Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Convert template and conventions

I just noticed that the {{convert}} template adds commas to numbers which I believe is against Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Example {{convert|1100|mm|in|1|abbr=on}} results in 1,100 mm (43.3 in) when 1100 mm (43.3 in) would be expected. Thoughts? Is there a way to force omission of the comma with the convert template? swaq 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the comma omission was only for engine displacement.--Flash176 (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I read it as meaning for all numbers. The {{auto mm}} template does not use a comma. In any case {{convert|3200|cc|1|abbr=on}} yields 3,200 cc (195.3 cu in), so it does it for displacements as well. swaq 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Our standards need to be compliant with WP:MOS standards. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They are. See large numbers. "In large numbers (i.e., in numbers greater than or equal to 10,000), commas are generally used to break the sequence every three places left of the decimal point...

<--- Before trying to force the template to accept our convention, perhaps ask why the convention exists? The "no commas" convention was added by the now inactive User:Stombs way back in 2005 in one of the earliest edits to the Convention page,[1] and was then refined slightly by User:Sfoskett.[2] It doesn't seem to be grounded in anything more concrete than a very brief "ok, let's do it this way" discussion between the pair of them on the talk page, while a cursory glance around shows several car-specific media which do use the comma (e.g. Yahoo Cars UK, Edmunds.com), so it's certainly not a universal convention.

Also, I'd be careful with quoting WP:MOSNUM at the moment, since it's been the subject of such edit warring lately that it's currently edit-protected. The large number convention has been changed within the last two months (here, with the edit summary "as per talk page" although I can't find a specific discussion about it). What I'd recommend is:

1. Go to User:Physchim62's talk page and ask if the edit noted above was boldness on his part, or whether there really was a discussion.
2. Add a request at the Template:Convert talk page to make the template MoS-compliant, and see what happens.
3. Remove the guidelines from our conventions either way (it will either duplicate or conflict with WP:MOSNUM depending on the outcome, so either way I don't see a reason for keeping it). --DeLarge (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record I am not for or against commas. Would it be okay for me to continue to use the {{convert}} template for now? I'm a bit hesitant to use the {{auto xx}} templates as I recall that there were a few that have been deleted for duplicating {{convert}} functionality, though now I'm forgetting which ones... I have been trying to keep infoboxes up to date but I don't like violating conventions. swaq 15:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, please use the project conversion templates when possible. It's not as much of a necessity for lengths as it is for displacements, but we need to stick with one style. That way, if conventions are changed, we can just change the conversion template instead of having to go into each and every article to check for other templates that have to be manually edited.

Good catch on the recent MOSNUM change, DeLarge. We need to keep an eye on it to see if it reverts back. As for changing from not using commas to using them, why? We've been using this convention for nearly 4 years. That in itself isn't a good reason to keep something, but you have to remember all the pages that a person would have to go through and manually fix - right now for no good reason that I can see.--Flash176 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"all the pages that a person would have to go through and manually fix" would be pages which don't use {{convert}} or {{auto mm}} right now - a major advantage to those templates is that changes like these are trivial if they are used universally, so we should ideally be using them for all measurements. For the record I'd rather use the commas - there's no clear rationale for exemption to MoS norms here, and "that's the way it's always been done" is a rather self-reinforcing argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Heh, that was what I was doing in the first place, but then I came under the impression that the project conversion templates would be deprecated and the {{convert}} template was preferred... Okay, just found what I was thinking of. Template:Auto hp was deleted on July 15th, but I haven't been able to find the related TfD. There was another discussion started on September 22 but that was retracted. swaq 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Update about MOSNUM/Convert template conflict

Six months later and the contradiction between the way WP:MOSNUM and {{Convert}} handle numbers between 1,000 and 9,999 still exists. o try and resolve this, I've initiated a discussion at the MOSNUM talk page, if anyone wants to contribute: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conflict between MOSNUM and Template:Convert. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Automotive Page Standards

It has come to my attention that the page standards are not even close to uniform between automotive pages. This makes it harder to obtain viable information for a given vehicle. An example is the Mercury Cyclone which is just 8 years of option lists. I wish to initiate a movement to add some new amendments to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions to unify and tighten the standards for all automotive pages. These amendments will help to improve upon the standards of Automotive Pages.

• All automobiles with multiple generations have their own page as well as be part of a main page for that vehicle.

• All automotive pages have timelines from that automaker.

• All automotive pages must have a verifiable history with verifiable information with citations, not just option lists.

• All automotive pages must include automotive infoboxes with dimensions, model years, and predecessors and successors.

• All new pages must follow these new guidelines.

• All pages meeting these standards will display a new certification logo.

(A logo will be devised at a later date to be determined)

Remember, this is only a request and these are only ideas. If anyone has any suggestions as to more amendments to add or anything that should be changed, feel free to comment on this post. Autocar256 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Here are my thoughts on these ideas:

• 1. I don't support separation of model generations unless the main model page becomes too long. Articles like Honda Civic have been successfully split, but it really isn't needed on pages that are within article length guidelines.
• 2. Timelines should definitely be included on all relevant pages, it is just a matter of adding them when they are missing.
• 3,4 and 5 are more or less already standards, while all articles do not adhere to them I don't think there is any disagreement as to whether articles should in theory meet them and we already have automotive templates with the stats you list. We also have article templates in the form of good articles listed on the project page.
• 6 I don't support a new form of certification. We already have the Start, B, A, G, FA system for the whole encyclopedia and I don't think added bureaucracy would be of much use. Quality automotive articles are already classified under this system.

Thanks for pointing out the Mercury Cyclone page, it is a mess and should be cleaned up. The option list should be moved to the talk page and the article stubbed. Prose sections can latter be written using the option lists as a guide. --Leivick (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leivick. Keep the generations together unless the article gets too long (Toyota Corolla is one that I split up). Infoboxes and the like should be on each generation, although some pages have very little text for each generation, causing the infoboxes to do weird things to the formatting. I'm against adding logos, etc to each page - too much like "I ♥ my cat", "Save the whales" and "The taste of a new generation" stickers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another one who sees problems:

• All automobiles with multiple generations have their own page as well as be part of a main page for that vehicle. That will lead to too many unnecessarily small articles. Follow the regular WP convention of keeping everything together until the page gets to 30-40k, then start to think about splitting.
• All automotive pages have timelines from that automaker. I'm not nearly as enamoured of timelines as some people, especially where you end up with the dog's dinner of templates at Volkswagen Golf. As a project I think we rely far too much on tables/templates/infoboxes, and not enough on writing prose. In fact, on the pages where there's minimal text and multiple infoboxes (as mentioned above by User:Stepho-wrs) I'd personally like to see the page cut back to one infobox for the whole article, to force editors to start using actual words and paragraphs to convey relevant information—but I guess that's a debate for another day.
• All automotive pages must have a verifiable history with verifiable information with citations, not just option lists. Not sure what you mean about a verifiable history. Page history? That's built into the mediawiki software and beyond our control. Verifiable info with citations is covered by the site-wide guidelines at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Wikipedia:Citing sources. WP:CARS pages are pretty poor in general, so I'm in full agreement with this. I'd wholeheartedly support a mass-tagging drive of all sub-standard articles with {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}}.
• All automotive pages must include automotive infoboxes with dimensions, model years, and predecessors and successors. I think this is done already.
• All new pages must follow these new guidelines. This one's kind of redundant; you don't draft guidelines so people don't follow them.
• All pages meeting these standards will display a new certification logo. No. As already pointed out, Wikipedia has it's own peer review and article certification system.

Finally, with regard to your opening statement, "page standards are not even close to uniform between automotive pages". Bear in mind that WP is written by thousands of different people, and no one style is "correct". Over the years, consensus has established that we're not allowed to enforce style rules excessively, and that uniformity on WP isn't something we're aiming for. Really though, the fact that all articles don't look exactly the same shouldn't stop you gleaning information from them, as long as they're well written. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel and DeLarge. These are all already covered sufficiently or better by existing standards. The separate certification is a horrible idea and even if it helped standardization for automotive articles it would decrease it between all Wikipedia articles. Autocar256, I notice you only have 25 edits at this time, most of which are to your user page and this talk page. I recommend you get some more experience actually editing articles while following existing standards before proposing new ones. swaq 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with other users. I know you mean well Autocar256, but lets remember that there are so many pages with bad facts or useless info already, and just having "standards" does nothing to change it. It's so much more helpful to add info and citations. Want to impress us? Do a major improvement on something like this article --Analogue Kid (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

New Info for Amended Standards

I have devised a sample logo for certification of articles.

File:Certificationbadge.jpg

Autocar256 02:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yuck. swaq 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmm...no, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

External links conflict at Lotus Esprit

There is currently a war going on over at Lotus Esprit over the inclusion of two external links. I've counted five different IP addresses re-adding the links so far, so it is quite likely that there has been a post on the forum encouraging users to add the links. However the forum requires registration to even view posts so I can't confirm this. If you have time, take a look at the links to determine yourself whether they pass WP:EL. There was a discussion on these links back in January/February this year, but the new IP users have not discussed the links on the talk page at all. I have also started a spam report on this issue. swaq 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam report is the best idea; it more precisely targets the problem than semi-protection. The ridiculous thing is that most of the references come from the LEW site, so it's not like the ELs will benefit them much. I might investigate those links and see if they're just reproductions of other secondary sources (EDIT: that's exactly what they are).

If it's possible to find a user to communicate with, it might be worth pointing out that they could lose the links they already have in the reference section; all it takes is for us to edit those citations and the spam blacklist will prevent them being re-added. --DeLarge (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxer

I think we have a hoaxer around in the shape of Bigguy03j. He has recently recreated Cicero BDB Maestro which I have tagged for deletion and most of his edits have now been reverted. One of his articles is Saab 9XX Concept which I am very suspicious about, is this also a hoax? A Lotus 121 racing car has also been added to Template:Lotus and I can find no evidence for the existence of such a beast.

Would someone else please have a look through his edits and see if my suspicions are correct? Malcolma (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

looks like hoax --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete both and block the user as a sock of User:Cicero Motors. --Sable232 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted images?

Red marquis (talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of possibly copyrighted images, particular Porsche pictures, and has put them in articles. Could someone who knows more about copyright take a look at his contributions? Thanks. swaq 16:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked a little closer and it seems this user has been uploading copyrighted images since 2005 and just deletes the warning messages off their talk page. I have started a thread on ANI about this. swaq 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that was quick. He's been blocked (for a week) and I think the most recent images have been deleted/reverted. I think his older images might warrant looking into as well though. See his logs. swaq 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Monteverdi_450_SS.jpg, looks like copied from net and edited with new background? --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, definitely photoshopped. Took me about a minute to find the original picture on Supercars.net: [3]. Same color and has the same tag thing hanging from the rear view mirror. swaq 19:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I was lookin new Hai photo from commons and there is one more in commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Monteverdi_450_01.jpg which maybe be also copyright violation? see http://www.carphoto.ch/diverses/monteverdi/DSCN1369.jpg --— Typ932^{T | C}  20:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

How many doors does a wagon have?

I've come across an anonymous IP (with a questionable edit history) that's been changing "4-door wagon" and "4-door SUV" to "5-door." Is this passable? --Sable232 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally, I always saw 2- and 4-door used to refer to everything except hatchbacks, which were 3- or 5-door. The distinctions between body styles are now so blurred that it seems unlikely that it would be possible to prove a generic case justifying either way. But in any event, we have to go back to the idea that references are all-important, and describe the vehicle the way its manufacturer does. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The manufacturers are inconsistent - both between manufacturers and even within a single manufacturer. Consistency between articles is more important than which way a particular manufacturer choose to call it. Figure out which ever is the most common on existing articles, get a consensus among us editors and start converting to the single standard. My own preference is with 2-door and 4-door but I can live with either. Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When they're inconsistent with a particular model, I completely agree with you — we have to pick one and be consistent about it within articles, and ideally as broadly as we can. But if they're simply giving a different system to one model (perhaps because they consider it more of a wagon than another of their models is) then it's not our place to argue. – Kieran T ^(talk) 01:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We have to verify how many doors, gates, hatches, man hole covers, etc a vehicle has but the nomenclature can be decided by us. Otherwise we are back to the silliness of calling one vehicle a 4-door wagon and another a 5-door wagon, even though their are practically identical in form, size and layout. How can people compare vehicles from different manufacturers if the nomenclature keeps changing? Do you have an example of a manufacturer calling them 4-door wagon? I looked at Toyota, Nissan, Citroen and Renault websites and they all say 5-door. Mazda took the easy option and just uses pictures. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way does that meet Wikipedia guidelines? The trouble being that it is original research. – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edmunds, Chrome, and AutoData (three of the largest automotive data suppliers in the world) classify wagons and hatchbacks as 3 and 5-door vehicles. Just a little FYI. roguegeek (talk·cont) 05:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well considering wagons are essentially hatchbacks with a larger luggage compartment, wouldn't the 5-door nomenclature make sense? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NOR#Sources, gathering material from reliable secondary sources (eg manufacturer's web sites and brochures) and then rewriting it in my own words with the same meaning is encouraged. Which is exactly what I am proposing. We find out how many doors, gates, hatches, torpedo tubes, sluice gates, etc a vehicle has and then present it in a nice consistent manner in our own words. And just like we aim for a consistent style and format, consistent naming conventions also make things much easier for the reader comparing vehicles. Stepho-wrs (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturer websites are primary sources not secondary. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Spanish-language Wikipedia we use this criteria: if the decklid includes the rear window (it's a hatch), then it's one more door; if the decklid doesn't include the the rear window, then it's not a door. Therefore, hatchbacks, wagons and off-roaders have three or five doors; sedans, cabrios and coupés have two or four doors; and freaks like the Mini Clubman have four doors (one left, two right and one rear). The other possible criteria is to never count the rear hatch as a door (no three- or five-door cars). Counting three or four doors depending on the boot's size (hatchback vs wagon) sound ridiculous to me. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

At least in the US, you'll almost never find manufacturers saying "wagon", but the automotive press and regular people still use the term. I don't think we need to always make sure we use the same term the manufacturers use- sometimes they try to coin new terms. We should prefer the language commonly used by our sources. That said, I don't think it's too huge a deal whether we call a certain car a 5-door or a wagon- hopefully either term is well understood by our readers. Friday (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the "3-door hatchback" or "5-door hatchback" designations. It seems unnecessary -- 2-door or 4-door hatchback would obviously mean the same thing, and refers to the number of passenger doors. Number of passenger doors seems like a simple, clear, and unambiguous standard to me. IFCAR (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer using the number of passenger doors. I've never understood counting the hatch as a door. swaq 15:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I instinctively agree, I don't think "passenger doors" can actually be part of our definition. What about the Citroen CX Family, or the Land Rover Discovery, or even the Austin Montego estate? All are "estate cars" with four side doors, but the rear hatch is used for two passenger seats. Side-hinged in the Disco's case. These cars pre-date the concept of "people carriers" (a.k.a. MPVs), and they break the definition if it uses "passenger doors", because we can't start claiming that by taking the removable seats out of one of these models, the number of doors magically changes. So where does that leave us? Back at having to go with the manufacturer's description if there is any doubt or ambiguity. If they don't give one or we can't find it, we should leave our original research out of the article. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We could just say side doors then. Problem solved. IFCAR (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, love it. A nice, simple solution :-) – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As a WikiProject and stand alone editors, we aren't able to debate how many doors a vehicle has. This would be considered original research. What we can do is find sources that state how many doors a vehicle has. I'll re-state what I stated above. Edmunds, Chrome, and AutoData (three of the largest automotive data suppliers in the world) along with portals such as Yahoo! Autos, MSN Autos, and countless others classify wagons and hatchbacks as 3 and 5-door vehicles. These groups are not directly related to OEMs, but they report on them. This is the definition of a secondary source and Wikipedia is to always be built upon these. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would count the hatch as door, even if it's more "European" than "American". It helps better distinguish between body styles (e.g. a 2-door vs. 3-door coupe). PrinceGloria (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Roguegeek, you're right about those sources, but why complicate things with arguable references? By which I mean, they will be arguable because there'll more than likely be other reliable secondary sources that put it another way. What's wrong with IFCAR's solution of simply clarifying that we're talking about side doors (since the two- or four-door status is the useful information) and letting the "hatchback" or "estate"/"wagon" terms indicate to the reader that there might be something door-like going on at the back. – Kieran T ^(talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But, by and large, I don't think you're going to find arguable references or, at least, not notable secondary sources that will argue this. Unlike the model year debate, door designation is going to be widely consistent no matter what the region is (like PriceGloria states). As for the doors-on-the-side idea, I don't think there's anything wrong with it in theory, but I also don't see how an agreement between a small group of editors can overwrite a consensus within an entire industry either. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with original research, it is only nomenclature we are dealing with. Some manufacturers say '5-door wagon' while others say '4-door wagon'. Industry does not name them consistently, so precedences from any given sources (primary or secondary) won't decide it for us except to show a preference to one side instead of an outright win (references given above seem to favour '5-door'). As I see it, the 2 realistic choices are large openings through which a person is likely to enter the cabin (a) on the left or right sides only (eg '4-door wagon') or (b) on any side (eg '5-door wagon'). If original research bothers you then we can simply choose to follow the naming convention of one of the major secondary sources mentioned above. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stepho, I can see your point with the OEMs. Problem is the OEM is a primary source. Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and the secondary sources I've listed above (along with a whole lot that I haven't listed) all consistently show hatchbacks and wagons as 5-door. If we could find large amounts of notable secondary sources that showed otherwise, then an argument for 4-door hatch/wagon could be a lot stronger. Problem is that's not the case. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, that sounds like an agreement with my last sentence. I'm happy to live with '5-door wagon' (which seem to be favoured both by recent primary and secondary sources) as long as it's consistently applied across articles. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image identification

I think these are fun and I haven't been able to figure this one out myself so I thought I would see if you all could figure it out (I know you folks will be able to do it). I took this picture a month ago and the owner was being kinda of dick (he literally hit on my date right in front of me) so I didn't feel like asking for specifics. I know it is Ferrari 250 GT, but don't know the year or exact model. --Leivick (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I, by no means, know enough about these vehicles to offer any feedback even coming close to being reliable, but in doing a little research, I think this may be an LWB version. Whatever the case, the car is beautiful. Too bad the owner was a device used to introduce a stream of water into the body. roguegeek (talk·cont) 07:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari 250#250 GT California Spider LWB or Ferrari 250#250 GT Spider California SWB. I don't know enough to tell the difference unless side by side. "Save Ferris". Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Those models have double lights at front? --— Typ932^{T | C}  10:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess is the article pics have optional rally spotlights in the grills. Stepho-wrs (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations and Abbreviation Eradication

The Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that abbreviations should be spelled out: Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. There is a single editor that firmly believes that an instance such as this: EPA, is categorically wrong, incorrect, and "in violation" when the first instance in an article. Notice, that EPA is linked to it's full article. The editor contends that the first instance, without exception, can only be correct if addressed like this: United States Environmental Protection Agency or Environmental Protection Agency.

Several other editors have pointed out that this rings false, that it is no imposition on the reader to use the abbreviation + link... while always spelling out the abbreviation can interrupt the flow of the article and give the article an inappropriate, even clumsy emphasis.

Does Project Automobiles have a policy or consensus on this? The discussion here only centers on the use of EPA, but could easily expand to include other abbreviations.

Here is the discussion regarding "Abbreviations and Abbreviation Eradication". 842U (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on the manual of style, on plain common sense, and on experience in the field of accessibility I would have to say I entirely support any move to eradicate initialisms, abbreviations, and anything similar on the first use of a term. "CKD" is one which very commonly appears in automotive articles. Even as somebody with a strong interest in the topic, the first time I saw this I had to search to learn that the term means complete knock down. It really needs to be expanded on the first use. I agree that later in the article it can be appropriate to abbreviate to smooth reading; hence the usage of brackets: "British Motor Corporation (BMC)", for example, to prepare the reader for the initialism. But it may be worth spelling out in full more than once if the term appears in disparate sections of the article — especially if these are linked to directly using anchors from some other article.

Another bugbear of mine is inconsistency. A lot of editors use (or fail to correct) "Mk", "Mk.", "MK.", and "MK" interchangeably; some also mix latin and arabic numerals in these cases. This is lazy. It is often a made-up term anyway (and we've had discussions previously about using model years instead). When it really is part of the genuine name of the car, it is almost always really "Mark"... in my opinion, anyway. I recently had a discussion elsewhere with another editor about this. We didn't reach consensus, but I believe that since the manufacturer in question was not consistent (using "Mk", "Mk.", and "Mark" in different places) then they must have simply been presuming that everybody would know it is an abbreviation. On Wikipedia we do not make such presumptions. If it's not clear, explain it. – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with avoiding abbreviations. Part of the issue is that articles might be printed in which case a piped link to the full name would no longer help. swaq 18:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I attended a business writing course about 15 years ago that taught us to write the first occurrence of an abbreviation/acronym as the abbreviation/acronym followed by the full expression in parenthesis. E.g. look at all the TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) - avoid too many TLA's. The idea is that the first time the reader sees TLA he thinks "what on earth does that mean" and it sticks in his mind. But the very next thing he reads is the explanation, so that also sticks in his mind. From then on TLA becomes very obvious. Whereas the more common way is to put the full expression first, followed by the abbreviation/acronym in parenthesis. Most readers read the expression and the skip the part in parenthesis completely. So when they come across TLA further down they have to stop and reread the article until they pick up the full expression - in other words, the reader is forced to do extra work. By extension, I would like to see the commonly used short form without the full expression (tempting to say everywhere) with a link to the full term for those that don't know it yet. A reader who is familiar with the term just keeps reading. A reader not familiar with the term follows the link, understands, clicks the back button and continues reading with new knowledge. The underlying assumption is to help the reader, not to add to much verbosity or to confuse them with unexplained terms. Careful linking helps the new reader while letting the experienced reader flow through easier. Even better if we had a way for tool tips to popup when hovering over an unknown acronym/abbreviation, with a link to a full article in the tool tip. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree! SOFFIA (Spell Out Following First Instance of Abbreviation) is a good bit more reader-friendly and professional than Parenthesizing the Abbreviation Following First Use (PAFFU). If this were to be proposed as a convention, I would strongly support it not only here in the automobiles project, but also in the MOS at large.

It looks as though the <acronym> tag is not supported in Wikipedia, which is not altogether a bad thing. Using it would force readers to use the mouse (or other pointing device), a nuisance. And oftener than not it would probably interfere with the easy and unambiguous linking of the article covering the abbreviated-and-spelt-out item. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Though isn't there a popup feature that does pretty much the same thing?842U (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

<-- (outdent) On the original point, I think the edits are more or less correct. A couple of them showed up in my watchlist, and my only complaint was that rather than a straight swap of acronym for spelled-out words, the sentence might have needed rejigging to improve its readability. Having said that, it was a lousy sentence to start with, so I wasn't going to moan. In general we should indeed be spelling out acronyms on first usage; it's MOS-compliant and more reader-friendly, no doubt about it.

As for "SOFFIA vs PAFFU" (sic)... More reader-friendly? Subjective, but certainly open to discussion. Nevertheless, I'd strongly dispute the assertion that it's more professional to use the former, unless you mean in a "commercial" context as opposed to "the opposite of amateur". Businesses might use this approach if they're trying to reinforce/emphasize an acronymical brand to a reader, but all the major style guides (CMOS, Columbia, AP, Guardian, NYT, BBC, Encarta, Britannica, etc) either explicitly recommend spelling out in full in the first instance with the abbreviation in parentheses, or follow that standard routinely. I've always considered that as a tertiary source, WP should kowtow to others' standards, so I'd be opposed to such a proposal. --DeLarge (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Luxury vehicle

Some time ago Wikipedia had pretty nice article on Luxury vehicles. It sure had some problems with sources, but it was a long and detaled aricle.

Until this April a couple of editors (User:842U and User:Dino246) targeted this article. Looks like they don't like the term - and they act like they are the only ones who get the true meaning of it.

Here's how it all started.

Huh? As you can see, they a detailed article was replaced with a extermely un-encylopedic message that contained an unsourced criticizm of the term itself and no encylopedic information - something that belongs to talk page, not article page in the first hand. I'd like to hear your opinions about this diff.

Later, the article [was re-written] to look more like an article, but it is still very POV: it only reflects one particular interpretation of the term: "a subjective marketing lable for any kind of vehicle that provides subjective luxury". As any car enthusiast knows, this is NOT the most popular interpretation of the term.

While from page history it is obvious that a lot of editors disagree with such approach, User:842U and User:Dino246 keep reverting any edits they don't like. They also reject any sources that support alternative interpretations, such as "What Car?" magazine.

Fortunately for them, they were able to find ONE reference that supports their interpretation of the term. I don't think this single source should be accounted as a final truth.

Could someone who's familiar with motoring press and speciallized motoring encyclopedias both online and offline suggest luxury definitions and mentions in reliable sources? I believe there must be reliable sources that say that "luxury cars is term used to largest and most expensive sendans on the market", or "luxury vehicles are vehicles produced by particular makes". All the press I've read used term "luxury cars" as a synonym to "F-class sedans", sadly it never explicitly defined it. My own access to English-language sources is very limited.

I would possibly spend your time on more fruitful pursuits as similar things (aka vandalism?)have happened with automotive terms like supercar...all randomly edited by art students and the like who justify summary deletion of items they don't understand and which qualify the use of age old automotive terms.Redashhope< 12:58, 21 December 2008 (CET)

Don't you think this can and should be stopped? If we'd have a consensus at WikiProject Automobiles, other editors would have to agree with this consensus. If they continue to push their approach, we can have a request to administrators posted. Netrat (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont think there are enough interested people allowed to participate/flourish by art student Wiki moderators to make "automotive" consensus here worthwhile or valid. It seems being encyclopedic is now more important to Wiki than being informed. After all when I want medical advice I go to a doctor, yet here at Wiki we have to tolerate pages of automotive issues edited and policed by unqualified people brandishing "protocols" as their only justification for keeping pages sterile to the point of poorly informed. Redashhope< 23:58, 24 December 2008 (CET)

Segments

Terms like A-Segment, B-Segment, C-Segment, D-Segment, E-Segment and F-Segment are widly used even by reliable motoring magazines, but I failed to find any reliable sources that define then. Can you please help me with this? Netrat (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there isnt any source for that, they arent official or made by any organisations?... --— Typ932^{T | C}  21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of these terms in Australia. Perhaps they are US or European terms. Even if they are semi-official, they need to be linked to an explanatory article. Stepho-wrs (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I know Ford Australia, and possibly even Ford globally use these terms internally to classify vehicles. A table of such segments is available at car classification. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but there are no sources for them. I've seen segments definitions (particular car lengths) posted at various web-sites, but none of them was a reliable source. Netrat (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, these terms are used in Europe. Netrat (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. No mention of segments in Ford Australia and car classification says they are European. Since we are already know that US classifications like mid-size are the same as the Australian full-size, we already know we can't have a one size fits all classification. So I have no objection if segments are used as long as they are linked to an appropriate explanatory article. Unfortunately, most of the segment articles are mere redirections to other names (eg D-segment redirects to large family car. But a link like [[Car classification#Classification systems|D-segment]] would work fine. Stepho-wrs (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As a European I've never seen them used in any motoring magazines or sales or service materials. I'd favour avoiding them everywhere if we don't have any references for them. 89.145.229.252 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) they are used regularly in European magazines..... --Typ932 ^T·C 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Using this segment system, we may be able to overcome the, "this car sells better in America so it should be mid-size" / "but it's produced in Germeny by a German automaker so shouldn't be a large family car?" bickering. That is however, only if reliable sources can be found. Typ932, do these magazines you speak of actually define what these segments actually are? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if they do, few magazines are "reliable sources", frankly. I often find myself reading an article and spotting internal contradictions, or worse, just knowing for certain that what they're saying is wrong. Some motoring journalists are excellent, sure. But others are mechanics who've been pressed into writing and don't really like it, and others still – the worst of them – are general jobbing journalists who don't care about cars at all and just know how to write engaging copy. If I were to try to come up with a list of magazines I actually trust, Classic and Sports car would be the only one. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes they mention also the actual class like d-segment is upper mid class or something or mentions the lenght of the car, usually just the segment is mentioned. Quite many knows here what those segments represents --Typ932 ^T·C 07:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Its seems Kieran T there are as many reliable editors in Wiki automotive as there are apparently motoring magazines in your personal "trusted source" list - but that does not stop art students still being let loose policing automotive articles they have no first hand experience or little knowledge of (in fact Iam sure some have no driving license). Classic and Sports Car by the way is not a bad old rag but there is no bible and I do think to credit it first requires a citation as to your own credentials in motoring which then might allow us to verify you as well as it as a "trustworthy source". Not enough experienced/interested users are allowed to flourish/contribute in Wiki Automotive for it ever to grow to be considered valid outside Wiki's own thin paper walls. Redashhope< 10:41, 25 December 2008 (CET)

Happy Christmas. Please don't get carried away with your high horse about people's credentials (again). This project has a history of being fairly conversational (as opposed to confrontational, although heavens know, those happen too). We contribute what we can, here in the discussions, to help form consensus. Nothing written on this talk page is a valid source nor should claim to be, simple as that. Anyway the experience of users here shouldn't be such a big deal; we're merely volunteers collating information from reliable sources elsewhere. I have no intention of holding forth a "personal trusted source list". The mention of C&S is merely an example, in the context of this conversation. Please, let's not get into an argument about this. Have you any useful sources for us regarding segments? – Kieran T ^(talk) 20:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Arnold (automobile)

Can this article be reassessed for WPA please. I'd suggest that importance for this WP should be at least mid as it was the first car manufactured in the UK. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"first car manufactured in the UK" ... I'm not sure about this one for a start. Georgano, who is quoted as a source, dates the Santler (car) to 1894 and so pre-dates the Arnold by 2-3 years. He also casts doubt on whether the first cars were made by Arnold or were re-badged Benzes. Malcolma (talk)

I'd concur. Several references used at Arnold (automobile) dispute such an absolute assertion, and the Brooklands.org citation describes the Arnold as "an anglicised version of the German Benz". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeLarge (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 December 2008

Courier said it was the first, Bridge over the Stream says it was claimed to be the first. I'm not an expert in this so if the text needs tweaking then feel free. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid at FAR

I have nominated Plug-in hybrid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be like voting for an article about the invention of the pneumatic tyre. Why? As according to "the car that will change the world" Honda's FCX - a hydrogen powered unit which was recently voted just that on BBC2 Top Gear programme (the biggest selling global car show on the planet), "plugging in" every few hundred miles is now completely unnecessary. The Honda FCX is already "in-production" and the only waste product is a small amount of water, no plugs, no down-time, no batteries, no servicing, 1 moving engine part using the most abundant element on the planet. Redashhope< 10:23, 25 December 2008 (CET)

Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present)

What do you think about this article name Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present), I think it shoud be changed to some other, do we have any other articles with year on brackets or what would you suggest to this article name to be --Typ932 ^T·C 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a crazy title. At the very least it has built-in obsolescence when the car ceases to be in production. Also, I can see no reason for the "p" to be capitalised. It'd be better to be like the Jaguar S-Type (1963) with the year of introduction. Nobody reading a well-constructed article lead would think it was only in production for that introduction year; it's possible that to this end the existing lead could use a tweak to go with the change, but the change of title is a must. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Phantom should be with a capital P as it's a proper noun. Suggest removing the word "Present" from title will provide suitable disambiguation, and leave title open for amendmend when prouction ceases. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ill also would suggest Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003), I think most will get the idea that it repsesents the introduction year --Typ932 ^T·C 20:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the Roller have some internal development code, such as E38 or E90 in case of BMWs? That would be far less ambigious. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

<-- (outdent) Not sure I'd like the development code idea unless it's widely used (i.e. as widely used as BMW's). I also did a little digging around and discovered this has been an ongoing issue. See the history logs of Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003), and the conversation on the article's talk page. --DeLarge (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is still undecided what to do.... --Typ932 ^T·C 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

generation years

If one generation of a car (eg Toyota Corolla E70 is produced from August 1979 to August 1984 and the next generation (eg Toyota Corolla E80 is produced from August 1984 onwards, then should the E70 have a production date 1979 to 1983 or 1979 to 1984 (assuming calendar years, not model years)? It can be argued that the E70 was being made in 1984 but it seems more logical to me if the E70 was listed as 1979-1983 and the E80 was listed as 1984 onwards (ie makes it clearer that the E70 was produced for 4 years and then the E80 took over in 1984). Any thoughts? Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Production start and Production end fields get actual, calendar year-month or year-month-day entries. If (and only if) that information is not available, then the Model years field is used instead. We do not use both the Model years and the Production Start/End fields in any one infobox. Please see the infobox field meanings for more specific information on how to use the various fields in the infobox. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on production_start/end. I had to add those fields to template:infobox_Automobile_generation but it now seems happy. I also added model_years, deleted production and updated the doc page so that it matches template:infobox_Automobile. This will probably cause some trouble for articles relying on the production field but eventually articles will be updated with the new fields. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It will take a very very long time, and it its impossible to use model years in many cars if you cant find production dates, model years should be used only to US markets they arent the same in every country and some countries its not even used, this was insane change but cant help if we have one dictator here who made consensus by himself :), and you should also change the example article Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts ............ --Typ932 ^T·C 11:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please revise your change, you have just erased any production info from most automotive infoboxes. For the time being, those fields can be added as optional, alternative to the usual "production" field, but you'd have to go through all article-nested infoboxes and revise their entries before you remove the field. Contrary to the "similar" field, we have not agreed to remove it, but rather amend it (though I still feel left out from the discussion that, to me, did not end with what I'd call a consensus). PrinceGloria (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The old field should be there until new ones are filled, if they will never be filled... now we have thousands? of articles without a basic car info --Typ932 ^T·C 11:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

production has been restored for Template:Infobox Automobile generation. I was rather worried that this would affect many articles but simply assumed the parent template (which I copied) was what we wanted. Actually, I quite like the new fields because they explicitly tell us to use the full date rather than the ambiguous production years - calendar vs model, start of year vs end of year (as mentioned at the start of this thread). Shall I add production back to Template:Infobox Automobile ? Stepho-wrs (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask from Mr. Scheinwerfermann his the father of "consensus" --Typ932 ^T·C 11:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you should, for the very same reason as for the other infobox. I believe ambiguity only appears concerning certain North American cars when article is read by a North American reader. Otherwise the field is just fine. More importantly - the info is already there, we can gradually move to the more specific fields later on (and as we acquire data). PrinceGloria (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

production is now restored in both templates. production_start, production_end and model_years are also still present. Stepho-wrs (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We already went though a long discussion on how this was suppose to work. Although I don't agree with everything that was reached in the consensus, it is the consensus. I understand how the removal of 'production' hides the data in the articles, but it is an outdated field that we've all agreed to not use anymore. Stepho-wrs, I'm sorry you were not able to join in, but making the change you just did requires more discussion. I have reverted the edits. Now I do agree we need to migrate data from the original production field to the new fields. I have proposed setting up a bot for this with very little feedback so far. If we do decide that keeping the 'production' field live for a little while is worth it, then I think we should only do this in the template and not in the documentation so editors going forward are only using the new fields. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If we migrate the old data, the documentation should be changed to allow only years... and I think we must change the Model Year documentation to cover only US models? --Typ932 ^T·C 20:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be clear rules for the migration. The documentation should be left alone. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Typ932, allowing year-only entries in the Production start and Production end fields would defeat those fields' intended purpose, and therefore would be wholly counterproductive unless, the goal is to find a back-door way of getting your way despite consensus going against your wishes.I'm sure you're not trying to do that…right?.

Roguegeek, I think your ideas are probably close to the best way forward. It'll take some time to figure out exactly what we want such a bot to do, and it'll take more time for such a bot to be written and activated — especially at this time of year when many editors' attention is turned elsewhere. Nevertheless, we can all pitch in an get started migrating the data manually. The default state of most Wikipedia articles is "unfinished", and while it's optimal if there's a quick 'n' easy way to migrate old data to new formats, we shouldn't let the inconvenience of data migration block or delay format improvements. Effectively deprecating the old Production field by removing it from the documentation (or, maybe better, clearly noting its deprecation) might be an effective way of guiding the migration to the new field format. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, what consensus you mean? the one man consensus? if we dont allow migration with nonexact dates then there is nothing to migrate, it is that easy really, and then we have to allow really many car articles without any year/dates info --Typ932 ^T·C 20:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not agree. Any change should improve Wikipedia and the articles, rather than create humongous kerfuffle. Basically, the current arrangement with production years is fine but for a select number of North American vehicles. I believe the new solution should be applied only in those cases, to relieve any problems. In other cases, the transfer might take place ultimately, but will require additional information to be found (which is rather hard for certain vehicles), so let us leave that for now to individual users. A note in the description might inform the users that it is advisable to provide more accurate information whenever possible. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

PrinceGloria, improvement on Wikipedia is incremental and often more haphazard than it would be if we had a magic wand to wave. That's the nature of the project, so stating that any change should make an instant 100% improvement in every aspect of everything it touches is unrealistic. Wouldn't it be nice, though!

Typ932, endlessly repeating a baseless claim that production dates are impossible to find did not imbue that claim with any veracity. The same technique is likely to yield the same result with your present claim that I somehow rammed through a "one-man consensus". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Scheiwerfermann, it isnt baseless, I gave you some examples that you wouldnt even try to find, then you "lead" the conversation to the end by adding ur own headers, and by accident we were in "concensus". In the conversation was only handfull of people and in the end there was only you and me and you decided it was "consensus", it was very far of that... IMO the best solution would have been two different fields the old production field and optional model year field --Typ932 ^T·C 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scheiwerfermann,

1. It's not about 100% improvement, but about ANY improvement at all. I can hardly believe thousands of production dates will appear out of nowhere, so taking out the field basically means doing away with a lot of info.
2. Production dates for many cars are indeed very hard to find.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

H'mm. I don't see where you and I have a disagreement on the two points you raised. I'm for the deprecation of the old "Production" field for the time being, not its removal. I agree (and always have) that there are some vehicles for which production dates won't be available, but there are others for which production dates are easy to find. In any event, "very hard" is not synonymous with "impossible", and this is precisely why we now have both Production start/end and Model years fields. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:00, 2008 December 27

I (finally) got to read the consensus at Template:Infobox Automobile and I agree with it. The only problem now is whether production is temporarily left or deleted immediately. By deleting it immediately a lot of articles suddenly have info present in the source but not displayed on the reader's screen. I assume the hope is that editors will see this, look up the documentation and modify it accordingly. Or that a bot will do the same. The problem is that the production field sometimes contains calendar years and sometimes model years (mistakenly), so a bot will probably compound the problem. There is also a non trivial probability that misguided editors will simply copy a model year from production to production_start/end because they don't know whether the value entered in the production field was calendar or model years. On the other hand, keeping the production field (marked as deprecated on the doc page) will make migration slower but at least the existing information will still be displayed. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

<-- (outdent) I'm perplexed why we need two fields to display one lifespan. Especially when dealing only with years, the universal way of writing it is on one line, separated by a dash (e.g. "1998–2005"). Not just with cars, but with anything. Even adding months to those dates for greater accuracy/clarification doesn't seem to necessitate a second field. What's wrong with writing "August 1998 – May 2005" in one field? And if there's confusion between model and calendar years, just clarify by writing "MY1998–2005". Seems perfectly straightforward to me. Personally, I'd prefer an infobox format which encourages brevity, as it will by necessity force editors to actually write actual content to explain the exact dates of production. More prose, less tables and infoboxes. But even if this new system is applied, at least get the infobox coded to display it on one line with hyphenated dates so that "our" little standard resembles what the rest of the world is using, and keeps us in closer compliance with the WP:YEAR section of the MoS.

A quick hunt through about twenty car pages at random (American, German, and Japanese) showed all of them to only show years, so even if more exact dates are available and verifiable, they're not on Wikipedia right now. Is it such a bright idea to be making these wholesale changes before the data exists in front of us? Rather than arguing about whether or not exact production dates are easy to obtain, would it not be better to actually get the data and add it before rejigging the infobox? That seems like the more sensible order for these two jobs to be done since, as I explained above, such info can still be added to the current field.

Nevertheless, the biggest issue is whether to remove the production field, as User:Stepho-wrs asked and User:Roguegeek tried to apply, though I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. By removing it you remove accurate information from thousands of articles for no other reason than it isn't in the exact format you like. That improves Wikipedia and benefits the reader... how? --DeLarge (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First problems noticed

It's been barely 36 hours since my last comment above, and I've already seen the first issues caused by this, as Bull-Doser went on one of his sprees.

First of all, the "harmless" stuff; changing from the old Production field to the new ones without adding more specific dates; for comparison, here's Acura MDX as rendered with the old style compared to the new style. Exactly the same info as before, and just as ambiguous as before (are these model years or calendar years?), except they're displayed over two lines instead of one. In fact, on my browser the Production start and Production end labels are too big for one line and are wrapping onto a second, so it's taking four lines to display "2001–06" instead of one. If this is an improvement I'm not seeing it.

More seriously, I've had to revert one of Bull-Doser's edits, and I've noticed others have too. In my case it was Mitsubishi Outlander:

1. As seen in the old version, it was originally known as the Airtrek when it was introduced in Japan in 2001, and the Outlander name only appeared in 2003. The Japanese version was upgraded in 2005 (when the Airtrek name disappeared) and the Americans received this vehicle in 2007. Slightly more complicated than normal, but quite simply displayed on two lines.
2. Bull-Doser's new version renders the dates in a far less friendly version for passing readers, in my opinion. Again, not seeing the improvement. On the contrary, to me that's a lot worse.
3. Not only did he change the format, he changed the dates, incorrectly stating that the second version started production in 2006 instead of 2005. A typo? A misinterpretation of calendar/model years? Or just stupidity? No idea and I've no idea what other errors he'll commit (but see this for another cause for concern). He also removed an embedded comment designed to stop American-centric editors changing the intro date of the second generation (a longstanding problem on that article). Again, no idea why.

Other editors are reverting him on other articles, presumably because what he's doing seems so unintuitive. And I don't blame them; if the world and his wife writes date ranges as "1998–2005", why are we fighting to change this by deprecating the style prescribed by the MoS?

The more this starts to roll out, the more uneasy I'm getting. The best I can suggest is that the new fields might be useful if full dates are known and article authors want that degree of detail in the infobox as well as the prose text. But until more accurate info than bare years is known, I'm strongly opposed to the deprecation of the existing Production field; where no new info is being added we should be leaving well alone. --DeLarge (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki templates but in XML I would do something like <production start="August 1995" end="July 1997">US only</production><production start="November 1995" end="March 1997">rest of the world</production> (ie multiple entries with subfields for dates). Is there an equivalent for subfields in templates? Stepho-wrs (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is now out of control, people are changing the infobox template fields all the time and nobody knows what to write... I would suggest we use old production field and add Model years (US) field and production start and production end could be optional if more data is available. Some solution must be find quite soon or then we have articles more messsed ...--Typ932 ^T·C 21:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, anyone who's spent much of any time here on this project knows that Bull-Doser (talk · contribs) makes problems. He always has. It's not possible, of course, to make any kind of a psychological diagnosis by scrutinising Wikipedia edits and interactions, but his behaviour here on Wikipedia has long resembled that of a person with some variety of Asperger's Syndrome or a related condition. Or perhaps it's something else altogether. Whatever it is, he's been cyclically problematic as long as I've been watching him. It's frustrating to have to clean up the messes he makes, but it would be misguided to alter the infobox simply because Bull-Doser is making another of the many messes for which he refuses all responsibility.

Typ932, please relax. This is hardly "out of control"; there's no need to panic or pull the figurative fire alarm. Notwithstanding Bull-Doser, what we have here is nothing more or less than the inevitable teething problems as a formatting change is promulgated. Those who are misusing the infobox fields need merely be pointed at the documentation so that they will know what belongs where. There are ample provisions for dealing with those who deliberately put up incorrect or improperly-formatted information. I have no real difficulty assuming good faith on the part of those who are simply unfamiliar with the newly-revised infobox fields, but given your own behaviour all along the lengthy process by which we arrived at consensus for the new infobox fields, I find it challenging to see your present remarks as anything other than yet another attempt at an end-run around consensus you don't happen to agree with.

We need to keep an eye on this. We may need to actively counsel some good-faith editors on how to use the new fields correctly. We may need to revert, correct, and eventually refer for discipline a few bad-faith editors. But the sky is not falling, and neither is this project or this encyclopædia falling apart on account of the recent changes to the infobox. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm with Typ932 (and PrinceGloria) here. I see a small discussion between three or four editors on a template talk page (on the subject of model years vs production years), and a second discussion on new fields for the infobox which has spread here and received further opposition. If there ever was a consensus, it's not there now.

First of all, as I've asked before, why do we need these two new fields? Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution has had months/years in the existing Production field for almost two years without a problem. If it ain't broke...? How is it an improvement to do nothing more than spread one line of information over four?

Second, how would Mitsubishi Lancer or Fiat Punto be handled under the new system, if more precise info does not appear? --DeLarge (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am with Typ932 - and myself, apparently. The "new" fields should only be used whenever necessary (model yrs) or new info is available (specific dates). I would also like to emphasize the infobox is for SUMMARIZING information, not presenting every possible bit thereof. Therefor, the entries in fields should be succint. E.g. if a vehicle was first made in some European country in 1962, and then in several other countries, and finally in some African country in some fancy variety under a different name until 2002, the entry should read: production 1962-2002.

Same applies to other fields - aka is for listing other names under which the vehicle was sold. The explanation about the temporal and geographical validity etc. belongs to the body of the article. Otherwise, the infobox stops being a summary for cursory reading (and then referring to the body for more specific explanations), and starts being and unwieldy collection of comments and factoids. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) The "production" field should state only the years in production, with the exact date if available stated somewhere in the article prose. As PrinceGloria stated, "the infobox is for SUMMARIZING information, not presenting every possible bit thereof." In the engine field do we state the displacement in cc, engine model, engine type, power and torque? No, some of these are included, but detailed information is transferred elsewhere. So I guess this puts me (OSX) with Typ932, PrinceGloria and DeLarge. A better solution would be to cull the complex start/end fields and use the old production field in conjunction with model years if applicable. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, there's clearly a lot of opposition to the deprecation of the Production field, and there hasn't been a comeback from those who support it in the last few days. In light of that, I'm going to restore the documentation for it so that it can continue to be used. I'll leave in the stuff for Production_start and Production_end, though to be honest they look redundant, but I'll tweak it slightly to emphasize that their usage is only optional.

As for Model_years, isn't that just an American/international language variation, and therefore something that can be coded into the "sp=us/uk" spelling variation parameter like we've done with kerb/curb weight? That'd save having all these extra fields. --DeLarge (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Small cars for deletion

See talk here.

Infobox image standards

According to our current infobox image standards, this image is a better image to use in the infobox over this image. Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong here? BTW, in looking through all archives, I do not see where consensus was reach for determining parameters for infobox images. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 05:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Which standard are you refering to. The second image you list is much higher quality and should probably be used in the lead info box. --Leivick (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The first image is listed as the author's own work while the second image is listed as belonging to Ford USA. The first image is of reasonable quality. The second image is of a much higher, professional, quality but does it violate copyright? Stepho-wrs (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Both images are valid Commons images, but I can understand questioning it due to who the author is and the high quality of the image. roguegeek (talk·cont) 10:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to this definition found on the infobox documentation which states:

image: A 'three quarter' view of the front and side of the car, preferably taken against a background containing no other vehicles and with the sun shining from behind the camera.

Leivick, I agree with you, but the higher quality image was removed because of it "is not 3/4 front view from the height of a normal person." The problem I'm seeing here is this wording could very well not allow the best possible image used in an infobox. I'd like to fix this. roguegeek (talk·cont) 10:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Another example I found is this image replacing this image due to the replacement image depicting "the car from the height of the average person, per image standards." Could everyone truly say in this case an image of a wet and dirty vehicle is a better image to use over the image it replaced? roguegeek (talk·cont) 10:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

They both look ok to me, but the red one is actually rather good. Not too much distracting reflection and at an angle that both satisfies many of the stated wiki criteria and reflects the angle by which real people are likely to recognise the car. The other one ... you'd need to spend your life up a ladder if that's how you think of the car. Also, if ever - perish the thought - an automaker goes into liquidation - some liquidator, charged with maximising the value of the assets - might feel constrained to send wikipedia an invoice for unauthorized use of a Ford press photo. I guess all that seems a bit far fetched. I hope. The more serious point is that there's no such thing as a right or a wrong answer on these choices. But as a matter of informed opinion, I think on this occasion the red car wins. You don't need to agree with me on that: but on this sort of thing I do think we need to allow each other a bit of latitude in respect of opinions that we don't share concerning the relative merits of different images. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

About the Sport Trac image: my understanding is that the first priority of an image is to show the car well, and if it doesn't do that it doesn't matter how good it looks. There was a reason whoever wrote the image standards specified "from the height of a normal person": it's because the more artsy-type photos aiming up at the car distort the view.

Ford put thousands of photos on Flickr, right? Surely there must be some photo of a Sport Trac that looks better than the current infobox image while actually meeting the requisite standards for showing what the vehicle looks like? IFCAR (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but these standards have to have some wiggle room. 3/4 view at normal person height is not the only criteria. If an image is near the standard view and very high quality, I don't see any reason not to use it over an inferior image that is taken from the requested view. In the case of the images Roguegeek has offered, the Ford press image is illustrates the vehicle perfectly well even if it isn't taken from exactly the height of a normal person and I believe that it should be used over the other image presented. --Leivick (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A distorted angle doesn't show the vehicle well. A camera pointed upward at a corner of the car can make a pretty picture, but it's not the angle that illustrates what a car looks like in an encyclopedia. The quality guidelines are not arbitrary -- there is a clear and obvious reason for the specified height. IFCAR (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now would be a good time to disclaim that IFCAR is the only editor that wrote the "standard" and is the editor who is replacing these professional images with his images. We need to redefine the standard to allow these images because, plain and simple, they are a better representations of the vehicle. The only clear and obvious reason for anything written here about image conventions has been written by IFCAR to specifically use IFCAR images, which are abundant and consistent, but definitely not the best to use in all cases. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous accusation and an extremely obvious flat-out lie. I had no part whatsoever in writing the image guidelines, which were in place before I joined Wikipedia. The notion that I have any less interest in helping Wikipedia than any other editor is downright offensive, especially considering you need make-believe history to make your point.

However, though I did not write it, I do agree with the height standard for the reason I explained: a low camera can offer a distorted view of the car, as is the case in the Sport Trac image I replaced, or show the hood and roof instead of the fascia, as in the case of the Mustang image I replaced. I don't care who took the photo, as long as it's appropriate for Wikipedia. The Sport Trac image was professionally taken, yes, but to show off the car rather than to show what it looks like. It's appropriate for a Ford brochure, but not the best for Wikipedia.

I again invite you to find a photo of the Sport Trac that actually does illustrate the car properly: 3/4 front view from the height of a normal person. You did this with the Mustang, and I don't recall raising the slightest objection. If you cannot find such an image, that doesn't make one that does not meet the quality standards any more appropriate. IFCAR (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Are these Ford promo images really free, or is it error from Ford to release those? anyway I think that is better quality than IFCAR photo, though the angle isnt the best one --Typ932 ^T·C 20:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually very strange, but true. I did a fair amount of digging into this because, professionally, I work in automotive imaging. I've also found several OEM will be releasing images under similar licenses over the next year, so Ford isn't going to be the only company out there with free professional photos soon. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

IFCAR, you're missing the point I'm trying to make. You contend a properly illustrated vehicle must be 3/4 front and at standing eye level. I'm saying it doesn't have to be. I'm saying the "standard" needs to be redefined to allow variance like this and this which, I content, are better encyclopedic representations of the vehicle. We're also getting hung up on these minor variances in composition, but completely ignoring the fact that this image doesn't meeting a basic image quality standard of being in focus. We need to come up with something that's going to allow the best possible image as far as quality and composition be displayed in the infoboxes. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In both the Mustang and Sport Trac images, there is an obvious deficit from the encyclopedic standpoint of showing what the vehicle looks like. There are definitely times when exceptions can be made, and I think the guidelines even say so. But there's nothing about either of those two photos that's exceptional that makes them worth a tradeoff. One is distorted and the other shows the roof instead of the front. I'm all for following the spirit rather than the letter of a rule, but those images don't really follow either.

While perfectly focused versus not is certainly an important issue, the first question should be whether the photo shows what the car looks like well. A beautifully composed photo at the wrong angle isn't preferable to a serviceable photo that illustrates the subject. IFCAR (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing obvious about anything happening here. Who says what's preferable over something else? Two other editors have reverted the change and I may be reading a couple more here that may agree with variances being valid images. No one single editor defines if the trade off is worth it and there's enough noise happening right now that I think it's worth redefining the conventions. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have qualms about using official images, even though in this case Ford irrevocably released them into the public domain and therefore there's no licencing-related reason we shouldn't use them. Nevertheless, even with my qualms, the Ford-made images of the Sport Trac and the Mustang are very high quality, clearly-illustrative and genuinely representative 3/4-view images that do not "distort" the vehicle as IFCAR is baselessly claiming. I do not see anything about either image that precludes its use in the relevant articles, except perhaps the "eye height" stipulation.

IFCAR, you have something of a track record of trying to get priority for your own images by whatever means you can devise. In this case, you want us to construe the image convention language much more narrowly than is customarily done. I certainly hope you aren't attempting to leverage Wikipedia conventions creatively to favour your own images, but I'm finding it challenging to figure out a plausible alternate explanation for your position; a poorly-focused, overly-cropped image with other vehicles in the background of a car park cannot reasonably be called superior to the Ford-made images you object to on seemingly spurious grounds. But Wikipedia policy says to assume good faith, so I will assist you in your push for a narrow, rigid interpretation of the convention you've invoked: the Ford-made photos you object to were obviously taken from somebody's eye height, and statistically the photographer was most likely around average height. The convention does not say the average-height individual taking the photo must be standing on the same plane as the vehicle, nor does it say the photographer may not kneel or crouch, and it is silent on the topic of stepladders. Therefore, a strict interpretation of the convention does not preclude our use of the Ford-made photos. :-)

Okay, back to being serious: IFCAR may not have written the conventions, but he has definitely participated vigourously in building consensus related to image selection. See for example here, here, here, and of course here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The convention is very clear. It's ridiculous to assume that "taken from the eye level of a normal person" means anything but that. If that's the same as deviously trying to ensure that only my own photos are in articles, then Lord knows what you think wouldn't follow that convention. The question is obviously not what the convention says and means but whether or not we want to follow it.

And I don't quite follow how advocating against the requirement that an infobox contain one specific image has anything to do with whose photo is used. That was my only participation in the image selection criteria, and it was only to verify an informal guideline that predated my joining Wikipedia. IFCAR (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time IFCAR, I'm not saying the convention isn't clear. What I am saying is it doesn't work to provide articles with the highest quality images possible and it needs to be revised. I can't explain my intentions in starting this discussion any clearer than this. roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The convention seems to be working fine right now. Height of a normal person makes sense as a general guideline, yet in specific circumstances a consensus can choose an exception, as it seems to have done for the Sport Trac. IFCAR (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good conclusion for us to come to. I don't see a problem with the image standards as the are currently written. They provide good advice for taking encyclopedic images of vehicles, however they do not need to be adhered to all the time, occasional exceptions to the rules are definitely part of Wikipedia. If a compelling reason is provided to use an image that doesn't match the conventions exactly than it can be used. --06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus we are reaching is that the convention is basically more of a guideline than a rule, I'm fine with this. I'm not good with how the convention is currently worded, though, because it does not allow for these exceptions and I know if it isn't in writing, this discussion we are having will be forgotten. I'm good with moving discussion over to the convention discussion page in order to identify wording that will allow the variances and I definitely think that some revising can be done to image conventions in general. roguegeek (talk·cont) 08:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

<-- (outdent) Why reword it? The only real rules and guidelines here are the five pillars, and the most important one of those is "Ignore all rules". Tthey are a means to an end, namely improving the encyclopedia. That's why an argument like "we can't have this much better, larger, sharper image because the rules don't allow it" is a logical fallacy. --DeLarge (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I made my concerns with the images I replaced quite clear. I wasn't rigidly following an illogical rule, I was following a guideline that I thought was reasonable for that circumstance for the reasons I've laid out.

I have some lovely analogies for the situation, but I'll save them for a future debate. IFCAR (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Roguegeek, I think taking up this discussion at the convention discussion page is a good and sensible idea. Let's do it now. What's needed is just a minor tweak to the image convention wording to allow for common-sense flexibility to use the best available image. Unfortunately, for the same reason that some people just cannot resist dialling 867-5309 just to see if Jenny will answer, when such flexibility is not explicitly permitted, we tend to get the occasional editor who insists on levels of rigidity in adherence to the letter of the convention that were never intended in the convention's development. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops…let's take another look at the conventions we're tossing around here, folks. Turns out that "3/4-view from normal standing height" thing isn't a convention or a requirement at all. It's an image quality tip, and it reads The front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person is normally the best angle for a single picture of a car. (emphasis added). That means the flexibility several of us want is already present. The Ford-made images are of substantially higher quality (better focus, composition, and cropping…cleaner backgrounds) than the ones IFCAR wants to use. Unless there are any valid objections IFCAR wants to raise, I believe this debate is over; the Ford-made images prevail. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was always clear that a consensus can make any exception it chooses. I still think the Sport Trac image is not a clear depiction, pretty as it is, but the community obviously doesn't agree.

This does not however, I hope, set a precedent that images from unusual heights are generally accepted or preferred.IFCAR (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it; it hasn't happened so far! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well now I'm confused. If there is no standard and only tips/guidelines (which going through the wording again, I have to agree with), I'm concerned whether or not we understand there isn't a standard. The entire reason this conversation started was because I was concerned with IFCAR's push back on images being replaced and his claims that they don't fall under "the standard", which we may be finding out doesn't really exist. In most of his additions to infoboxes, he has claimed the image being replaced doesn't meet this non-existent standard. Honestly, I need some clarification on this and I really hate the fact that my lack of understanding is having to drag this out anymore than it needs to be. Is there a standard or isn't there? Are there just guidelines? If so, what are the guideline to determine what is the best possible image to appear in an infobox? roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: the image conventions are as close as we get to mandatory requirements and qualifications for images. The image quality tips carry much less regulatory weight; they are merely suggestions as a starting point or 'general' guideline for creating and selecting good images. Think of it along the same lines as the "quick start" guide to using your new pocket point-and-shoot camera. It'll tell you something like "For good outdoor portraits, try to have the sun behind you and fill most of the frame with the subject's head." If you know nothing else, following that advice will allow you to create passable portraits out of doors. But it is not meant or suitable as anything close to a comprehensive portrait protocol. Get the picture? :-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems an active thread and an apt place to ask a question. FWIW, not being part of WikiProject Automobiles, but being more involved in photo work myself, I believe the general consensus that seems to have been reached here is sensible. I stumbled across this discussion as I have just uploaded some hi-res images of a Mazda6 and would like some feedback. ATM I have placed this front 3/4 view in the lead taxobox - being clean and sharp at 17 megapixels I personally doubt anyone could argue there's a better quality image in the article (even though, having been taken with a tripod, the camera was slightly below 'the height of an ordinary person'). However I am wondering what people here think of an image such as this which shows both front and rear 3/4 views combined? Is this innappropriate for a taxobox? Is this asking too much of editors? Thanks for any feedback. --jjron (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Roguegeek,

The image quality tps are basically a loose guideline to let unfamiliar editors know how others go about subjectively assessing what is or isn't a "good" photo. The closer you stick to those tips, the more likely you are to take a good photo. Nevertheless, as IFCAR found, the letter of the law is not as important as the spirit. The Ford Explorer was far sharper, better composed, and bigger. It sort of failed on one criteria,being shot from a lower-than-ideal angle, but its other qualities were uniformly excellent, so it was preferred. If you have two photos of otherwise identical quality, the one which best adheres to the rules is more likely to be the preferred choice.

Which brings me to Jjron,

The Mazda6 shot is great. Good size, nice and sharp, colours and contrast are spot on, great depth of field, and there's no distracting background—the benefits of using proper equipment! On an unrelated subject, how did you get such a large file (it's bigger than the 400D's 3888x2592 sensor by quite a margin)?

It's not "ideal" as far as the above tips are concerned, insofar as it's shot from a lower angle than would be preferred, as you acknowledged. But as with the Explorer Sport Trac photo, it's still the best overall picture on that page and should be used as the lead image. Compared with this shot (the second one down in the article), yours is at a poorer angle, but that doesn't outweigh the much better size, sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc.

As for the front/back shot, mehh. I don't know if others will like it, but a longstanding tradition here has been to have one simple shot per infobox. Wikipedia in general tends to go with a portrait format on most of its articles' infoboxes rather than a "mugshot" effect. It is only being used for illustrative purposes after all; someone who really needs to see the rear of the car can check out the Commons, or just search Google images. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I would be interested in what others think of the front/rear concept too; I'm not entirely sure myself, which is why I was asking. Re the image size, I actually a stitched together a number of original photos of segments of the car into this image, which is how I also maintained focus and sharpness across the car, while the surroundings quickly fall out of focus. The Ford Explorer photo for example looks to have been taken with a wider angle lens and higher DOF setting as the background quite a bit back is still relatively focussed, but even then it's nowhere near as sharp or detailed across the entire vehicle as mine, though I must say I'm jealous of the lighting rig they must have set up for that shot :-). --jjron (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the front shot is enough in infobox, the rear shot could be used if article has some suitable space to use it. And finally we should use photo(s) which have best overall look and not just take one criteria eg. angle so literally. So minor difference in angle doesnt harm if the photo is otherwise clearly better than second best --Typ932 ^T·C 21:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturer rule

Recently I have been going around to articles and I have noticed that under the "manufacturer" spot on the infobox, it has stated the brand the car is sold under. (Example: for the Pontiac Vibe, Pontiac is listed as the manufacturer, although the car is manufactured by NUMMI). These edits have been reverted and I have been told that it is a WikiProject rule that the brand that sells and the vehicle is marketed under should be credited as the manufacturer. Excuse me for saying this, but I think this rule is incredibly dumb. I don't like the idea that Lincoln being credited as the manufacturer of the Lincoln MKS, since Lincoln is merely a brand, and the vehicle is manufactured by the Ford Motor Company at the same factory that produces the Ford Taurus, Ford Taurus X, and Mercury Sable. It is not like Lincoln has a special factory that produces the MKS. On top of that, I think it is very misleading, and people who don't know as much about cars as us will get false ideas. In a nutshell, I think that we are giving out false and/or misleading information by listing the manufacturer to be the brand the car is marketed under, instead of the company that manufactures it. I think the rule should be changed so that the manufacturer of the car is credited to the actual company that manufactures the car, not the brand that it is sold under. Karrmann (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it really depends if the brand is considered as own or is it just sticker on the boot, if the brand has own department which makes some sort of design etc. and orders the cars from factory, it could be seen as manufacturer, we can use the assembly field to tell who is actually making (assembling it). I cant see NUMMI as manufacturer as it is just plant --Typ932 ^T·C 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

NUMMI is the manufacturer. It is the legal entity that builds those cars. Pontiac does not manufacture anything nowadays - they might have had their own "divisional" plants (I am not sure, I think Oldsmobile had one in Lansing), but you can't possibly call Pontiac, which is merely a trademark, the "manufacturer". Telling people a Pontiac is a Pontiac is redundant. Telling them the Pontiac was made by General Motors, Holden, GM DAT or NUMMI adds some valuable information. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Im not native or not even near english speaker, Im not sure what manufacturer really is but In my opinion, manufacturer can be the brand that orders the cars from producer/assembler for example Nummi? I prefer NUMMI just as assembly plant. If we go to this exact Manufacturer, we need to study which brands are actually companies and which are not, we have lots of marked as companies but they are just brands... --Typ932 ^T·C 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the brands that turn up under General Motors or British Leyland and other automotive agglomerations started out as individual manufacturers and the morphed little by little into mere brands. And then, once the new owner had milked all the goodwill he could from the old brand, they got dropped. So would you, for wikipedia, have one entry for Oldsmobile running till a few years after the GM acquisition (ie till Oldsmobile was simply another GM brand) and then a separate entry for GM brands? You could get awful confused in England with something like Jaguar which started out (albeit not with that name) as an independent auto maker, then became a division (brand?) within something which readers with any luck have forgotten called BMH, and then when the successor corporation to BMH folded became a business (brand?) within Ford before becming, when last spotted, part of Tata. How many different entries would that be? And what a wonderful time we could have arguing about whether Jaguar ceased to become a separate business when they moved Jaguar S production into the former Ford Escort assembly plant. Or not. I think rather than try and distill a one size fits all rule (that won't) you just need to sit back and ask what the averagely well informed (but not necessarily car obsessed) reader will first look for when trying to find out more about the manufacturer of his Dad's Oldsmobile or his sister's Jaguar. These past few months GM has had so much publicity - at least in the US - that he might start with GM, but in more normal times he surely would look under O for Oldsmobile or J for Jaguar. So let us not introduce gratuitous complications for that fellow. Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, we are talking now as if it was the hardest thing ever to establish which legal entity did manufacture the car. If it was NUMMI, it was NUMMI. If it was General Motors, so it was. If it was Oldsmobile (i.e. vehicles amde very early by Oldsmobile as independent company), so was it. The only really confusing example would he the Halewood plant - which would require some research (just like manufacturing dates, technical details and other stuff in other cases), but I guess we can quite safely say Jaguar Cars for the time being, because the company did not case to exist as an independent manufacturer by then. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not just Nummi but we need then rule to apply other articles aswell, I think many GM articles needs then to be fixed, who is the manufacturer of Land Rover or Jaguar nowadays? what about Lexus it is division not subsidiary can you see the "problem" we have many others than just NUMMI --Typ932 ^T·C 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The manufacturer of Land Rover and Jaguar cars is Jaguar Land Rover, a subsidiary of (separate company owned by) Tata. Lexuses are built by Toyota, as Lexus is a division of Toyota and has no separate assets. I fail to see why this wasn't done years ago (I recall having changed the Vibe article to reflect NUMMI before). What pertinent information does the manufacturer field provide if all it says is the brand? The brand is in the article name to begin with; why tell a reader the same thing twice? The fact is that New United Motor Manufacturing Incorporated, a subsidiary of Toyota and General Motors, builds the Pontiac Vibe and several other cars. I don't know why some are arguing for dumbing down our content on the assumption people would be too easily confused by this and/or are stupid. 93JC (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This "problem" isnt so easy to solve, the infobox documentation says now "manufacturer: the brand name, marque, division, or automaker" how would we deal for example this car Fiat Tempra, I see it better to have assembly field to tell locations, plants and companies which makes the car. This thing needs more opinions and conversation --Typ932 ^T·C 20:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem there. Reset the definition to "legal entity that manufatures the car". The infobox should like that:

Fiat Tempra
Overview
Manufacturer	Fiat Tofas Mekong Auto
Production	1990—1999
Assembly	Cassino, Italy Bursa, Turkey Betim, Brazil Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had this issue simmering on one of my mental back burners for quite some time, and now it's under active discussion again here, I agree with PrinceGloria and 93JC. Most of us agree on the guiding principle of not cramming the infobox unnecessarily. Because the vehicle brand is always the first word of the article title, it's completely superfluous in the Manufacturer field (and therefore constitutes unnecessary cramming). For the same number of infobox entries, we convey more useful information if we adopt and adhere to the "legal entity" standard for deciding what goes in the Manufacturer field.

There could be some minor quibbles caused by legal gamesmanship played by various corporations at various times; for example, the legal entity that manufactured the 1979 Chevrolet Caprice was not Chevrolet nor General Motors, it was GMAD, General Motors Assembly Division. In a case like that, calling GMAD the manufacturer would be unnecessarily and unhelpfully precise, and I would hope we'd all be reasonable enough to agree on putting General Motors in the field. At the other end of the scale, we will need to be thoughtful in naming the manufacturer of Holdens and Opels and Vauxhalls. In those cases, "General Motors" would be unnecessarily and unhelpfully vague, and I'd hope we'd all be reasonable enough to agree on GM Holden Ltd or GM Europe, as appropriate. What I'm getting at here is that the demarcation lines between related legal entities aren't always clear, and there may arise some such cases where we have to make a decision. But all in all, I think the "legal entity" criterion is probably the best way to proceed. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is division like Lexus "legal entity" now the infobox documentation says The company or division that manufactures the vehicle, do we allow divisions? --Typ932 ^T·C 09:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiat Tempra
Overview
Manufacturer	Fiat · Cassino, Italy · Betim, Brazil Tofas · Bursa, Turkey Mekong Auto · Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Production	1990—1999

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but looking at the Fiat Tempra example, one issue seems obvious: the manufacturer and assembly fields seem very "related" to each other, but the two are split by the production dates, and we're not providing the "connecting" information. That is, even when clicking on the wikilinks, you're not informed which locations are Fiat assembly plants, which are Tofas, and which are Mekong Auto.

Maybe we could consider including the assembly info within manufacturer? Something like the example to the right (and note that this is just a rough idea to demonstrate the principle, I'm not suggesting this as the final version)? --DeLarge (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I really like the looks of this.

Yep we have production/manufacturer and assembly fields that are somehow related, also the production years are quite important in some cases, for example in this Fiat, because the European production and sale finished well before production in other countries, I would like to include those years also somehow. --Typ932 ^T·C 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I haven't reverted it because I'm not sure what exactly the consensus here is, but could someone please fix Karrmann's edit to Template:Infobox_Automobile/doc? The way it's written is misleading as to the intentions of the project.--Flash176 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done — the Manufacturer field now specifies the legal entity, and I also clarified the wording in Parent company so as to disambiguate the two fields. Typ932, no, Lexus is not the manufacturer of the LS400, it is the brand. Toyota is the manufacturer. Likewise, Jeep is not the manufacturer, it is the brand. Chrysler is the manufacturer, and Cerberus is the parent company (for now). Chevrolet is the brand, General Motors is the manufacturer. Holden is the brand, GM-Holden Pty Ltd. is the manufacturer, and General Motors is the parent company. Subaru is the brand, and Fuji Heavy Industries is the manufacturer. Get the picture? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified car

I found an old photo dated 1984 with this car in it. The photo was taken in the US. What is it? (The quality's not good, I know.) IFCAR (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a Peugeot 304 (1969–1980) but the Peugeot range had many similar looking models. The 1984 date is probably when the photo was taken. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, the photo was dated 1984, not the car. Can anyone confirm that it's a 304 so I can upload it under that name? IFCAR (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Peugeot 504, not 304. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the sloping boot (trunk) marks it as a 504, not a 304. But the picture quality is so low I wouldn't upload it. The existing pictures in the 504 article are better. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Despite the poor quality, this is the only one to show what I think is the unique U.S. headlamp setup. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari Testarossa

I've been working on this article for the past day, and I was wondering if I could get any advice, comments, help, and so on? Basically I've been using the Maserati MC12 as my template to work off of since it's an FA article, and another sports car like the Testarossa. So far, I feel, it has received a complete overhaul compared to what the article was: Diff. It's not completely done, but I'd like to know where I stand before I get to deep into copyediting the article. I know there is Peer Review etc., but I'd like to make sure it's up to the WP:AUTOS standards and not just Wikipedia standards. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

While I haven't actually read the entire article, I can see a few problems.

• Dimensions should go in the infobox, and definitely not the lead.

• The "Overview" section should be integrated with the lead, and the information expanded elsewhere ("Overview" sections are not used, there may be a policy, but I am not going to waste time searching for an obvious answer).

• Kill the gallery, and place images within the article under appropriate model sections.

• Ditto for the "Miami Vice" template at the bottom—it does not belong there.

• Then there are obvious improvements to be made like more information, and references, which is understandably lacking due to the fact that you have only been working on the article for one day.

I hope this helps. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Quick question - is the 4 infobox setup okay? _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is common convention, but I just noticed a lot of duplicate information in them—if information is common between all versions, place this information centrally in the lead infobox. I've fixed some the duplicates already. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You should also fix the units to be same so either SI-units or US/Uk units, the convention says "Unit order follows a car's major market." Im not sure if this is right, I would use the units used in the manufacturing country. --Typ932 ^T·C 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian car so SI units should take precedence. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that answers my first question. Here's another question though, if a unit is published in American units, like for example, The Ferrari Testarossa can accelerate from 0–60 miles per hour (97 km/h) in 5.2 seconds and on to 100 mph (161 km/h) in 11.40 seconds, do I leave it as is? Meaning 0-60 mph or do I find 0 - 100km/h?

Is this correct: 291 kilowatts (390.4 PS/385 bhp) or this: 291 kW (390 hp)?

For wheels is it mm or inches first? _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Acceleration: find km/h.

Power: 291 kW (390 hp).

Wheels: in a bit of a twist, use inches first, it is standard automotive convention. I can't really explain why it is done this way. I know why but just I can't put it into words if you get where I'm coming from? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. If you can't find Acceleration in km/h....will mph suffice? _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For European car we use kW and PS (metric horsepower) hp is American, just convert the mph to km/h so 0-60 mph is 0-97 km/h (0-60 mph), so you dont have to find 0-100 km/h but put km/h first. Im not sure but wheel size is used also inches in Europe (not sure every country but most I think) so "225/50 VR 16 and 255/50 VR 16" is okay --Typ932 ^T·C 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that should keep me busy. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502

There is new car article which I proposed for merging give you opionions here Talk:Bugatti Type 57 --Typ932 ^T·C 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So anyone has any opinions of this? please add it to the talk page --Typ932 ^T·C 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I added my thoughts to the merger discussion page(Regushee (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Template moves

Many timeline templates have been moved by User:Solphusion (see user's edit history. I left a note at his talk page, since one or two are unambiguously wrong (changing "British Leyland" to "Leyland (British)", for example). Looks at first glance to be a misguided effort at standardization, but I thought I'd leave a note here before reverting everything. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying a standardization of the timeline templates (car company - country/region - time) for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Automotive_company_timeline_templates site. About the "Leyland (British)" thing, there is a template called "Template:Leyland_Cars" (Leyland and related brands car timeline, 1955–1979) and my renamed template "Template:Leyland vehicles (British)" called "British Leyland – car companies & marques". I assumed it's the same company (Leyland), therefore I named the template starting with "Leyland", with the reason to move both templates under "L" in the overview of the templates. --Solphusion (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

DeLarge please explain to me, why you want to revert EVERYTHING ? Not only the few things (the one thing?) that was renamed perhaps wrong. Thank You! --Solphusion (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would use maybe years for those timeline templates, the v • d • e system also needs to be fixed when moved...--Typ932 ^T·C 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The links also need to be fixed. An awful lot are now via redirects. Malcolma (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep there will be lots of fixing, and maybe some sort of bot is needed for that.... --Typ932 ^T·C 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

British Leyland and Leyland Cars are not the same company; see British Leyland#History for background. Your attempt to amend {{British Leyland}} has now created a double redirect, and consequently the template can no longer be restored to its original, correct location without administrative assistance. Can you please not make any further template moves until this has been discussed further, in order to avoid exacerbating any existing problems? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand slightly corrected; I was able to do a two-stage undo before the redirect bots made any edits, so {{British Leyland}} is back to its original location. Nevertheless, my request still stands that you please hold off on making any more template moves until it's been discussed a little further. --DeLarge (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Leyland and British Leyland are not the same. The "British" wasn't inserted to be clear, but is part of the name — in just one of the companies. This one at least really needs to be renamed (though I've nothing against doing something to clarify this in the title, rather than just reverting). – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be discussion before you go moving all the timeline templates, given the hundreds of articles that use them and now have redirects (unless a bot changes them all). I agree that "timeline" (lower case) should appear in all the template names, but, I dislike the parentheses - you don't see them in category names much. Just use "classic timeline" instead of "timeline (classic)", for example. Also, you don't need to add "vehicle"; it's pretty much assumed by default given the brand names. --Vossanova ^o< 14:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking at the edits in depth now, and see the following general problems:

1. The use of "classic" in up-to-1979 templates. According to classic car that's inappropriate for any American manufacturer, where the term refers to pre-1948 vehicles.
2. The redundancy of "vehicles"; do we have automotive timelines for anything besides vehicles?
3. Where there are two templates for older cars, using "classic I" and "classic II" instead of dates as was previously the case. Seems to be a problem as #1, and also more vague than before.
4. As mentioned by User:Typ932, the v • d • e links no longer work properly since they take you to the redirect pages.
5. The occasional use of the wrong variety of English. A lot of the time, especially for British or European manufacturers, I'd use "cars" instead of "vehicles".
6. Grammatical errors like "(classic,modern)" with no space after the comma.
7. Redundancy, like parenthesizing "(classic,modern)" when there's only one timeline (e.g. {{Kia Motors}}).

There are also some specific routine problems (grammar, etc) which I'm going to revert now and then post back here when I'm done. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I reverted the following timelines to their original locations:

• {{Chrysler timeline}} --> {{Chrysler vehicles timeline (classic,modern)}} (grammar; no space between commas)
• {{British Car Industry}} --> {{The British car industry – companies & marques}} (per WP:THE, although it perhaps needs moved again because it currently uses all caps?)
• {{Smart Cars}} --> {{Smart vehicles timeline}} (avoiding confusion with the generic term for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles)
• {{Mini cars}} --> {{Mini · Cooper Car Company vehicles timeline}} (I think this was just a misguided copy/paste from the title bar)
• {{Early Volvo Cars timeline}} --> {{Volvo vehicles timeline (classic)}} and {{Volvo cars timeline}} --> {{Volvo vehicles timeline (modern)}} (since only the car division products are included and not Volvo Trucks as well, although the two templates have inconsistent capitalization)

Many of the remaining templates have been moved more than once, and redirect bots have since edited the original template page making reversion impossible. Not sure what people want to do here, given the many issues and the work involved. Just a mass revert to sort some of the general problems listed above? Figure out a proper standard timeline naming convention first and then move everything en masse? Or another suggestion from someone else? --DeLarge (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe revert back until some sort standard is figuredt --Typ932 ^T·C 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a naming convention should be in place. But it may also be time to merge existing templates (e.g. Template:Classic Opel timeline (1947–1970s) and Template:Opel timeline (1980s–2000s)). Using a horizonatl scroll bar would counter any space issues. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions what we should do? --Typ932 ^T·C 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to merging existing templates or the naming convention? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the page moves and what should be done those, revert or what. I think we need to think if we need new naming convention or not --Typ932 ^T·C 07:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I actually like the reverted names, e.g. Template:Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, classic). However, because I am in favour of combing classic/modern etc, I would use Template:Ford vehicles timeline (Europe); Template:Ford vehicles timeline (Australia); etc. If merging is not possible I would not use classic/modern, but dates. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-- outdent) OK, with a little help from a de.WP VB script I converted an Excel spreadsheet to a wikitable, showing all the template moves as below:

Template moves
Alfa Romeo timeline 1910-1949	Alfa Romeo timeline (classic I)
Alfa Romeo timeline 1950-1979	Alfa Romeo timeline (classic II)
Alfa Romeo timeline 1980 to date	Alfa Romeo timeline (modern)
Aston Martin	Aston Martin vehicles timeline	Aston Martin vehicles timeline (classic,modern)
Audi (Europe) timeline 1970 to date	Audi vehicles timeline (Europe)
Audi (North America) timeline 1970 to date	Audi vehicles timeline (North America)
BMW cars	BMW vehicles (modern)	BMW vehicles timeline (modern)
BMW early cars	BMW vehicles (classic II)	BMW vehicles timeline (classic II)
BMW pre war	BMW vehicles (classic I)	BMW vehicles timeline (classic I)
British Car Industry	The British car industry – companies & marques
British Leyland	Leyland vehicles (British)	Leyland - British Leyland car companies timeline
Chrysler timeline	Chrysler vehicles timeline (classic,modern)
Citroën timeline 1950-1979	Citroën vehicles (classic)	Citroën vehicles timeline (classic)
Citroën timeline 1980 to date	Citroën vehicles (modern)	Citroën vehicles timeline (modern)
Early European Ford vehicles	Ford vehicles (European early)	Ford vehicles (Europe, classic)	Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, classic)
Ford postwar	Ford vehicles (North America, classic)	Ford vehicles timeline (North America, classic)
Modern European Ford vehicles	Ford vehicles (European modern)	Ford vehicles (Europe, modern)	Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, modern)
Modern North American Ford vehicles	Ford vehicles (North American modern)	Ford vehicles (North America, modern)	Ford vehicles timeline (North America, modern)
Early Honda vehicles	Honda vehicles (classic)	Honda vehicles timeline (classic)
Honda Timeline	Honda vehicles (North America)	Honda vehicles timeline (North America)
Honda vehicles (modern)	Honda vehicles timeline (modern)
Hyundai cars	Hyundai vehicles (classic,modern)	Hyundai vehicles timeline (classic,modern)
Hyundai North America	Hyundai vehicles (North America)	Hyundai vehicles timeline (North America)
Modern Honda vehicles	Honda vehicles (modern)
Jaguar	Jaguar vehicles (classic)	Jaguar vehicles timeline (classic)
Jaguar modern timeline	Jaguar vehicles (modern)	Jaguar vehicles timeline (modern)
Jeep	Jeep vehicles timeline (classic,modern)	Jeep vehicles timeline	Jeep vehicles timeline (past to present)
Kia Motors	Kia Motors vehicles timeline (modern)	Kia Motors vehicles timeline (past to present)
Leyland Cars	Leyland - Leyland vehicles timeline
Classic Mercedes-Benz vehicles	Mercedes-Benz vehicles (classic)
Maruti Suzuki Timeline	Maruti Suzuki vehicles timeline (classic,modern)
Mazda	Mazda vehicles timeline (modern)	Mazda vehicles timeline
Mazda RX	Mazda RX - Wankel rotary timeline
Mazda vehicles (North America)	Mazda vehicles timeline (North America)
Mercedes-Benz vehicles	Mercedes-Benz vehicles (modern)
Mini cars	Mini · Cooper Car Company vehicles timeline
Mitsubishi Motors North America timeline	Mitsubishi Motors vehicles timeline (North America)
North American Mazda vehicles	Mazda vehicles (North America)
Modern European Nissan vehicles	Nissan vehicles timeline (Europe)
Modern North American Nissan vehicles	Nissan vehicles timeline (North America, modern)	Nissan vehicles timeline (North America)
Historic Plymouth Timeline	Plymouth Timeline (classic)
Peugeot	Peugeot vehicles (modern)
Peugeot early timeline	Peugeot vehicles (classic II)
Peugeot historic timeline	Peugeot vehicles (classic I)
Porsche	Porsche vehicles timeline
Early Renault vehicles	Renault vehicles timeline (classic)
Modern Renault vehicles	Renault vehicles timeline (modern)
Saab automobiles	Saab vehicles timeline (modern)
Saab early timeline	Saab vehicles timeline (classic)
Smart Cars	Smart vehicles timeline
Subaru	Subaru vehicles timeline
Suzuki United States	Suzuki vehicles timeline (North America)
Early Volvo Cars timeline	Volvo vehicles timeline (classic)
Volvo cars timeline	Volvo vehicles timeline (modern)

Bold text indicates where I've reverted to myself. To be honest, the only three I can see which I'd call an improvement are the two Audi ones ({{Audi vehicles timeline (Europe)}} and {{Audi vehicles timeline (North America)}}) and {{Honda vehicles timeline (North America)}}.

Is there any objection to having everything but those three reverted? It'd probably be quickest to present this list to an admin, rather than tagging each template individuallys? User:OSX's idea is a great one, but will require a lot of work. A common naming convention is also not a bad idea in theory, but there's no guarantee we'll ever come up with one. Either way these won't be quick fixes, so to sort out the immediate problems of redirected transclusions and to restore the v • d • e links' functionality, I think a mass-revert would be better than leaving them as is. --DeLarge (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Does one here have enough technical knowledge to make scrollable (if that's a word?) timelines? If not, we may have to venture out from this WikiProject for help. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

(so future edits won't have to deal with the huge wikitable's code -- continue conversation below)

Support --Typ932 ^T·C 16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support For the time being they should be reverted and then consistently renamed as appropriate. I would like to see the words "Classic" and "Modern" go for a start as they are not specific. Malcolma (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support No mass move until we have a naming convention in WP Automobiles and have a plan for handling all the redirects and broken links (such as the v/d/e/ links in the templates). I already reverted Template:Kia Motors vehicles timeline (past to present) - it was just too ridiculous to look at. :) --Vossanova ^o< 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've posted a request for assistance at User talk:Anthony Appleyard. He's an admin who frequents Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, so he has plenty of experience with stuff like this. We'll hopefully get this sorted soon. After that's done I'll compile a list of templates which need quick fixing as far as capitalization, use of "modern"/"classic"/etc, and any other issues are concerned—we can organize an AWB workflow for that stuff. After all of that's out the way, we can start looking at whether a naming standard would be helpful. --DeLarge (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've posted again at User talk:Anthony Appleyard to alert him to the existence of the big list (below). The three templates which I think are at improved locations, ({{Audi vehicles timeline (Europe)}} and {{Audi vehicles timeline (North America)}}, and {{Honda vehicles timeline (North America)}}) I've left off the list; I think the best improvement for these pages is to manually fix the v • d • e links, and then someone else with AWB can do a run through all the transcluded-to pages. --DeLarge (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

List of outstanding templates to be reverted to their original location

1. Template:BMW vehicles timeline (modern) to be reverted to Template:BMW cars
2. Template:BMW vehicles timeline (classic II) to be reverted to Template:BMW early cars
3. Template:BMW vehicles timeline (classic I) to be reverted to Template:BMW pre war
4. Template:Citroën vehicles timeline (classic) to be reverted to Template:Citroën timeline 1950-1979
5. Template:Citroën vehicles timeline (modern) to be reverted to Template:Citroën timeline 1980 to date
6. Template:Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, classic) to be reverted to Template:Early European Ford vehicles
7. Template:Ford vehicles timeline (North America, classic) to be reverted to Template:Ford postwar template
8. Template:Ford vehicles timeline (Europe, modern) to be reverted to Template:Modern European Ford vehicles
9. Template:Ford vehicles timeline (North America, modern) to be reverted to Template:Modern North American Ford vehicles
10. Template:Honda vehicles timeline (classic) to be reverted to Template:Early Honda vehicles
11. Template:Honda vehicles timeline (modern) to be reverted to Template:Modern Honda vehicles
12. Template:Hyundai vehicles timeline (classic,modern) to be reverted to Template:Hyundai cars
13. Template:Hyundai vehicles timeline (North America) to be reverted to Template:Hyundai North America
14. Template:Jaguar vehicles timeline (classic) to be reverted to Template:Jaguar
15. Template:Jaguar vehicles timeline (modern) to be reverted to Template:Jaguar modern timeline
16. Template:Jeep vehicles timeline to be reverted to Template:Jeep
17. Template:Kia Motors vehicles timeline (modern) to be reverted to Template:Kia Motors
18. Template:Mazda vehicles timeline to be reverted to Template:Mazda
19. Template:Mazda vehicles timeline (North America) to be reverted to Template:North American Mazda vehicles
20. Template:Nissan vehicles timeline (North America) to be reverted to Template:Modern North American Nissan vehicles

(for admin's benefit, per advice at User talk:Anthony Appleyard) --DeLarge (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Repairing moves of many templates Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Airbag Safety

Consider adding that the recommended distance between steering wheel and driver's chest is a minimum 10" (25.4 cm). In a recent driver safety course, the instructor recommended that the driver position themselves, by having the wrist hit the top of the steering wheel with your arm extended straight infront. It was also suggested to adopt a eight and four o'clock hand position on the steering wheel, versus the traditional ten and two. Some newer cars have even lowered the blinker control to accomodate the 8/4 hand position (e.g., Mercedes 300). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.195.27 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is, but it's also difficult to make this something that is not region specific due to differing air bag specifications. For example, US, because of the lack of universal nationwide safety belt laws, air bags had to be re-desgined with regard to catching the whole unrestrained person rather than preventing flailing on the dashboard/steering wheel.

And driver safety courses do not exactly have consistent curriculum globally. --Falcadore (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Scrollable timelines now available

With thanks to User:Erik Baas and User:Rick Block, Template:Holden timeline is now scrollable with vehicles from 1948 to present in one template. There are still a couple of issues to addresses, but the foundations are there. I was wondering if anyone here knows how to default the scroll bar to the right so recent models show first? OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I've misunderstood you, but I noticed that on the Help desk you said "I have managed to fix the white space on the right."[4] On my PC I'm still seeing a large area of whitespace on the right hand side of the template in several browsers (Windows XP, screen resolution of 1680x1050, and any one of IE7, Firefox 2.0.18, Chrome, or Safari). Doesn't appear at lower resolutions (I VPN'd in to my work PC, which is 1280x1024), so I'm fairly sure it's a consequence of the div style="width:112em; overflow:hidden;" line of code.

Addendum: Scratch all that; I noticed someone has made another edit since I last looked, and the whitespace has gone; it's now looking fine. I'm no great fan of timelines, but I think this will be a big improvement to articles like Volkswagen Golf simply because it reduces the ridiculous proliferation of templates by 40%. --DeLarge (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks good. Way to go! roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is very nice, only problem is how to classify old cars, its hard to judge are they midsize, citycars or what.. ), but I think this could/should be made for all templates? --Typ932 ^T·C 22:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of Energy fuel economy site lists the passenger space by which the vehicle class is determined. According to full-size car, "previously, a wheelbase greater than 110 inches (2.79 metres) was the criterion." So for older vehicles this could be used in the case of full-size. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To scroll the table to the right by default, you'd have to use JavaScript (set scrollLeft property). I'm not an expert on using JS in Wikipedia but you can ask around. --Vossanova ^o< 16:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look scrollable to me (using IE7 IE6 on WinXP) - e.g. when viewing Holden Barina, I just see a really, really wide template at the bottom of the article. DH85868993 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I tested it with IE 7.0.5730 and WinXP and it has scroll bar, but the vertical size on template looks huge... Its much easier to scroll in Firefox --Typ932 ^T·C 09:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, actually I'm using IE 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158 (I'm not at my usual machine). DH85868993 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IE 6 is a very old browser now. I think it came with XP which came out in 2001. So if it doesn't work for people with an 8 year old browser maybe they should upgrade. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the bulk of ordinary (ie non technical) people are still using IE6 that came with XP. Would you upgrade your toaster when it still makes toast just because it's 8 years old? Stepho-wrs (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

An eight-year-old toaster still makes toast fine, simply because toasters don't advance very fast. However, IE 6 doesn't support modern web standards, and so it doesn't "make toast [properly]" if you want to go down that path. As SynergyStar stated below, multi-column reference lists don't work either, yet they are used in most well-references articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tested with a computer using IE7 and it looks very nice. Thanks for all the hard work creating this function, I can see some significant usages of it across articles. Now if we could only get multi-column reference lists to work in IE... SynergyStar (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(Indent reset) A fixed "vehicle class/type" column is now in place; so scrolling does not affect this column. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the fixed type column - or are you referring to a template other than Template:Holden timeline? I do agree that the column should be fixed - I'm guessing by putting it in one fixed table and the rest of the columns in another, scrollable table. --Vossanova ^o< 15:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The fixed column has been reverted due to its complexity. Unless anyone can figure out a better way to do it, the current layout will have to be maintained. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about timelines

Do we need them? What are they there for? I don't see any purpose for them. All they add is extra junk. Timelines are better suited as their own pages, don't you think? — Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think we need those, it shows clearly the evolution of car brand over the times and gives nice linking to surf more easily, timelines as own pages, that would be bad idea, why would we need timelines in own pages?? You could also ask if we need successor /predecessor fields or anything else here, we dont really need anything here, but it is nice to have --Typ932 ^T·C 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Their primary purpose is as a navigation template between different vehicles manfactured by a single marque. Categories serve the same function, but while they are arranged alphabetically, timelines offer a chronological arrangement. Navigation templates of some description are very common on Wikipedia as a whole, and since they can be hidden I think it'd be an extreme move to excorcize them completely; if you don't want to use them they should be fairly unintrusive.

The downside of timelines is their tendency to encourage region-centric editing; cars are sold to different market niches in different countries, so in worst case scenarios you can end up with multiple templates on a single page (e.g. Volkswagen Golf, which has five). That's a bit ridiculous since most of the navigation links are duplicated across multiple timelines, and you end up confusing/overwhelming the reader more than assisting them. In an industry as globalized as car manufacturing I don't think we're doing the readers a service by taking this approach, but at least User:OSX's recent tweaks (see above) will improve things slightly. --DeLarge (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I still don't see a good reason for their existence, and, I don't think I've ever seen one in any other topic, at least of this scale. It made me wonder why I only see them for auto manufacturers. It's totally unnecessary, in my opinion. I just wanted to know if there is anyone who agrees with me. — Mr. Grim Reaper at 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that templates are unnecessary. Why do I disagree with you? Timelines help show product progression in the various segments; they show that for instance the ancestors of the Ford Focus can be traced back through the Ford Escort, the Ford Pinto and the Ford Falcon (North American models). Templates also show which market segments tha particular manufacturer is currently offering products, and which segments are not. Take for instance the Subaru XT and the Subaru SVX were being offered in the 2 door sports car segment, which Subaru is not currently offering. Multiple model names do not necessarily need to be represented in the timeline, because once the link is selected, the article will elaborate on the various names used. (Regushee (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I still disagree. The timeline shows the history of a model or line, however, the proper section in that article should explain that, where the reader will be able to delve deeper. It has no purpose at the bottom of the page. Only related topics might go there, not an entire history. Other than a manufactures' article, I see little purpose for a template. — Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I like timelines because they show where the vehicle sits in relation to the rest of the manufacturer's vehicles. Toyota is a prime example because we see the development from a single line in the late 1930's to a fragmented menagerie in the 2000's. Toyota sure make it hard because each model comes with numerous names. Also, names like Corolla get attached to seemingly unrelated vehicles that just happen to share the same underpinnings but look completely different. Makes it really hard to decide what goes into the timeline and what gets left out. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Myself being a former timeline designer, I suggest you to move them from articles to categories. I still like timelines, but perhaps a simple all-inclusive footer is enough.

You can also check our Spanish-language timelines by segment. They're a little Euro-centric because I am (despite the fact that I've been there only for two weeks in my whole live). --NaBUru38 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they serve the purpose User:Regushee describes of showing product progression in various markets. But at the same time, I'd agree with User:Mr Grim Reaper that the place for such information is not in individual car articles. The place to point out that the SVX and XT were in the two-door sports car market niche in which the company no longer competes is in the parent Subaru article, not on every single Subaru car page from the R1 to the Tribeca. Similarly, with regards to User:Stepho-wrs enjoyment of the Toyota timeline, that company's single line of vehicles in the 1930s(?) is not really of any relevance at all to the 21st century Toyota Venza and should therefore not be included in that car's page.

Further, as I mentioned above, for global companies timelines are a bad idea for the way they encourage region-centric editing and a consequent spawning of multiple templates which by and large link to the same articles. Navigational templates should first and foremost provide simple, easy-to-use links to other, closely related articles. For Toyota, that job is amply done by {{Toyota}}. As a navigational aid, {{ Modern North American Toyota vehicles}} is entirely superfluous. It should be in only one or two articles, e.g. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and similar pages where it's directly relevant to the topic at hand, and should probably only appear if there's also prose text to explain its contents in depth.

Post script for Regushee; if timelines are being used as navigational templates then they do need to provide multiple model names. How else can you know that, say, Toyota Vitz is the article you want, if you only know the car as a Yaris? --DeLarge (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeline templates are a graphic representation research tool of a manufacturers product offerings. Some readers respond better to graphic representation, while others prefer written articles, categories, and lists; however, both are acceptable. I've used them as a guide to discover various vehicles that were offered over the years. If a particular name is not listed in the timeline, I simply click on a vehicle class of interest, and discover through reading the article associated with the link, the other names the vehicle was known by in different markets. For instance, the Subaru BRAT (the name used in the template) was known in Australia as the Brumby and the UK as the Shifter. I think using the name BRAT only is entirely reasonable, and I don't find it distressing that the name Brumby or Shifter are also not used in the template. The issue of which name should be used has already been a topic of spirited discussion that I feel doesn't need to be revisited; I'm fine with whatever name gets used.(Regushee (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Window Sticker

Hi folks, I've having a bit of an issue with keeping one of my contributions, but fear not! I am in a better mood than last time I stopped by. The image in question is of a Monroney sticker which I took myself but some have said may be copyrighted. A deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_15#Image:Window_Sticker_Jetta.JPG

Although I feel that a window sticker is simply a collection of information and therefore not copyrighted per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, some have said that it may still be protected. Does everybody think that this image should be claimed as "fair use"? I feel like it contributes substantially to the article in question and there aren't any free alternatives available that I'm aware of. I welcome your comments--Analogue Kid (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read the article about what a Monroney sticker actually is (we don't have them where I live), I'm surprised that they are copyrighted in the first place. Isn't every one essentially a custom document for the individual car (given the possible combinations of optional equipment)? Who has copyrighted them? Why are they bothering? – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's just it, there is no copyright claim AFAIK considering the lack of benefit to it for auto manufacturers. Everybody has to include the same information with respect to the equipment, price, safety, fuel economy, etc. Obviously one car may have a CD changer and another may not but Toyota isn't going to sue Honda for including a CD changer in the Civic whilst Toyota has one in their Corolla.--Analogue Kid (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Do we have convention to use or not to use flags in car articles? I think now most are without any and I think we should not use those? I have reverted just some timeline templates made by User:Pineapple fez What are you thinking of it? --Typ932 ^T·C 09:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I just saw it on a Renault time line and assumed that it was the standard for all car time lines. Pineapple fez 08:55 19 January 2009 (EST)

The convention is at WP:MOSFLAG, which discourages their use unless they offer a palpable benefit to the reader. --DeLarge (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Long engine descriptions in the infobox

In the Chevrolet Suburban article and probably some others, long descriptions of many engine specs in the infobox field is stretching infoboxes across most of the page. Like "L31 5.7L Gasoline (350 cu in) 255 hp (190 kW) Vortec V8", for example.

What's the best thing to do with that sort of thing; just make it break into two lines or just cut must of the information out? IFCAR (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove {{nowrap should fix it? there is added something that should not be there --Typ932 ^T·C 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that engines (particularly GM) should be listed like this: 2.2 L LAP I4. That way, people can click on the link if they want specifications and more detailed information and we're not clouding up the article with tedious detailed info.--Analogue Kid (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Most that information should be cut out. swaq 15:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Those gasoline and diesel could be titles and breaked after those to shorten lines , and those measuremtns are ridiculous especially height fields.....should be xxx-xxxx and not listed every one --Typ932 ^T·C 16:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is how it should be written (currently):

5.7 L (350 cu in) Vortec L31 V8
255 hp (190 kW)

{{Auto CID|350}} [[Vortec#5700|''Vortec L31'']] [[V8]] <br> {{Convert|255|hp|kW|0|abbr=on}}

Gasoline shouldn't be included because it's pretty much a given on American vehicles. If an engine is diesel, I just insert "diesel" in front of "V8".--Flash176 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up per Analogue Kid's spec suggestion. I took out HP since those figures can be found on the linked engine pages, and I took out cubic inches since they stop being used to describe American engines in the 80's (except maybe by some big-block gearheads). I'd still keep cu in figures for engines up to the 80's though. --Vossanova ^o< 21:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vossanova, please read the project's conventions. We use both metric and English units..--Flash176 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of infoboxes with '90s and newer engines don't have cu in, and I can guarantee that very few European models have cu in anywhere. You want to add it to all those articles, go ahead, but I'm going by common example (and keeping it simple) for now. --Vossanova ^o< 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. The conventions are there for a reason. If you don't like it, either propose a convention change or don't make an edit. There's no reason you can't add the proper template conversions as called for while editing these pages. We all know that not every article page is perfect. That's no excuse for you to change a page to what you like.--Flash176 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you going after just me? Why not go after every single editor who has left cubic inches out of every single car article, thus violating the convention? I feel singled out here. Point is, please calm down. I am trying to clean up articles to make them easier to read, and have done so for quite some time, especially with these automobile articles. Forcing written convention on every edit is counterproductive. In the meantime, I suppose I will work on getting that convention changed, since I simply cannot believe that it was agreed to list cubic inches in every infobox, especially when cu in hasn't been commonly used anywhere in the world for a couple decades. --Vossanova ^o< 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that cubic inches should be omitted from most articles about cars from ~1980-present. It's just not relevant anymore for me to say I have a 150 cid engine in my '06 Volkswagen. Certainly units of measure can change with time. Nobody says that they bought a house with a 160 perch lot. A famous grandpa once said "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"--Analogue Kid (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm not going after you. I know you're a good editor and have contributed a lot to Wikipedia. Your cavalier attitude about not following the conventions that people have agreed on is what ticked me off and I was attacking. Leaving a unit of measurement out of an article when you don't know it is one thing, but removing it when it's already listed is another. Doing that and forcing someone to go back and add it later is what's counterproductive.--Flash176 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Corvette

at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship (Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Large family cars and Category:Small family cars DELETED!

A user was kind enough to nominate, and another user to delete Category:Large family cars and Category:Small family cars (see respective entries in the CfD archive: [5] and [6]). Not only was the nominator too busy to nofiy us, but apparently two comments, in one case by an anon user, were deemed enough by the admin to delete the categories outright. I've discussed the issue with both ([7] [8]), but I admit I can hardly control my temper atm. Would anybody have the time to nominate the categories for WP:DRV, and perhaps also help with the articles (whose poor state - and outright nonexistence of one - was partially the culprit here)? PrinceGloria (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder why these were deleted...we have used these as one field in automobile template and now its deleted, and just almost without any discussion --Typ932 ^T·C 07:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Solution

Following on from this issue, I've discussed the solution with User:PrinceGloria and User:OSX (see their talk pages for the conversations). Basically, those who voted to delete the categories listed above didn't seem to realise that these are not merely descriptive, but official classes of cars as defined by Euro NCAP. Unfortunately, pointing that out didn't seem to sway the deleting admin, who questioned Euro NCAP as a reliable source(?!) These classes are every bit as legitimate as the North American mid-size cars, compact cars, etc. Further, one of the enduring problems at WP:CARS has been the systemic bias; we seem to treat American car classes as some kind of absolute; just read the lede of Austin Maestro as an example of the kind of problems we have.

What I'm going to do to resolve this is to create two sub-categories within Category:Car classifications, one for European and one for North American classes. All the American classes (compact/subcompact/mid-size, etc) will be moved, which won't affect any individual page at all. I'll also create categories for the Euro NCAP classes, and then go through the various articles to categorize the vehicles as appropriate. I'll also add a blurb within each category page which should hopefully explain their nature and prevent future deletions.

For the moment that's all I'll be doing, but in the longer term there may be Japanese and Australian sub-categories created as well. This might require category renaming, since something like "mid-size cars" may not necessarily mean the North American definition. However, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --DeLarge (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good --Typ932 ^T·C 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Production number tables

An anonymous user, 69.65.229.151 (talk · contribs), has been adding tables to a bunch of articles listing the number of vehicles produced for each year. The IP has been citing theautochannel.com for these numbers. This seems like a bit of overkill to me, but I thought I'd bring it up here. Thoughts? swaq 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

TheAutoChannel collects automaker press releases, so I don't see any reason the numbers wouldn't be legit. Or do you just not think annual production is useful? IFCAR (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The latter, I'm not questioning the validity of the numbers (though I'd prefer a different source since that one is heavily laden with advertisements and the layout is broken in Firefox). It just seems a bit like overkill to have a year-by-year production numbers table. Mostly I just wanted to get other people's opinions. I start to get worried when an anonymous user starts changing a bunch of pages in a short period of time (over 100 edits within three days) without discussing it. swaq 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I like production number tables especially if its on non-massproduced car... but eg that Lexus IS in only US numbers, it should cover all countries... --Typ932 ^T·C 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, the IP has been adding sales numbers as well. IMO it's ok although a massive list going back years and years could take up a lot of space. Also the user seems to be focused on the figures only, it kinda reminds me of train enthusiasts with their charts of registration numbers, etc. A very specific hobby. :) SynergyStar (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with sales tables, so long as the numbers are backed up. If they get too large, you can make them collapsible. --Vossanova ^o< 14:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Toyota Corolla and Toyota Landcruiser articles were changed as well - he/she/it added a 'US sales' section. I like the data being there but I changed it to allow international data to be added as another column. Stepho-wrs (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As as side note, it seems as though this IP has registered as User:Dr. zedy. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I object to production/sales figures; as long as they're not overly detailed (e.g. monthly sales in one country) I think they're a valuable and encyclopedic addition. I've added global production/sales figures to a lot of Mitsubishi Motors articles in the past. I'd actually support an addition to the infobox to list total sales of a vehicle; the fact that, for example, the Ford Model T sold 16.5 million, or the VW Beetle sold 21.5 million, is as encyclopedic as a car's dimensions or what different transmissions are available.

Not so nuts on the user's recent "safety" additions; each section now seems to take up a disproportionate space in the article (see, for example, Toyota Belta). It's also a bit region-specific for my liking, since the safety agencies in Europe and Australia will have their own assessments to make (potentially tripling the size of the section). --DeLarge (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Model year clarification

I'm facing a continuous battle to keep Toyota AR engine using calendar years instead of US specific model years. The consensus among us seem to be calendar years but I can't find anywhere on the main project page to point to that actually says this. Should I edit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions page to explicitly say that calendar years are prefered and that if model years are used then they must be explicitly marked as US model years? Even better if someone else does it so that my antagonists don't blame me for changing the standard to support my own argument. Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oy gevault, here we go again. There was (very, very hard-won) consensus to prioritise calendar production dates over model years; see here. A couple of obstructionists torpedoed it with manufactured implementation "problems". This what you face is the predictable result. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about engines, why should they have anything to do with car model years? Engines can be produced independently of the cars they power, when they're crate engines sold to low volume manufacturers or private owners. --Pc13 (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a mere WikiProject convention page to justify your edits when you have a specific MoS guideline, in this case Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (one of the few style guides which has been enforced at ArbCom level). Since the engine is manufactured by a Japanese company and is sold worldwide, we do not apply an American English standard. I'll make a revert and post on the user's talk page to let them know about this, if they revert again. --DeLarge (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The MOS entry is not very explicit and unfortunately some Americans will not back down on what is their natural way to do it unless it is very explicitly spelt out to them. The infobox doc page has both model years and calendar years but states no preference for either. Thank you for the reversal but I feel it is still neccesary to make it unambiguous and blatantly obvious on the convertions page. Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502

FYI --Typ932 ^T·C 07:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre-production models

For production years (in the infobox) do we count pre-production test models? For instance, the fourth generation Toyota Supra had some test models built in December of 1992, but official models weren't produced until April 1993. Should the production start date be 1992 or 1993? Thanks. swaq 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Production" means series/volume/mass production (pick your locally-preferred term) for general sale. Pre-production test models are a part of the design, engineering, and development process and do not count as "production" vehicles. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that's what I assumed, but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks! swaq 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages requiring to be moved

While populating the Euro NCAP car class categories (see #Solution above), I've come across a few basic page naming problems. They're not articles I routinely visit, and given that the Euro NCAP stuff is a bit time consuming, I'm not too inclined to go off on another tidying spree in parallel. If someone else wants to get things in motion, though, I'd try and assist. I could shift the pages themselves, for example, if someone with AWB or similar wanted to follow behind and tidy up the resulting redirects.

• The various generations of the Honda Civic need shifted:
  • First-generation Honda Civic --> Honda Civic (first generation)
  • Second-generation Honda Civic --> Honda Civic (second generation)
  • Third-generation Honda Civic --> Honda Civic (third generation)
  • Fourth-generation Honda Civic --> Honda Civic (fourth generation)
  • Fifth-generation Honda Civic --> Honda Civic (fifth generation)
  • Sixth-generation Honda Civic --> Honda Civic (sixth generation)
  • Seventh-generation Honda Civic --> Honda Civic (seventh generation)
  • Eighth-generation Honda Civic --> Honda Civic (eighth generation)

• Same for the Subaru Legacy, (which also has issues with unhyphenated adjectivals and capitalization, if you want to be extra picky):
  • First Generation Subaru Legacy --> Subaru Legacy (first generation)
  • Second Generation Subaru Legacy --> Subaru Legacy (second generation)
  • Third Generation Subaru Legacy --> Subaru Legacy (third generation)
  • Fourth Generation Subaru Legacy --> Subaru Legacy (fourth generation)

Possibly more contentious, but I think a lot of BMW articles need moved as well. For example, individual BMW 3 Series generations are being disambiguated using their platform code, e.g. BMW E30, BMW E36, BMW E46, etc. However, people unfamiliar with the platform codes aren't going to be able to identify which BMW model they're looking at, so I'd surely expect, for the benefit of casual readers, that the best pages would be BMW 3 Series (E30), BMW 3 Series (E36), BMW 3 Series (E46), etc. It would more closely adhere to our WP:CARS naming conventions of "<make> <model> (disambiguation)", and also to the general MoS naming conventions which recommend common names as well as precision. I think all the BMW pages might need migrated. Feedback/comments on this are welcome.

Of course, page names are only the tip of the iceberg as far as problems I've seen. Endemic lack of referencing and copious fansite/forum links, anyone? It was actually quite depressing to go through all those car articles and see what a mess they're all in. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the renames, including the BMW ones. Makes sense to me and seems more clear. I've been trying to remove external fansite/forum links when I come across them. swaq 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

These are not the only "Xth generation" car articles. There is also First-generation Ford Taurus, First-generation Chevrolet Camaro, First-generation Ford Mustang, and maybe more. So should those all be changed as well? I personally wouldn't be against it but there would be a lot of renaming. --Vossanova ^o< 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected the Subaru Legacy articles listed and used the names used in the suggestion.(Regushee (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm on favour of renaming but I'm not keen on 'first generation', 'second generation', etc. As some cars were introduced into countries at different times, the generation numbers can be different for each country. There are also complications when a model gets renamed (i.e is the new name the first generation of the new name or the next generation of the same vehicle). With BMW it is easy to use the E code (e.g. BMW 3 Series (E30)). With the Toyota Corolla I have also used its internal code (e.g. Toyota Corolla E10). Stepho-wrs (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "generation" should only be used where appropriate, and not necessarily as a default standard. It certainly wouldn't be the best option for either the VW Golf (Mk1, Mk2, etc) or the BMW 3 Series/Toyota Corolla, where the platform code is more commonly known. However, in the examples above "generation" was already the preferred usage; I was only recommending moving words around and parenthesizing per the MoS, to make the pipe trick work more easily and to facilitate category sorting. As long as the "<article name> (disambiguation)" standard is followed, the specific term used to identify different generations can be decided on a case-by-case basis.

On the other hand, I know that several Mitsubishi models (Galant, Eclipse) are most commonly defined by their fanbases as being "1G", "2G", "3G", etc. I think that's too jargon-y (sic), and should only be used in the article itself as an abbreviation which has previously been spelled out (i.e. "first generation (1G)"). Writing it in full would be the best approach for daughter article names, or section headers.

Anyhoo, thanks for the page moves, everyone. --DeLarge (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was able to do the Honda Civic, BMW 3 Series, and Ford Taurus. I haven't got to the Camaro or Mustang yet, but I might look at those if I get time later today. swaq 15:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally moved the Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang articles today. --Vossanova ^o< 19:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulic hybrid vehicle

I happened to notice there is no article for hydraulic hybrid vehicle, which technicaly could be covered in the article Compressed-air vehicle. I have a need for this link in the article Trucking industry in the United States. Although I feel as if it could possibly benefit from having its own article, anyone want to tackle that or should I just redirect it to compressed air? Some suggestions would be welcome, thanks. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Auto bhp template problem

I ran across a problem with the auto bhp template today. If I leave out the significant figures parameter I get an error. Example: {{subst:auto bhp|135}} yields '135 bhp (Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{" kW)'. When I do {{subst:auto bhp|135|0}} it is fine: 135 bhp (101 kW). Is this the desired behavior? I expected it to be a bit more robust. swaq 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's been a nuisance for quite awhile now. Thanks for bringing it up; I hope it can be fixed by someone with more template knowhow than I have. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I try to use always {{convert|XXX|bhp|kW PS|0|abbr=on}} to have bhp and metric horsepower clearly stated, we have lots of metric horsepowers marked wrongly as bhp here... --Typ932 ^T·C 09:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

All fixed.

{{subst:auto bhp|135}} 135 bhp (101 kW)

{{subst:auto bhp|135|0}} 135 bhp (101 kW)

{{subst:auto bhp|135|1}} 135 bhp (100.7 kW)

{{subst:auto bhp|135|2}} 135 bhp (100.67 kW)

Stepho-wrs (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! swaq 16:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

infobox wheelbase and track

I'd like to add front track and rear track to Template:infobox automobile. Thoughts? Stepho-wrs (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It was removed a while back, if I recall correctly. From what I've seen, the general consensus has been to not add more information to the infobox, as it is only supposed to have summary/overview information. See the talk archives for the discussions, track is mentioned a few times. swaq 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep it was removed, if we add more info we should consider drop down system as used eg. italian wikipedia --Typ932 ^T·C 21:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My Italian is rusty but the [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Auto] template looks easy enough to port over to English. Their divisions (general, dimensions and weights, other characteristics) seem pretty good too. If there is agreement that this is wanted, I volunteer to change the template to match (and also to add front/rear track to the new version). Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the solution we've implemented at Honda S2000. Surely if an article is developed enough it can evolve its own Specifications section? I don't think shoving all that info into an infobox is good, never mind that it is hiddden by default. We should encourage article expansion, and once that is achieved I see a separate Specifications section as evolving naturally out of that process. Zunaid 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Detailed specs should go in their own table, exactly like this, rather than the infobox. Even better, a long specs table can be collapsible like Chevrolet Camaro (fifth generation). Some articles were stuffing every wheelbase/height variation into the infobox, and it was getting ridiculous. If the infobox is taller than your browser window, something is wrong. --Vossanova ^o< 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW platforms

What do you think about BMW platforms, I think the EXX isnt platform and should be changed/removed from infobox platform field, these are more body_style numbering and series number than platform coding? Dont know why they are used as platform numbers here. For example "The E30 automobile platform was the basis" is wrong in the E30 intro... --Typ932 ^T·C 15:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini and Mini Moke FAR

I have nominated Mini for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I have also listed Mini Moke (nom) for similar reasons. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chains in FWD transmissions? (critic to Chrysler LH subject)

Chains in FWD transmissions???? There was one in the Toronado's transmission, yes (but between the converter and the box, not between the box and the differential) and it's derivatives (Eldorado 67+, Seville II) BUT: never in any other serial-produced FWD! (Citroën, Renault, Audi, Saab, etc, etc...) In fact one can see tree main types of fwd powertrains:

1 Longitudinal behind the weels (Citroën 11 & 15, DS, SM, Renault 4, R16, R6, R5): this gave the better weight balance and the better roadholding and give space for legs along the engine. The only bad point is that is difficult to convert do 4wd transmission because the box is before the engine. Never any chain in such cars!

2 longitudinal before the weels (Citroën 2CV, GS, Saab 92, 96, 99, 900, most Audi models, R12, R18, R20, R30, R25, R21, Espace 1&2, Chrysler LH serie...). This type of powertrain can very easyly be converted to 4wd. Never any chain in such cars!

3 transversal with parallel box: Mini, Peugeot 104, 204, 304, 305... this is done in order to reduce the broadness of the powertrain in small car. The bad point is that it need additionnal gears between the engine and the box, often noisy, and with a downgrader efficiency. But no chain!

4 transversal with inline box: the cheapest and the most commonly used today. No extra gears: no extra noise or cost, but left few space to build a good front suspension. No chain in such powertrains either...

The longitudinal engine reduce the noise and vibration because the powertain is longer and thus doesn't need to strong bonds with the frameword to keep stable against the drive torque. This dimmish the noise compared to transversal engines (need stronger "silentblocs" against the drive torque and thus the noises and vibration are not well filtered) The longitunal engine let better the cooling air circulate around it and quit the front compartement: the "real" Cx of the car can be better. The longitudinal engine allow to use longer drive shafts (better for the livelength of them) and longer suspension triangles (better roadholding is possible). But longitudinal powertrains are more expensive to built because of use of conical gears inside of the transaxle. A longitudinal engine before the well need a longer car without more place for the legs. A longitudinal engine behind the wheel give the more inner space for the shorter car (the front bumper of the R4 was direct before it's wheels!) but makes difficult to use a V6 or V8 engine (this has been done in the SM, but it was a broad car). One new point is the rules about collisions with pedestrians: the center-front longituninal engine puts nothing "hard and high" in the front part of the car, so the nose can be soft despite it's very short: this had allready be constated in the 70's with the R5.

The "inline" transversal powertrain is the most used because it's the cheapest: don't search another reason! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.248.226 (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the point is of your lengthy comments here. You seem to object to the statement that the FWD Chrysler LH cars' transmissions contain drive chains, but that is a fact, robustly supportable by reliable sources. Do you have a reliable source to support your (apparent) claim to the contrary? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Aftermarket fuel economy device and Fuel saving devices Your views are invited here. Petecarney (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed Negotiating With Ford Regaurding Images

Help is needed in trying to negotiate an amicable settlement with The Ford Motor Company over the use of their images. As you may or may not know, for a period of about a year Ford had licensed their high-quality PR images on Flickr with cc-by. This has been a cause of some consternation since they were also watermarked with cc-by-nc and previously had been tagged as such. Multiple attempts to contact Ford resulted in no response, thus we just went with the licensing they tagged on Flickr at the time (cc-by) since that is what the Flickr Terms of Use entitle us to do. However, now it seems that they changed their minds and so all the good images are potentially up for deletion. I think this would be a shame since these images are far better than most of the amateur images we have plus some are just one-of-a-kind. Lar and I have attempted to buy some time with the commons folk, so all we need now is someone to do the actual negotiation. Specifically, it means doing a lot of homework and finding the right person to talk to at Ford who can give us the permission we seek. This requires convincing them of how it would be in their interest to do so. The individual needs to push our clout as being in the top 5 returns on Google, sometimes even ahead of ford.com. Given the recent troubles of the car industry and given our presence on the internet, it should be a win-win proposition. However, it is important that the person doing the contact be professional and persuasive. Furthermore, it requires a good explanation as to why cc-by-nc is just not good enough for us. Thus I was hoping that maybe the Wikiproject could help spearhead this task by soliciting the wider wikiverse for volunteers (vp/mail list/etc) and assembling a task force of the best qualified individuals to carry this out. I would do it myself, but I lack the acumen and the persuasive skills to pull this off. People good with business and management is probably the kind we need. We only have one shot at this, thus the reason I bring it to you. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but if Ford doesn't want better images of their cars used on a non-profit site, give them their wish. They're only hurting themselves. In other words, screw 'em.--Flash176 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Ford went after its own enthusiasts for taking pictures of their own cars and making a calendar out of them. Everything was settled eventually but a lot of feathers were ruffled in the process.

Now when a person (or company) uploads an image to a website and licenses it in a certain way (in particular using CC), the license on that image is now irrevocable. They can delete the image if they like, but people who have found and downloaded and used said image are free to use it under the terms of the license when it was uploaded.

With all that said, these images will almost certainly be deleted as the "powers that be" in Wiki shy away from any sort of potential or actual legal conflict with a corporation. It doesn't matter whether they are in the right or not. If there is any suspicion that somebody is unhappy, they will work to please them. If somebody contacts the Creative Commons foundation, they may actually be more willing to stand up and say "hey Ford, you can't make us delete this". But I fear nothing will come of it. I've been around here long enough to be very cynical about things working the way they should in Wiki world.--Analogue Kid (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Buyacar.co.uk

I'm declining the speedy db-spam deletion for this because I can't rule out the possibility with a Google search that they are who they say they are; paring the promotionalism; taking to AfD; notifying you guys in case you want to have a look. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It reads like an advert, the 'Which' link is dead, the 'The Guardian' refers to it only in passing for a price, the 'Mirror' link is almost irrelevant and the references are non-standard with <br /> embedded in them. The website does exist but doesn't seem any more notable than heaps of other websites selling stuff. My vote would be to delete the article but maybe add a small section to another article talking about selling cars online. Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is a model that never entered production notable?

Currently, the Rover 400 Series article contains a section about the RD/X60 project. This was a well-publicised MG Rover project to design a model to replace the Rover 45 and MG ZS which ran from around 2001 to 2005.[9] However the RD/X60 never entered production before MG Rover went out of business. A car using a similar platform to the RD/X60 was later produced by SAIC Roewe as the Roewe 550, but the extent to which it was based on the RD/X60 work is unclear. Keeping the section in the Rover 400 series article seems inappropriate, as the RD/X60 was mechanically unrelated to the 400/45 and had it been launched, may have had a different model name. However, I'm not sure if an unproduced car model would be considered notable enough for its own article, although it was mentioned in the motoring press on several occasions. Letdorf (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

I dont see any problem why that section cant be on 400 article, if it has all that info you said there should be no problem, maybe the heading could be say something more than just RD/X60, maybe proposed successor or something --Typ932 ^T·C 17:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to recap, I'm querying the appropriateness of it being there mainly on the grounds that the RD/X60 was derived from the R40 platform and was unrelated to the Honda-based 400/45 (except for its expected position in the MG Rover model range). Letdorf (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

Ford Taurus: six generations or four?

While moving the files in category:Ford Taurus (1985–1991) to category:Ford Taurus (first generation) as per the previous discussion, I was reminded that the second generation models are not all that different from the first. Because of this, I decided not to continue on with the category moves. I was going to bring this up at Talk:Ford Taurus, but found that someone else had done so already, without any success. To get to the point, "2nd gen" models appear to be major facelifts, not all-new cars. The same can be said the "3nd" and "4th gen" models. In both, the wagons remain virtually unchanged. It was defended that, "The second generation had noticeable changes outside of the sheet metal to differentiate it from the first generation, including engine differences, interior modifications, and the obvious exterior difference." Sounds like a facelift to me. Moving to generation four: "although yes, it did share body and parts from the third generation, still had differences with engine specifications, transmission, and other subtle changes that allow it to have its own generation." Subtle changes? That is called a facelift.

So, while I do think it is necessary to distinguish between the two, how can this be done using the "first generation", "second generation" naming style?

And to make the point clear before it is raised, Ford's definition of a "new generation" and the actual definition are different. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if big changes are to be made, the Mercury Sable information should be merged as User:PrinceGloria suggested. This is especially true now that the Taurus article has been split up. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would propose merging second generation into first generation, then merging fourth into third. Then if those go through, rename the generation articles as appropriate. --Vossanova ^o< 13:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that too initially, but I would like to come a fair compromise with User:Karrmann and co. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll on date autoformatting and linking

People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles at the Commons

Hi, I have just set-up Commons:WikiProject Automobiles for all the Wikipedia project members involved there (User:IFCAR, User:Bull-Doser, et cetera). The page is largely based on the policies/conventions here, which isn't the best solution (English Wikipedia bias), but is at least a start. I have tried to mirror the "category standards" based on the conventions we use here for article names. Anyway, feel free to join up, the instructions to do so can be found here. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Having a set of standards for commons could help; I noticed that the category naming specifies "Make, model, (model code)" which is a clear distinction, in some ways more complete than the chassis code names sometimes used for articles. Although it might take a while to rename commons categories from the chassis code name to the full make-model-code name. Thanks again for the info. SynergyStar (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)