttered with various dimensions fractions of an inch in difference. Does it matter that a restyle made a car .1 inches longer? I think we need to come up with a standard for picking just one measurement when it's that close, or even eliminate the decimals altogether. IFCAR 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm for eliminating decimals. I'm also for making all units of measure metric (with english in brackets) unless the car is sold only in the USA.--Analogue Kid 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that all of these dimensions are even correct (and I don't need to say who's been adding them). I found one instance where it was claimed that the Cadillac D-body shrunk by .1 inch in '80 than grew back in '85. That has been changed, obviously.

Another thing that is extremely obnoxious (but I let go because I didn't need to deal with an edit war) is where a truck article will have a massive column of dimensions with absolutely no context saying what they're for. There has to be a better way of showing those (or leaving most of them out; as a matter of fact I wouldn't mind removing them right now). --Sable232 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It annoys me as well, because it's one of the things which enlarges the infobox out of all proportion to the article In WP:CARS there's too much dedication to producing tables and infoboxes as a replacement for encyclopedic articles. The infobox should really only be there to support the main text as a summary.

My solution (e.g. at Mitsubishi Chariot) has been to simply include the range of dimensions, from minimum to maximum. Shrinks it a little bit, at least, even if it's not ideal. I think that's also possible with other infobox parameters, for example where there's a very wide range of engines. If we don't feel it's worthy of mention in the main text, then there's no need for a comprehensive list in the infobox. And if there is a comprehensive list/table in the main text, then reproducing it faithfully in the infobox is redundant. We just need to cover the min/max dimensions.

We don't need decimals where we measure in millimetres, but then I think by and large that's how we operae anyway. I'd be reluctant to remove decimal places if the measurement's in inches, since that'd be too approximate, and not following the spirit of WP:RS; where cars give their dimensions in inches, reliable sources tend to quote to the nearest tenth of an inch, and we should be merely reproducing that info.

As for using metric unless the car's primary market is the U.S., that's already a WP:CARS and WP-wide standard (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Units and WP:UNITS), so that's not an issue, or shouldn't be. --DeLarge 13:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Was" V "is"

I have noticed that a number of articles on discontinued cars start like this: "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) was a compact executive car". Because the car still exists it can't be a "was" and should be an "is". Because all the car articles state the years a car was in production, there is no need to differentiate between "was" and "is" regarding the actual existence of the car - the car "is", but it "was" produced during certain years. So, "The second-generation Saab 900 (also referred to as the GM900 or NG900 among enthusiasts) is a compact executive car, which was produced from 1993 until 1998." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#A tense situation above, previously discussed in early August (which corroborates you). --DeLarge 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get around to updating the articles.

Should I also update the model years to calender years while I'm at it, as it appears from the above discussion that consensus shifted to calender year at 6 to 3? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Make it seven to three now! OSX (talk • contributions) 10:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While we are at it - could we put all agreed upon compromises @ [[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Standards]] for further reference? Can everybody please take a look whether anything that is already there would require further discussion. PrinceGloria 11:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Headings and whitespace

I discovered that the Honda Civic article makes use of <br clear="all" /> to make the infoboxes line up with headings, and stop the infoboxes from crossing into other sections. Should this be used on every article, and if not then when should it be used? For example, should it be used on Honda Prelude, and would it create too much whitespace on Nissan 240SX?

In addition, the {{TOCleft}} template was used on Mazda MX-5 to force the Overview section up. Should this be done on other articles that have a non-generation specific section, such as Toyota MR2?

There is also the issue of a standard heading format for articles. For example, all of the following articles have different standards, despite being consistent within themselves: Toyota Corolla, Toyota Celica, Mazda MX-5, Toyota MR2, Nissan 240SX, Honda Prelude. The last one is especially confusing. Is there a universal standard? --Leedeth 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This goes well beyond car-based articles and we should be careful not to re-invent the wheel when discussing guidelines — see the Manual of style for other discussions.

But for what it's worth I personally think lining up the infoboxes with the sections is hugely helpful in making articles understandable.

The only real problem comes when unexperienced editors move the code around or add sections in the middle of things.

The same applies for the various contents template controls such as the one you mention, and particularly to the HTML fixing template (Template:FixHTML) which can be used to keep control of right-aligned thumbnails in the midst of infoboxes, and the way they cause [edit] links to bunch together. Unfortunately the HTML fixing template entries need to be placed alongside each element, and novice editors simply don't know about them. – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't tell me what format to use for car generation headings though. From what I've seen the most widely used is this: "First generation (1973-1979)", but some of them also include the chassis number. I'm not sure what should be included. --Leedeth 02:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense to use the minimum amount of information that's necessary to make the distinction between general production series, allowing for the inevitable exceptions and anomalies such as individual vehicles built for pre-production testing — so, commonly the years. I say that because giving all the information (including, say, chassis numbers), all the time, would be an impossible rule to enforce, since sometimes the data just won't be available. So those two requirements being mutually exclusive, there isn't a single hard and fast rule. – Kieran T ^(talk) 02:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another instance where we need a WikiProject standard. Unfortunately, different systems are used for different regions. Europe uses the "Mark," North America uses the "generation," while Australia uses a two-letter code for each revision and from what I've seen there will be a few of these per generation.

My $0.02 and/or £0.02: I think it should be something like "Mark II [EU]/Second generation [NA] (1992-1995)". Look at Holden Commodore for what I think would be the best way to format Australian car articles. --Sable232 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I hadn't twigged that part of the problem was which word to use. As a European editor, I don't think "Mark" is something people will be too concerned about defending (it often gets mangled to hideous variations like Mk3 and MK.IV anyway.) Seems to me that "second generation" is universally understandable and gives us a standard whilst avoiding the manufacturer's own use of "mark" or "series" which can go in the text rather than the heading, avoiding possible confusion when the official name didn't match the changed vehicle being described (e.g. "Jaguar E-Type Mark 1½"!) – Kieran T ^(talk) 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not a big fan of "second generation" and the like - they can get very ambigious, for example, UK editors tend to refer to the original Ford Mondeo's 1996 facelifting as a new generation, and as a result, so Britons can buy their Mk4 or gen4 Mondeos now, while continental Europeans are still stuck with gen3s ;) I would prefer the use of unambigious manufacturer designations, be it platform/chassis names/codes (works for most Asian and Australian cars) or some other stuff (Opel uses A/B/C/D etc., VW goes B5/B6/B7 etc., some other manufacturers have internal development/product codes). Manufacturers' technical naming should be preferred, if not required, to eliminate ambiguity and conflicts (as in case of the Honda Civic article sometime ago). PrinceGloria 07:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but don't the manufacturers sometimes use different naming systems in different markets? Particularly if the model wasn't available in all markets. Would we always go for the series with the most versions (so the most inclusive numbering), or the one from the "home" market? (Increasingly hard to establish which one that is these days...) An example (a weak one but you'll get the idea) would be the Ford Transit, which was a model name in Germany long before it was in the UK, thus introducing a "Mark 0" as far as the UK would be concerned. – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, chassis or development codes are preferred - they are unambigious with regard to that, unlike marks and generations (which automakers rarely use in a consistent way, if at all). For example, the latest Corolla's chassis code is EA140 (IIRC), which is unambigious regardless of the market and how many "generations" preceded it, it is also a common denominator for all Corolla, Aurii, Blades etc. accross the globe. PrinceGloria 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the right thing to go for, but I'm worried it'll be very hard to apply retrospectively. Don't suppose you know of a definitive single source anywhere (like a very geeky book) that has them for historical generations? There are plenty of obscure vehicles for which finding such codes will require quite a bit of work. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) If there are sources for a given vehicle, you can usually find something about an internal designation. I believe the Tagora is one of the more obscure cars around, and I've found something about it somehow (it was called C9 in development stage). That said, it came in only one "generation", as do many obscure cars, so that's not a big problem, IMHO... We can deal with problematic cases on a case by case basis... PrinceGloria 15:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some cars such as Toyota Supra and Volkswagen Golf use Mark as their numbering system, I suppose that the most common term should be used, which is true for those.

Should we keep to the Honda Civic format which places the generation and year numbers in the headings, while placing the chassis codes with the infobox? They should be placed in the platform field, but if commonly used then they should be moved up to name. But if they need to be moved up, should it be listed in both the name and platform fields? --Leedeth 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

VW uses "chassis" numbers such as e.g. A1-A3, PQxx, as well as (at lest used to) Typ xx. Toyota identifies chassis variations by a one- or two-letter code, followed usually by two or three digits, the last of which is normally 0 and the first identifies, more or less, the generation. The Supras were A70 and A80, for example.

Chassis codes can double as platform indicators in the infobox of course, and I would use them as both infobox and section headings (they should be the same obviously). "Commonly used" is a very gray area, this may vary greatly depending on the market or even editor group. Same goes for production/intro dates. PrinceGloria 07:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok so what you're getting at is, infobox heading should have the generation number as well as the chassis/platform code. And the section heading should have generation number, chassis/platform code, and production years from the infobox. For the section headings I should be using the Toyota Celica format:

"First generation / A20/35 Series (1970-1977)"? --Leedeth 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really - in both cases, just the chassis/platform name/code, or other unambigious manufacturer's designation. Both production years and "generation" designations can be contentious (see Mondeo case above). PrinceGloria 21:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well...now I'm just confused. The Ford Mondeo uses mark (generation) and production years. A section heading should only have what you said - "just the chassis/platform name/code, or other unambigious manufacturer's designation"? Can you can give me an example? I'm about to edit some articles, and I don't want to get it wrong. --Leedeth 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I have an answer please? Thanks. --Leedeth 20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't use Ford Mondeo as any kind of exemplar of standards. As far as I can tell it has never been peer reviewed, never met our lowest standards for formal approval, and fully deserves the maintenance templates at the top of its page, requiring both cleanup and references.

The point we should remember is that WikiProjects are not here to provide another layer of bureaucracy, dictating standards blindly and with an iron fist. As per WP's overall policies and guidelines, we should use whatever is most easily verifiable at reliable, external sources. We can't force generations, chassis codes, years or marks on any page where it conflicts with what our secondary sources use. If that means different car pages don't all follow the same exact standard then so be it. --DeLarge 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DeLarge, I must say I am very surprised for you to question the basic purpose of this WikiProject's existence. I understand there are some places where your interests and the WikiProject's clashed, so perhaps you could bring them about and we could discuss them and find a solution that would satisfy both you and the WikiProject...

It is fairly obvious that you can find sources that would refer to vehicle "generation" in many possible ways - the standard is needed to avoid discussions in all individual cases (as all WikiProject standards are - they are being created for cases typical for the Project's field of interest, to provide one solution that is based on general principles rather than particular cases). Chassis codes make the most sense, as they 1) originate from the manufacturer, which is the preferred source of information for all similar data 2) are relatively unambigious, compared to "generations", "marks" etc. PrinceGloria 09:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. The Ford Mondeo article is the mess it is, because the awful, horrific, iron-fist forced standards were NOT applied.

(indent reset) I have read press from many parts of the world through my whole life. I grew up reading Spanish magazines, then changed to French ones because they were the only Europeans available in Uruguay during the last economic crisis, and finally moved to the web. I regularly read US, Spanish, Brazilian internet auto media and seldomly French, German and Argentine media, and therefore I have seen lots of generation-naming methods.

Perhaps because I've never been in an English-speaking country, I don't feel much difference in using "mark" or "generation". The former may be better for abbreviations (Golf Mk IV, although I used to remove the Mk in timelines) and the latter for prose text ("the second-generation Laguna was released..."). Chassis codes very accurate but also the most intriguing for most readers, so I would keep them only for infobox titles and section introductions (and perhaps headings).

I personally know the restyling vs. generation issue, because the Mercosur automakers are world champions. Not only the Fiesta and Escort have survived here more years than in Europe, creatures like the Fiat Palio and Volkswagen Gol have undergone several fake new generations and few real ones in decades of existence (in these cases, one and two with 1997 and 1980 introductions). My opinion is that we should use real generations (major changes in design, chassis, etc) everywhere and describe these commercial terms: "the third (second?)-generation Fiesta underwent two major facelifts in 1995 and 1999, which were marketed as Mark IV and Mark V respectively". -- NaBUru38 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, some rather important issues: 1) terms like "Mark IV" or "generation" are hardly ever, if at all, used in marketing, and they tend to be applied very inconsistently, both accross markets and within the same market. They are also subject to liberal use by the "general population" of journalists, enthusiasts, mechanics etc. 2) how do you distinguish "real" generations from "unreal" - it is very hard to find a reliable and undisputable source (and certainly manufacturers aren't of any help, as they tend to abuse the terms the most) - and this leads to possible confusion when you use "counting", as in "mark I, II, III, IV" or "first, second, third generation".

That said, of course for prose referring to the car as "this generation" or "this version" is much more appropriate than endlessly reiterating the chassis code. In defense of the latter, I have to mention that in my other fields laymen might at first be baffled by the terms used in the article, but that's what the encyclopedia is for - to acquaint the readers with them. In general, encyclopedias tend to use more specific, specialist terms. PrinceGloria 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP Guideline

As the pop culture, look as we all are going to draw up a guideline asap, as the user:Dusk Knight wanted to see a guideline for them since I deleted a trivia list on the Toyota Supra article which didn't do him any favours as well as excluding anything that has to do with it being in considering IMAO, on the merit that it did nothing to help its popularity, increase its sales, being the cover car of the game or became solely associated with the film as well as asking for a guideline. Like I said above, we could use WP:GUNS as a basis so when it would be possible to draw up a guideline to point it out to him. Willirennen 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before ~ we don't need a WikiProject-specific standard. Just point him at WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#IINFO. If something's in a "trivia" or "...in popular culture" section (especially if it's uncited) it's fair game for getting exorcised. And citing something means demonstrating a degree of significance or notability, not merely verifying that it's true. We should be writing as few rules as we can get away with, and relying on the five pillars as much as possible. --DeLarge 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The more general the rule, the more open it is to interpretation and "bending". It is hard to discuss with one's understanding a general rule differently than yours - you might believe he or she is wrong, but, at the end of the day, it's perception against perception. A more unambigious rule, precisely determining what is and what isn't notable, is hard to discuss with. Moreover, evidence shows that referring to WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#IINFO is not enough for many people - so, the need for the standard is not imaginary, but derived from practical considerations and requirements. PrinceGloria 09:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition to list of IH vehicles

How do I add International_DuraStar to the list so the link will work? I keep coming up with the edit page.--Lpimlott 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Try International Durastar (without the underline between the two words) and the link will take you to that article. — CZmarlin 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's because of the capital S: International DuraStar doesn't work while International_Durastar does. Nevertheless, including an underscore instead of a space is poor formatting, unless it's in a URL. --Leedeth 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the capital "S" in the link ... I just did not notice it! However the actual name of the model is DuraStar. I added a redirect page so if someone does a search with the correct format, they will do directly to the article. — CZmarlin 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Daewoo Kalos - mysterious dimensions

The Daewoo Kalos article infoboxes now list the Pontiac Wave variant's height as slightly taller as the Aveo variant. Can somebody confirm whether this is some actual design difference or perhaps just difference due to equipment (e.g. tires). Secondly, do we list such minor differences in infoboxes? PrinceGloria 16:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Audi coupe quattro→Audi Quattro merge suggestion

I am bringing this up as I suggested a merger between the two pages sometimes in the summer, but there are some users objected to this as they see this as two different cars when they have the same bodies and same 4wd system. Do you think we should merge the Audi coupe quattro to the Audi Quattro page even if the former has everything including the same body and drivetrain sans turbocharger. Willirennen 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Car Article Photos

Hey guys,

I originally posted this question at the Village Pump. I didn't realize this WikiProject existed.

--

Hi WikiCrew,

I've noticed that most images of late-model vehicles on Wikipedia are somewhat clinical. Is this intentional?

I'm an automotive journalist with a cache of photos of late-model vehicles that I have taken myself. Since the work has already been done, I have no problem fully releasing the rights to some of them.

I will soon upload a few three-quarter shots of some cars to the Commons. Is there a standard etiquette for replacing images in articles?

Highmileage 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "clinical". In general, replacing an image that is either "fair use" (which can be permissible in articles pertaining to very new models until real-life photographs become available) or not complying with guidelines (i.e. bad angle not showing too much of the car, dirty/damaged/modded car or simply very poor photo quality) does not require any special actions. In cases where there are already photos that comply with the guidelines you might want to discuss that beforehand in the articles' talk pages.

Anyway - thank you very much for sharing your work. I guess we are all looking forward to your contributions! PrinceGloria 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on "clinical": I think sometimes very arty images have been removed because they go too far and don't actually clearly show the car (for example, making strong use of depth of field to emphasise a glossy chrome part of the car.) Perhaps this has led to people being quite cautious about showing only the clearest, simplest view of the car.

I do despair a bit when they're shown against ugly backgrounds, like car parks (of boring or confusing other cars) and it'd be nice to improve that situation a bit. In many cases the angle (from slightly above; where the photographer was fully standing up) is a bit less than attractive, too.

I seem to recall there's a guideline somewhere (presumably in the manual of style, but perhaps in the archives of this project) which says that there should not be people in the photos. I'll see if I can retrace my steps to remember where I saw that. I think that's a good rule which we should keep, if only so we can continue to discourage various "keen" editors from uploading shots of themselves with their customised cars... ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the styleguide, but I understand that the photos should be clear 3/4 shots of stock vehicles with no people. Check out this one of the Ranger: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-ford-ranger-fx4-level2.jpg What do you think? Highmileage 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That photo is really bad for us for a lot of reasons. Firstly the truck is very dirty - yuk! Secondly, the sexy low angle of the shot means that you aren't seeing parts of the truck that you'd be able to see if you were standing at normal head-height - so from an encyclopeadic point of view, it has less information in it. Thirdly, it needs to be more tightly cropped - our shots are typically seen at just a couple of inches across and all of that extraneous vegetation is a waste of screen space that could have been better used to show the truck.

I'm nervous of taking a large pile of professional magazine photos and just assuming that they'll "obviously" be better than the ones we already have - we have to consider the information content of the photo and at least make an effort to try to standardize the angle of the shot from one page to the next in order to allow people to compare the photos of two cars. Magazine articles are striving for shots that are original and perhaps exciting - our goal is the opposite of that. Having said that, I'd greatly appreciate a donation of photos such as these (under GFDL or similar licensing of course) - and where we have articles with no photos at all, we'll certainly use them. Elsewhere, I'd want to be cautious. SteveBaker 02:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking good

I don’t have a major or important suggestion, but it’s one to think about. Perhaps we should all set a more organized and consistent look and design, in the WikiProject pages, the templates, and such. I was thinking of reorganizing the Project page and better designing the templates. It’s nothing major, just something to do in the mean time. Some thing can prove to be useful. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 02:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

New User seeking advice

Good Day,

I'm a new user and am interested in helping/editing/expanding pages for car lovers. I'd like some advice/recommendations on working within the community.

M. Leblond 11:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Mthunder15

Hello and welcome :-)

The most important thing (apart from "go for it!") is to remember that this is an encyclopædia, not a fan-site. So keep contributions factual and don't try to write reviews that would get published in a magazine. That's no reason not to write things which are *interesting*, but people will tend to delete stuff which is *opinion*. Check out WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE and WP:TONE, if you haven't already. Also, try to keep articles clear and readable. You'll soon get the idea of what is good practice by looking around the existing articles; the "history" tab is useful so you can see how the article has evolved, and always check the talk page before doing anything you think might be controversial — it may already be under discussion.

In general, don't be afraid to be bold, and don't take it personally if people ever revert your edits; just ask about it. Enjoy! – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at existing articles you might get a better idea of bad rather than good practice - unfortunately, there are still too few people on the project with far too little time to make sure the majority, if not all, automotive articles are at least not bad. A better idea might be to take a look at the articles recognized as "Good" and "Featured" by Wikipedians (they are listed in the Project's main page) - any differences between those and the "general population" is, more probable than not, something to be avoided.

Anyhoo, like Kieran said, just "be bold" and do whatever you feel and believe is right and good for Wikipedia (with Kieran's advice in mind). Most automotive articles are watchlisted by at least one experienced WikiProject member, so if you do something less than advisable, you will probably be informed of that someway ;) PrinceGloria 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your help/guidance. I'm trying to find out how to work with the Ford Model AA [[26]] page for starters. I've been trying to see how to edit the categories section of the page so I can link this truck into the WikiProject Automobiles. Can anyone assist me with that?

(Mthunder15 11:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Blippu

Hi. I've come across a recently created article about Blippu, said to be a variant of the VIP style or Bippu Style of modifying automobiles; the variant appears to be the use of customised paintwork and lighting. While there are a number of ghits for "Bippu Style"[27], I cannot find anything for "Blippu Style"[28]. Consequently, I doubt the notability of "Blippu" but I don't feel I know enough about the automobile scene to come to a judgement. Perhaps you guys would have a look at it please? Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 09:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The only sources in the article are for VIP style itself (they're already cited in that article), while this basically seems to be "VIP stle+custom paintwork", which really isn't worth its own article. Author was an SPA (User:Blippu), so I'd just redirect to the VIP style page. And, in fact, that's what I've just done. --DeLarge 12:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Malcolmxl5 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Probable hoax

See Ford Bronco III. It's barely comprehensible and was created by a known vandal. Thoughts? --Sable232 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete without mercy. Obvious rubbish. PrinceGloria 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Automobiles layouts

Template:Automobile layouts

Many of the articles in this template is just a mess. I'm wondering if we should merge all of the layouts into the engine position articles. It would make for easier editing and maintenance...etc. I don't think there is enough content to have all of these articles anyway. --Leedeth 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Long term, I feel the current solution will be the best bet. Eventually when this one-stop-shop article gets too long it will have to be split up anyway. Besides, if you merged the contents of all of them now, the main article would become too long, thus defeating the purpose. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)