Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 27
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I've created this article, and I invested some time into inputting all the relevant info, but I don't have the time or energy to complete it. I link it here in hopes that someone else will see the utility of a list like this, and will continue with the project. My vision includes the many different car companies that existed before WW2, there's a ton of them and they all has a lot of cool cars. Anyways, hopefully someone picks up the torch. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Automobile-related disambiguation pages with links.
Greetings! This month, we have a large number of links to disambiguation pages about automobiles. We at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate any help you could give us in fixing ambiguous links to the following pages:
Sedan: 63 linksdone- Chevrolet Blazer: 61 links
- Mercedes: 52 links
- Ford Fairlane: 50 links
- Ford Fusion: 50 links
- Rolls-Royce: 49 links
Ford Granada: 48 linksdone
Cheers! bd2412 T 05:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Early motorcycles synchronization
Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorcycling#Early_motorcycles_synchronization.--Dbratland (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Unidentified automobiles
Think you know automoblies? Try your hand at identifying the automobiles at Unidentified automobiles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I am relatively new to wikipedia, so I am not sure as to how to modify the picture's text. I added notes of make and model of some, years on a few. (Mystere485 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC))
- Thanks Uzma, this is great fun. A lot of them are European Ford Escorts... Mystère, the best way to identify is to change the category reading "unidentified automobile" to the correct category. Sometimes it will take a minute of searching to find a good one. I changed this one for you, you can see what I did for yourself in the history section. You got good eyes for old cars, btw. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for your help Mr.choppers, i'll modify the rest that i indefinitely know what they. Thank-you for the compliment, I spent a lot of school years looking at car books instead of doing homework...lol! (Mystere485 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC))
BMW/Mercedes Benz cat renaming
Give your opinions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_30#Category:BMW_platforms and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_31#Category:Mercedes-Benz_platforms -->Typ932 T·C 10:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Lists of bestselling automobiles by manufacturer
I came across a couple of these content forks:
Is it worth trying to merge this content somewhere or are we better off just AfD-ing them? --Sable232 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should keep them but as a list, not a full article. So my vote is for a rename. Similar lists can be made for other carmakers, Toyota would be interesting for example.--Mariordo (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Merge with either list of automobile sales by model or list of bestselling automobiles (these two lists should be merged as well). OSX (talk • contributions) 08:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Toyota Yaris Hybrid
Toyota has announced that will unveiled the Yaris HSD in the upcoming Geneva Auto Show. I will make the entry in the Toyota concept vehicles, 2010-2019, but I am really confused about which of the Yaris articles is the appropriate one to make a short entry about the hybrid version. Any guidance is welcome. See the sources here and here.--Mariordo (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The obvious candiates (Yaris and Toyota Yaris) are just disambiguation pages. In Japan, the Yaris Sedan is called the Toyota Belta and the Yaris hatchback is called the Toyota Vitz. Sadly, the one and only photo on the web shows only the front and no one says if it is a sedan or hatchback. I've created Toyota Yaris HSD Concept to help people typing it into the WP search box. Some news/blog sites on the web said that it was 'based on the Yaris which was called the Vitz in Japan' but that may be a generalisation by the reporter. Probably better to just wait until the Geneva Auto Show in March and then fill in lots of details. Stepho (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your responses. I agree it is better to wait until more info is available and the redirect is a good temporary solution.--Mariordo (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone identify this Hyundai car?
This image should be moved to the commons, but I'd like to rename it before moving with the type of car it is. I could probably figure this out with some sleuthing, but I guessed you guys could do this off the top of your head. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Hyundai is actually a 1997 to 2001 Ford Puma. OSX (talk • contributions) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Haha oops, that ford script totally looked like the Hyundai H to me... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, this one? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's a Hero Honda CBZ in front of
some kind of Indian built Suzuki. 125-180ccs, hard to tell from this angle. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's a Hero Honda CBZ in front of
- Sorry, the second bike is actually a Bajaj, most likely a Pulsar, I mistook their logo for a Suzuki "S". ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Nouvelle catégorie
Bonjour, une nouvelle catégorie pour votre projet, c'est ici.--Thesupermat (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Machine translated as...
- Hello, a new category for your project, 110 years of automobile at the Grand Palais. Stepho (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lovely photos! Can't wait to see what can be used there, already introduced one of the RR Phantom VI Landaulet photos. Incidentally, this car is listed as a '92, whilst the Rolls-Royce Phantom VI page claims that production ended in 1991. Was the Sultan of Brunei behind a brief revival of production or does anyone know more? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Chevrolet Vega
There are some real problems with Chevrolet Vega, not the least of which is that it appears to be currently owned by user Vegavairbob; the article doesn't reflect a cooperative effort.
As well, the article has grown exceedingly long, with a fair amount of unsourced information, unreferenced conclusions, and conflations of information. It's essentially become a fan page, with a fair amount of fancruft, trivia... and conclusions that are put forth and represent the positions of... one editor.
Currently, I've flagged the article with the issues, asking that the issues be discussed and resolved on the discussion page before removal of the flags. I can only bear up so well under the personal attacks that go along with even just flagging the article.
Thoughts? 842U (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good luck on "improving" the article! CZmarlin (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Meaning?842U (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- While I can not dispute that Vegavairbob clearly considers this his (and only his) article, the lack of referencing seems less than risky. I'm only wondering about this one - seems peculiar. The fancruft is heavy, more so than the trivia, and obviously this article is longer than anyone could find necessary. I have to admit though, that while glancing at the article to see what it could use, I found myself stuck reading through much of it as I found it interesting. And 842U, the stars say you might be entering a stormy period in your life. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I do agree, the article has genuinely interesting content; the problem is much of it is synthesized from sources that remain murky because the reader must rely on the single editor serving up their single viewpoint — without the benefit of quotes in the citations. There is real potential in the article.842U (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- While I can not dispute that Vegavairbob clearly considers this his (and only his) article, the lack of referencing seems less than risky. I'm only wondering about this one - seems peculiar. The fancruft is heavy, more so than the trivia, and obviously this article is longer than anyone could find necessary. I have to admit though, that while glancing at the article to see what it could use, I found myself stuck reading through much of it as I found it interesting. And 842U, the stars say you might be entering a stormy period in your life. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree on owning. There was a strong sense of it in my limited effort on the page, even with changes I wouldn't think were controversial. I've also felt he doesn't take any kind of criticism well, so corrective measures might end up having unpleasant consequences. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Based on past occurrences I think the only way this article will ever get fixed is if Vegavairbob is indefblocked. (Crap like this is totally unacceptable and considering his history a final warning for incivility would not be uncalled for.)
- He's probably learned by now that if he's unpleasant enough people won't bother dealing with him. He's shown a considerable degree of contempt for the consensus-building process and getting any kind of worthwhile discussion out of him is impossible.
- An RFC is an option but I don't see what would come of it that could be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible to get movement, but it takes a real willingness to fight with him. (I've usually got it, but he tests even mine, & nobody else I've ever met does.) IMO, Sable's right: block. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- A long time ago I read that article thru, It was back then quite good, but its been getting longer article since then, actually I think its too long now to be intresting enough to be read thru. It seems to be never finished it will grow all the time. Also most of the citations are offline type, the article would benefit if it would have some more online sources. See also and external link sections should not be so long with this big article, which has lots of info, there is no need to these. -->Typ932 T·C 17:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- In response to
- A long time ago I read that article thru, It was back then quite good, but its been getting longer article since then, actually I think its too long now to be intresting enough to be read thru. It seems to be never finished it will grow all the time. Also most of the citations are offline type, the article would benefit if it would have some more online sources. See also and external link sections should not be so long with this big article, which has lots of info, there is no need to these. -->Typ932 T·C 17:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- If only vegavairbob had any edits that did not relate to the Chevrolet Vega. I'm pretty single-minded myself, but I still manage to evade my beloved kei-cars and add content elsewhere every so often. Anyhow, who wants to be the first person to do some cropping? I'd recommend chopping out the section dealing with how they fixed the wood trim application issue. Vega-cruft indeed. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd cull the engine information, which can be moved to the individual engine articles. The "awards" and "reception" sections can also be cut down considerably (and "see also" should be deleted all together). Another potential section for pruning is "The DeLorean factor", of which 80 percent is a large block of quotation. Possibly the original print sources could be scanned, and hosted on Flickr or similar, and the juxtaposition summarised.
Do we need "Car and Driver's Showroom Stock #0"? Surely this can be dumped somewhere else away from our sight?
I am undecided on the "pricing" section. I think there is unwritten rule somewhere that discourages the inclusion of prices, but they really aren't bothering me in this instance. Maybe just delete the model year pricing table?
Other than that, most of the content seems okay. It's a long article, but this is partially due to the large amounts of information regarding the vehicle's manufacture (Lordstown Assembly, Vert-A-Pac, Fisher Body).
I just read the section that discusses the difficulties surrounding the application of the wood trim and thought, "no, leave it there, it's interesting". OSX (talk • contributions) 08:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I returned that paragraph as per your request as two are in favor (including me) and two aren't. A draw.Vegavairbob (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is WP:NOPRICES -->Typ932 T·C 08:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree on the #0 section & a lot of the "see also", but Delorean, Yenko, the H-platform, & MT CotY should stay; that's close enough related, & still important. If possible, I'd mention the proposed option of a factory aluminum SB V8 (Z23?). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Haha, it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere. I agree that the Car and Driver Showroom Stock piece is fairly irrelevant. For me, part of the reason for removing the wood trim part is the single source given. Maybe the reference could just be listed in a better fashion, was it a personal interview? Emails? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Have we thought of a name for our anti-Vegavairbob cabal yet? See how we carefully avoid using the article's talk page and instead talk secretively behind his back. Granted that he's not a team player but I'm sure there are far more articles requiring our attention than Chevrolet Vega. Stepho (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion is not happening behind anyone's back: Vegavairbob has been advised of this discussion. This discussion was started to bring fresh eyes onto the situation; the discussion appears productive and there's been a fair amount of positive acknowledgement for Vegavairbob. Given your interests, if Vvb took a similar interest to the Toyota Celica article, you would likely feel differently about the importance of what's happening in the Vega article.842U (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also say, since the discussion isn't just about the Vega, putting it on the Vega talk would be OT. Moreover, I applaud Vegavairbob for his passion, however misguided it got. Anybody with good sources & genuine interest, I'd hope we can reform. I just fear he's not going to bend. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- OT? 842U (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- "OT?" Off-topic. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- There may be a more than slight conflict of interest issue in the article: most of the photographs are by one user, of cars he owns — whether they are relevant or not. 842U (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- OT? 842U (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also say, since the discussion isn't just about the Vega, putting it on the Vega talk would be OT. Moreover, I applaud Vegavairbob for his passion, however misguided it got. Anybody with good sources & genuine interest, I'd hope we can reform. I just fear he's not going to bend. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion is not happening behind anyone's back: Vegavairbob has been advised of this discussion. This discussion was started to bring fresh eyes onto the situation; the discussion appears productive and there's been a fair amount of positive acknowledgement for Vegavairbob. Given your interests, if Vvb took a similar interest to the Toyota Celica article, you would likely feel differently about the importance of what's happening in the Vega article.842U (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Have we thought of a name for our anti-Vegavairbob cabal yet? See how we carefully avoid using the article's talk page and instead talk secretively behind his back. Granted that he's not a team player but I'm sure there are far more articles requiring our attention than Chevrolet Vega. Stepho (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Haha, it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere. I agree that the Car and Driver Showroom Stock piece is fairly irrelevant. For me, part of the reason for removing the wood trim part is the single source given. Maybe the reference could just be listed in a better fashion, was it a personal interview? Emails? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why, Bob's article has been acclaimed as an unbiased review! Link I think its likely some of the Vega fans view the current article as compensatory advocacy for an unjustly criticized car. Bradkay (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and pruned and re-arranged some content as well. The table of contents is far too long, so let's try and cut that down further. The sections, "Engine", "Stillborn engines", and the "122 CID DOHC-16 valves" sub-section of "Cosworth Twin-Cam" should be cut-down considerably and moved to the GM 2300 engine article. Also, we need to get the "Reception", "Awards", and "Criticisms" sections down to a manageable length. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've moved the section APPLYING THE FILM to the Woodie article. This is an example of the problem with the "interesting" aspects of the article Vvb created: the woodgrain applique story is essentially this: workers stop using a technique and have to be retrained. There are probably thousands of examples of this kind of story that happen every month on assembly lines everywhere. And the reference for the "story" is this: Little-known Vega Development stories by John Hinckley, GMAD-Lordstown Vega Launch Coordinator, essentially a book of anecdotes. A not-notable story, referenced by a not-notable author. Interesting, certainly, but highly subjective, from an unvetted author. 842U (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the quickest and least controversial way to shorten the article is to split it into Vega/Astre, and Monza and the badge engineered Monza models. The Monza and Sunbird named Vegas could remain in the Vega article. Bradkay (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- "...the article has been acclaimed as an unbiased review!" from Bradkay. This article was praised by other Users as well and several administrators. I did work on it for two years. (prior there was no interest in it for years) After the first year there were User suggestions (neutality, etc) and the article's issues were addressed as listed on the Talk page. Most User contributions were reserved for comments and suggestions of which I followed carefully. Yes, it has grown much in size and the (now recently deleted) Review section was too large but should not have been deleted entirely, but reduced in size. (many auto articles have a Reviews or Reception section..now this one doesn't) A Gallery was added with deleted images and Origin paragraph was returned. But by conscious, I trimmed many of the sections and reduced the article's size from 86k to 78k bytes, trimming sections without deleting them to make it easier to read. However it was (is) properly sectioned and organized for selective or complete reading. The five deleted images were returned in a Gallery and a Motorsports sub-section was rolled back. Because of the car's limited Motorsports participation, It is noteworthy to include the road race the car had won for Car and Driver as it verifies the car's one true attribute..its handling capabilites. If removing complete sections was the only thing an editor chose to do I would have left the Origin section (direct info on the car) and deleted the DeLorean factor section. Finally to address ..."because the reader must rely on the single editor serving up their single viewpoint." from 842U. There is no viewpoint from me in the article. The 100 references (now 80) used are all noteworthy, reliable sources. I had all the archives and info to draw from. That makes not a single viewpoint article but a complete referenced article. The reader gets unbiased info which is what this site calls for, unlike other sites. Facts presented are from the first-hand knowledge and experiences of automobile engineers and journalists. (The article is neutral and has been recognized as such). If other Users had the material on this subject, I'm sure they would have contributed text and info to the article. But they don't. Instead some Users label it a fan site and I'm accused of ownership. Not to mention three comprehensive and informative sections get entirely deleted. Good grief.
On a positive note, I'd like to wish all a Happy New Year! Vegavairbob (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- "...the article has been acclaimed as an unbiased review!" from Bradkay. This article was praised by other Users as well and several administrators. I did work on it for two years. (prior there was no interest in it for years) After the first year there were User suggestions (neutality, etc) and the article's issues were addressed as listed on the Talk page. Most User contributions were reserved for comments and suggestions of which I followed carefully. Yes, it has grown much in size and the (now recently deleted) Review section was too large but should not have been deleted entirely, but reduced in size. (many auto articles have a Reviews or Reception section..now this one doesn't) A Gallery was added with deleted images and Origin paragraph was returned. But by conscious, I trimmed many of the sections and reduced the article's size from 86k to 78k bytes, trimming sections without deleting them to make it easier to read. However it was (is) properly sectioned and organized for selective or complete reading. The five deleted images were returned in a Gallery and a Motorsports sub-section was rolled back. Because of the car's limited Motorsports participation, It is noteworthy to include the road race the car had won for Car and Driver as it verifies the car's one true attribute..its handling capabilites. If removing complete sections was the only thing an editor chose to do I would have left the Origin section (direct info on the car) and deleted the DeLorean factor section. Finally to address ..."because the reader must rely on the single editor serving up their single viewpoint." from 842U. There is no viewpoint from me in the article. The 100 references (now 80) used are all noteworthy, reliable sources. I had all the archives and info to draw from. That makes not a single viewpoint article but a complete referenced article. The reader gets unbiased info which is what this site calls for, unlike other sites. Facts presented are from the first-hand knowledge and experiences of automobile engineers and journalists. (The article is neutral and has been recognized as such). If other Users had the material on this subject, I'm sure they would have contributed text and info to the article. But they don't. Instead some Users label it a fan site and I'm accused of ownership. Not to mention three comprehensive and informative sections get entirely deleted. Good grief.
- Maybe the quickest and least controversial way to shorten the article is to split it into Vega/Astre, and Monza and the badge engineered Monza models. The Monza and Sunbird named Vegas could remain in the Vega article. Bradkay (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Vegavairbob, I don't see a lack of positive comments here. Its been said previously that just about everyone finds something they really like in the article and its clear you have probably an unmatched quantity of resources on the Vega. However, my comment about the unbiased review isn't one of the positive ones. I don't see an acclaimation its an unbiased review from a member of a fan site to carry any weight, the actual point of my comment.
- We're talking about a car that after a few years of owership, disappointed a lot of people, and failed in the marketplace. Yes, they fixed some of the problems later, but things like not including fender liners on the original design, well fender liners were common practice in 71 and the original Vega not having them could be called negligent.
- The engine is more sensitive to low coolant level than other cars of the era, and so the original design should have addressed customer expectations of reasonable maintenance by including an overflow tank. Customers had expectations based on their experience with contemporary cars. If someone built a car today with points ignition, people would be outraged at the idea of tune ups every 12,000 miles. And I'd expect you'd find a lot of those cars dead on the side of the road with burned points with consumers not buying the idea they didn't do something they were supposed to do. Engineering that is advanced on paper but doesn't meet real world expectations isn't advanced engineering.
- There are many good things about the article. But just about every comment on engineering ought to be asterisked with "but it didn't work" rather than blaming it not working on the owners or saying its OK because it was fixed later. GM has never built a small car that out of the box met customer expectations, having failed with the Corvair, Vega, Citation, and Cavalier. The Chevette was competitive for only two years, until the Omni and Horizon came out, but the Chevette started life as an Opel.
- Its OK for people to like Vegas, for whatever reasons. I don't have a problem with that. People like Nash Metropolitans (I was at a meet once where a quarter of the Metros had trouble leaving under their own power, which diminished the owners affection for them not a bit), late 50s and early 60s Chryslers (where they have to re-engineer the "full contact" brakes to feel halfway safe about driving them), Fiat 850s and 124s (which you dare not drive beyond the distance you can walk back from), and a lot of other kind of poor but interesting cars. I think the Vega is interesting, and can see why people like it, but that should not extend to making the article say they are great cars and that contemporary consumers were wrong about them. Bradkay (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Critciscm section, which is the largest section in the article states engine damage was common...all the known facts are there. I never said it was a great car, in the article or otherwise. I just have all the info on it.. so I made use of it. And I did the same on all the Corvette articles as well. No complaints there...Just because the article is large doesn't say great car, it says complete article. I've talked with people that know more about this subject than anyone and have read their comments in many sources. The more someone knows about something the more reserved they are at expressing their opinions about it Ironic, isn't it? Most engineers have a neutral opinion, like this article that includes their own words. An exception is DeLorean's interview (promoting the car) and book (exposing GM mismanagement) using the Vega as one of many examples. My sources in this article include the manager of the Lordstown factory through 1975 and Chevrolet Engineers that worked on the car who don't give opinions, just facts... An informative, neutral Encyclopedic article gives the known facts without bias or speculation from which the reader can draw his own conclusion and opinion. Vegavairbob (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Its OK for people to like Vegas, for whatever reasons. I don't have a problem with that. People like Nash Metropolitans (I was at a meet once where a quarter of the Metros had trouble leaving under their own power, which diminished the owners affection for them not a bit), late 50s and early 60s Chryslers (where they have to re-engineer the "full contact" brakes to feel halfway safe about driving them), Fiat 850s and 124s (which you dare not drive beyond the distance you can walk back from), and a lot of other kind of poor but interesting cars. I think the Vega is interesting, and can see why people like it, but that should not extend to making the article say they are great cars and that contemporary consumers were wrong about them. Bradkay (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldnt we put this article under GA/peer review? I think its been quite good article long time. Thoughts? -->Typ932 T·C 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Vegavairbob, what are your thoughts on moving most of the powertrain information to a separate article, such as GM 2300 engine? This would go a long way in reducing the length. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been reduced a total of 50k bytes - from 128k bytes to 78k bytes. I reduced the article 8k bytes (equal to the size of the Dura-Built 140 and Aluminum engine block sections) from 86k bytes to 78k bytes trimming sections without deleting entire additional sections. Trimmed were the Design, Engine, Cosworth Twin-Cam, DeLorean and Criticism sections and the large production/changes chart was replaced with a much smaller chart. The largest section, Reception was already deleted as was the large Vega variants section, and I just deleted the Stillborn Engine section (4k bytes) including the Wankel since it was never produced, later planned for the Monza, and is (still) featured in the shorter Monza article. Engine section should remain as unlike other GM engines (excluding Corvair) the 140 engine was designed for, and associated with one car - the subject of the article, is the car's notable feature, and the Engine section (including the aluminum block development and Dura-built 140 Durabilty run) is part of the history of only this car, and balances the article's neutality with the Criticism engine subsection. If an engine is only associated with a particular car it should be encompassed in the car article, not just a mention with a link to an engine article. In such cases the seperate engine article should be considered subordinate, a reference. Vegavairbob (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Trimmed the article further by removing Cosworth Vega section and infobox (added one image of Cosworth and the engine paragraph to Engines) Chevrolet Cosworth Vega a new seperate article.Vegavairbob (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- While I'd agree a lot of detail on it shouldn't stay in, does anyone else think at least a mention of engine proposals should stay in? IMO, something about GM's mooted direction (& a comparison to where GM actually went) merits inclusion: so, mention (if not extensive detail) of the Wankel & Z32 (? aluminum V8) deserves inclusion. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- A large Wamkel section with images is in the Chevrolet Monza article as it was (in the final hour) planned for that car. It was included here as well but article was reduced from 128k bytes to 73k bytes by trimming most sections and deleting three. A paragraph on the aluminum V8 prototype is in the last section of the article. I agree on a smaller section (paragraph) on the Wankel added back. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wankel sub-section added back (a smaller version-4k bytes)Vegavairbob (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thx. Not only preserving the info, I learned something: it was a 206ci. (!) :D Would that have been a hot rod Vega! (And GM didn't build it... :( :( ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wankel sub-section added back (a smaller version-4k bytes)Vegavairbob (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- A large Wamkel section with images is in the Chevrolet Monza article as it was (in the final hour) planned for that car. It was included here as well but article was reduced from 128k bytes to 73k bytes by trimming most sections and deleting three. A paragraph on the aluminum V8 prototype is in the last section of the article. I agree on a smaller section (paragraph) on the Wankel added back. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- While I'd agree a lot of detail on it shouldn't stay in, does anyone else think at least a mention of engine proposals should stay in? IMO, something about GM's mooted direction (& a comparison to where GM actually went) merits inclusion: so, mention (if not extensive detail) of the Wankel & Z32 (? aluminum V8) deserves inclusion. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Trimmed the article further by removing Cosworth Vega section and infobox (added one image of Cosworth and the engine paragraph to Engines) Chevrolet Cosworth Vega a new seperate article.Vegavairbob (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been reduced a total of 50k bytes - from 128k bytes to 78k bytes. I reduced the article 8k bytes (equal to the size of the Dura-Built 140 and Aluminum engine block sections) from 86k bytes to 78k bytes trimming sections without deleting entire additional sections. Trimmed were the Design, Engine, Cosworth Twin-Cam, DeLorean and Criticism sections and the large production/changes chart was replaced with a much smaller chart. The largest section, Reception was already deleted as was the large Vega variants section, and I just deleted the Stillborn Engine section (4k bytes) including the Wankel since it was never produced, later planned for the Monza, and is (still) featured in the shorter Monza article. Engine section should remain as unlike other GM engines (excluding Corvair) the 140 engine was designed for, and associated with one car - the subject of the article, is the car's notable feature, and the Engine section (including the aluminum block development and Dura-built 140 Durabilty run) is part of the history of only this car, and balances the article's neutality with the Criticism engine subsection. If an engine is only associated with a particular car it should be encompassed in the car article, not just a mention with a link to an engine article. In such cases the seperate engine article should be considered subordinate, a reference. Vegavairbob (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, and Vegavairbob I'm quite sorry if I offended you. You have clearly added a lot of valuable content to a lot of pages. While I stand by my statement that you are rather single-minded (nothing wrong with that!), I also said "it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere." I like your work, but what I like the most is your willingness to cooperate and even prune to the point that the rest of us are beginning to ask you to put stuff back in. I think splitting off the Cosworth Vega was the best way to make this page of a reasonable size (interesting in light of current merger-madness), but I don't see a lot more trimming being at all necessary. Now go help me write an article on the Talbot-Lago T150, one is sorely needed! ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is not the stubborn Vegavairbob I wrestled with, & I'm glad of it. I like this one much better. :D (I'm no angel, either, so... ;p) And moving the Wankel content to its own page IMO solves that one. I asked Bob this, & let me ask here, since there's still a problem: is there a page where the "aluminum block" section of Vega could be moved to? IMO, it's too OT to stay in, but too worthwhile to just junk. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. A paragraph of the section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also I moved large Wankel section to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. I made a few edits as well to the smaller version. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I like it. I put back some Vega-specific detail on where it was done & where the blocks went, but otherwise, it looks good. And I'm glad it's preserved in the 2300 page. One (slightly OT) question: did that tech only apply to the Vega-family engines? If not, add it elsewhere, would you, Bob? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nice final edit. This edit was moved to Chevrolet Cosworth Vega as well. Not sure if current sleeveless engine blocks have the silicone particle etching or if they are cast the same way. Something to research for sure. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch. I forgot the Cosworth. :( (Trust a Vega guy to remember. ;p) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nice final edit. This edit was moved to Chevrolet Cosworth Vega as well. Not sure if current sleeveless engine blocks have the silicone particle etching or if they are cast the same way. Something to research for sure. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I like it. I put back some Vega-specific detail on where it was done & where the blocks went, but otherwise, it looks good. And I'm glad it's preserved in the 2300 page. One (slightly OT) question: did that tech only apply to the Vega-family engines? If not, add it elsewhere, would you, Bob? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. A paragraph of the section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also I moved large Wankel section to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. I made a few edits as well to the smaller version. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The gallery section could be renamed to be more specific what is represeting, just "gallery" gives impression its just gallery of random images and randon images of galleries are not supportted in wikipedia. -->Typ932 T·C 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Gallery section title revised. Vegavairbob (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bob, may I offer some advice. Please, oh please, use the preview button. It gets real hard to compare the history of an article when there are a string of edits in a row, within minutes of each other, by a single user. Secondly, on talk pages it is more useful to add new comments or corrections at the end of the existing conversation. Going back and changing your previous comments makes it hard to read the conversation. Other editors make comments after yours but since you have changed your comment, their comments no longer makes sense. We should think of the talk page as a transcript of a dialogue in action, rather than as a final work. Thanks. Stepho (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The DeLorean section covers DeLorean's assessment of the car at it's introduction and after he left General Motors. The title "The DeLorean factor" has been used for well over a year. The change of the title to "Influence by John DeLorean" does not describe the contents of the section. Although there is some mention of DeLorean's contributions, the majority of the text is his assessment of the car, and corporate vs divisional conflicts in regards to the car, in his own words. The DeLorean factor as the section title does not provoke a "fanboy" tone. The title is appropriate as DeLorean is a- person representing the business and the determinant - definitions of "factor". The section title has been rolled back.Vegavairbob (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've restored the Delorean paragraph just above in this discussion after Vegavairbob deleted it. Please keep the record of the previous discussion. Stepho (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does anyone else feel this article still has issues besides 842U. He keeps flagging the article no matter what has been done to improve it as per these discussions. (He initiated this discussion three months ago in November); the article has since been trimmed down to 78k bytes (from 128k bytes), several sections have been deleted, and three new articles I made from deletions: Chevrolet Cosworth Vega, Pontiac Astre and General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine. Today he flagged the Vega article again with the same multiple issues, after months absent from these discussions and the article revisions.
[It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Please help add reliable sources about this topic. Tagged since February 2011.] There are 78 reliable references - flag not needed
[It may be too long. Some content may need to be summarized or split. Tagged since February 2011.] Article reduced from 128k bytes to 78k bytes - flag not needed
[It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2011.] Article was wikified by several Users- flag not needed
[It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2011.] Article does not require a clean-up at this point and does meet Wikipedia quality standards - flag not needed
I think it's time to move on without the multiple issue flags. Comments? Vegavairbob (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does anyone else feel this article still has issues besides 842U. He keeps flagging the article no matter what has been done to improve it as per these discussions. (He initiated this discussion three months ago in November); the article has since been trimmed down to 78k bytes (from 128k bytes), several sections have been deleted, and three new articles I made from deletions: Chevrolet Cosworth Vega, Pontiac Astre and General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine. Today he flagged the Vega article again with the same multiple issues, after months absent from these discussions and the article revisions.
- The article is owned by one editor, Vegavairbob. The article is too long. By Wikipedia standards, it should be half as long as it is. And the article is saturated with fancruft. Albeit the article is shorter now, but these points have not been alleviated during the last months — especially the first point. And every time the issues tag has been removed, it has been removed by the one author cited for owning the article. Wikipedia is not the place for one fan of the Chevrolet Vega to self-publish what would be their version of the Vega story. And that's what we have here. 842U (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the last time I'm addressing your silly accusations. I have contributed to auto edits here for two years on many auto articles, spending most of my time here adding referenced text (17,000 edits) and quality images (700) to articles that were low quality for a site such as this. The Corvette articles for example were quite poor. I spent many months adding text and images to all seven of them. As I did for the Vega article and many others. I have the referenced archives on the car and I used them. Obviously no one else does, that's why I'm the User that did it. That doesn't mean I think I own it - I have followed Users suggestions and have not reverted anyone's contributions including yours. It has been determined (way before your appearance) that the article is neutral and the material used does not constitute a fan site. Many other articles are longer than this one, and longer articles need to be organized. Nobody complains a page is too comprehensive if it's neatly organized and easy to read. Many Users and readers including some Users here found it interesting to read, and that's what it's all about. By the way, I shouldn't have to mention this but I guess you don't get it. Users that actually contribute text and images usually do so to pages that they have referenced material for, so I doubt anyone substantially adds to a page they're not interested in. This discussion you initiated has lasted three months; the article was trimmed and improved where needed as per the suggestions in these discussions, and as mentioned above, I created three new articles from trimmed or deleted sections with a suggestion of one from a User in this discussion. Further more - suggestions have always been followed from many Users as shown in the article's discussion page. Sorry to say, your perception of other User contributions in regards to the article is clouded and your opinion of my contribution is biased...I should change my Username huh? Maybe Barnstarbob. (I enjoy giving 'em.) Vegavairbob (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are imaginative Users on Wikipedia. I found an interesting (reverted) edit from two years ago. Who said truth is stranger than fiction? - the '09 edit: The Car was named after a Puerto Rican engineer in brooklyn by the name of William Vega, His team of 4 came up with the idea to use catalytic converter in cars to minimize pollution almost 17 yrs before this model was introduced. Barnstarbob (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The concerns that have been raised repeatedly go to the heart of Wikipedia guidelines. 86% of the article's edits have been made by one user, who has been identified as having WP:OWN issues with the article — including egregious attacks on other users. The point of view of the article, its length, and it's fancruft tone can be adjusted — but if they are not to be corrected, then it's only fair to the reader that the article be flagged accordingly. I will replace the flags on the article until the discussion here brings a concensus. 842U (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Give it up. Your wasting everyone's time. Do not flag again until there is a response they are still needed after three months of discussions and changes. Yes, Let's get down to the heart of it - I'm identifying you with WP:OWN issues of everything you touch and it is you who have made the attacks. You brought this discussion on and now you're discounting it as you're obviously not happy with the result. Everyone here offered their suggestions, and changes were made in your absence. If the Users from this discussion respond the multiple issue flag is still needed it will be reinserted. Barnstarbob (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The concerns that have been raised repeatedly go to the heart of Wikipedia guidelines. 86% of the article's edits have been made by one user, who has been identified as having WP:OWN issues with the article — including egregious attacks on other users. The point of view of the article, its length, and it's fancruft tone can be adjusted — but if they are not to be corrected, then it's only fair to the reader that the article be flagged accordingly. I will replace the flags on the article until the discussion here brings a concensus. 842U (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are imaginative Users on Wikipedia. I found an interesting (reverted) edit from two years ago. Who said truth is stranger than fiction? - the '09 edit: The Car was named after a Puerto Rican engineer in brooklyn by the name of William Vega, His team of 4 came up with the idea to use catalytic converter in cars to minimize pollution almost 17 yrs before this model was introduced. Barnstarbob (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the last time I'm addressing your silly accusations. I have contributed to auto edits here for two years on many auto articles, spending most of my time here adding referenced text (17,000 edits) and quality images (700) to articles that were low quality for a site such as this. The Corvette articles for example were quite poor. I spent many months adding text and images to all seven of them. As I did for the Vega article and many others. I have the referenced archives on the car and I used them. Obviously no one else does, that's why I'm the User that did it. That doesn't mean I think I own it - I have followed Users suggestions and have not reverted anyone's contributions including yours. It has been determined (way before your appearance) that the article is neutral and the material used does not constitute a fan site. Many other articles are longer than this one, and longer articles need to be organized. Nobody complains a page is too comprehensive if it's neatly organized and easy to read. Many Users and readers including some Users here found it interesting to read, and that's what it's all about. By the way, I shouldn't have to mention this but I guess you don't get it. Users that actually contribute text and images usually do so to pages that they have referenced material for, so I doubt anyone substantially adds to a page they're not interested in. This discussion you initiated has lasted three months; the article was trimmed and improved where needed as per the suggestions in these discussions, and as mentioned above, I created three new articles from trimmed or deleted sections with a suggestion of one from a User in this discussion. Further more - suggestions have always been followed from many Users as shown in the article's discussion page. Sorry to say, your perception of other User contributions in regards to the article is clouded and your opinion of my contribution is biased...I should change my Username huh? Maybe Barnstarbob. (I enjoy giving 'em.) Vegavairbob (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article is owned by one editor, Vegavairbob. The article is too long. By Wikipedia standards, it should be half as long as it is. And the article is saturated with fancruft. Albeit the article is shorter now, but these points have not been alleviated during the last months — especially the first point. And every time the issues tag has been removed, it has been removed by the one author cited for owning the article. Wikipedia is not the place for one fan of the Chevrolet Vega to self-publish what would be their version of the Vega story. And that's what we have here. 842U (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- However, Bob could probably use a chill pill... easy there, you're somewhat undermining your position. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Mr. Choppers. Thanks for stepping in here. Barnstarbob (talk)
- Bob, just because you delete the personal attacks after you make them doesn't negate that they were posted in the first place. And to that end, STOP making constant edits to this after you post things. It creates edit conflicts and makes it extremely difficult for anyone else to edit this page or follow the conversation. You've been asked to stop that behavior countless times (on both talk and article pages), so consider this your last warning. If the personal attacks, deletion of others' comments, or the endless stream of piecemeal edits to your comments after you make them continue, I will be reporting you to AN/I and you will be risking a block.
- As for the article, I strongly recommend either an RFF or a peer review to get objective opinions from outside this field. --Sable232 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll put in for an RFF. The more eyes on the article the better. 842U (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)\
- Section Vega vs competitors and image for Origin section deleted by 842U reverted. No valid reason for these deletions. Comments? also - he keeps rewording the lead on a regular basis, deleting text. The lead should summarize the article. His edits not only DON'T summarize the article but in rewording the remaining sentences I have to correct errors. ie Monza is not a rebadged Vega varient - (only the Astre is) just makes extra work having to go over it on a regular basis. I informed him to bring up in discussion first before deleting sections or images at this point. He continues to delete without discussion (be initiated)Vegavairbob (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a great example of why Ownership of an article by a single editor does not work: the editor peppers the article with their own photo's of their own special cars, photo's that add little informational value to the plethora of photos in the article, all placed there by the same editor. So along comes another editor and removes the "prized possession" photos. The editor who owns the article then wants discussion. To protect their conflict of interest? And by what esoteric measure is the Monza not a re-badged variant of the Vega; it shares the same platform, wheelbase, engine... it differs by... it's styling. 842U (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- 842U deletes the photo of the first Vega built (for Origin section) then adds a Gremlin image in place of an image showing the Vega with competitors (in a much shorter review section)...the only free image taken of these three cars (Vega-Pinto-Gremlin) together since 1972! The text also has a review of these three particular cars in that photograph. WHY must this historic image from the Motor Trend photoshoot (whether I took it or not) and the text, be deleted and a factory print image of a Gremlin by itself be substitued that is already used in the Gremlin article infobox?? Clearly again, 842U doesn't think my photos should be used, why I have no clue, but he thinks AMC's promotional brochure photo is better for the Vega article...also the Vega Variant section and photos (previously deleted) I did not add back but any further deletions should be discussed first. 1st Vega built photo added back for the second time (no valid reason it should not be in the article) and the competitor group shot from the MT 2010 comparison test which I took (historic and no copyright problem) so really, what is the problem with this image? I took it.. that's the problem? ..it's been added back replacing the Gremlin brochure photo. Vegavairbob (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- ♠"it differs by... it's styling" Which demonstrates, in this instance, Bob's right. That doesn't meet the definition of badge engineering, which is "new badges on essentially the same styling" (new grille, taillights, & trim don't count). It also describes the Astre (or Nova, Apollo, Omega, & Ventura) accurately. Monza replaced Vega. They share a platform, like the X-bodies.
- ♠On the Gremlin pic, I'd again agree with Bob. It wasn't the only, or even the biggest, competition for the Vega. The Pinto was, if anything. Deleting a pic of all three just because Bob took it strikes me as too personal. If I took it, would it stay in?
- ♠As for Bob's adding his own pix, I don't see the beef. I added mine to custom car because there weren't any. If there are better ones (not just different ones...), replace them.
- ♠That said, I think the '72 Kammback pic (the promo pic is better, & there's no real need for 2) & 2 of the 3 coupé pix could be removed. (Leave the Cosworth.) I'd delete both of the Awards sections pix, & the gallery, as purely decorative. Swap the SoA pic for one of the coupé pix, if you really feel it's distinctive enough. I've never been happy with the "4-cornered" arrangement of the model selection pix, but deleting the sedan & hatchback strikes me as odd, especially when they'd have been the much more common. (Or did they just get moved & I missed it?)
- ♠Finally, let me agree with others who've asked Vegavairbob to use the Preview fuction, first. You're the most common thing on my watchlist... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- 842U deletes the photo of the first Vega built (for Origin section) then adds a Gremlin image in place of an image showing the Vega with competitors (in a much shorter review section)...the only free image taken of these three cars (Vega-Pinto-Gremlin) together since 1972! The text also has a review of these three particular cars in that photograph. WHY must this historic image from the Motor Trend photoshoot (whether I took it or not) and the text, be deleted and a factory print image of a Gremlin by itself be substitued that is already used in the Gremlin article infobox?? Clearly again, 842U doesn't think my photos should be used, why I have no clue, but he thinks AMC's promotional brochure photo is better for the Vega article...also the Vega Variant section and photos (previously deleted) I did not add back but any further deletions should be discussed first. 1st Vega built photo added back for the second time (no valid reason it should not be in the article) and the competitor group shot from the MT 2010 comparison test which I took (historic and no copyright problem) so really, what is the problem with this image? I took it.. that's the problem? ..it's been added back replacing the Gremlin brochure photo. Vegavairbob (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a great example of why Ownership of an article by a single editor does not work: the editor peppers the article with their own photo's of their own special cars, photo's that add little informational value to the plethora of photos in the article, all placed there by the same editor. So along comes another editor and removes the "prized possession" photos. The editor who owns the article then wants discussion. To protect their conflict of interest? And by what esoteric measure is the Monza not a re-badged variant of the Vega; it shares the same platform, wheelbase, engine... it differs by... it's styling. 842U (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Section Vega vs competitors and image for Origin section deleted by 842U reverted. No valid reason for these deletions. Comments? also - he keeps rewording the lead on a regular basis, deleting text. The lead should summarize the article. His edits not only DON'T summarize the article but in rewording the remaining sentences I have to correct errors. ie Monza is not a rebadged Vega varient - (only the Astre is) just makes extra work having to go over it on a regular basis. I informed him to bring up in discussion first before deleting sections or images at this point. He continues to delete without discussion (be initiated)Vegavairbob (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll put in for an RFF. The more eyes on the article the better. 842U (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)\
Merging "Chrysler 200" with "Chrysler Sebring"
Should "Chrysler 200" be merged with "Chrysler Sebring"? The 200 is just a mid-cycle update to the Sebring. Exterior-wise, the front-end is different and the boot (trunk) lid is re-designed (with rear quarter panels carrying over). OSX (talk • contributions) 09:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're right in as much as the 200 is only a facelift, but it is also the start of a new era and model range? SImilar issue to the Ford Five Hundred and Ford Taurus articles, though I don't think it works very well either. Warren (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing as well, I am just not sure if we should merge now (due to size) and then split again in a few years time when the next generation is announced. The Ford Five Hundred contents could be merged with Ford Taurus (fifth generation) without any drama, thoughts? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because they have different names I would not merge them -->Typ932 T·C 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Typ932 that it should be a separate article. When people begin searching on the 'net for Chrysler 200, they should get the 200, not an article on the Chrysler Sebring. The article should state that the 200 replaced the Sebring. (Regushee (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
- I also agree with Regushee and Typ932 that it would be best to keep them in separate articles. The names are different. The Chrysler 200 article should state that the Sebring was its predecessor, while the Sebring article describes the 200 as its replacement. A similar historical example were the name changes that AMC gave to its line of cars that began as innovative compacts that later became classified as intermediates and ended production as full-sized - although each was directly related with some being only changes in name and trim. This was the case of the initial Rambler Six and V8 that became the Rambler Classic then later changed to AMC Rebel and finally named the AMC Matador. In this case, putting all of these similar models into one (1956 to 1978 AMC - first compact to later full-size - cars) article would make it very hard to search for information about each model and the resulting article would only confuse readers. CZmarlin (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
CZmarlin, you have made a good point. It will probably be best to leave the 200 as is, but merge in a few years if the next generation car is not called "Chrysler 200". It is likely that the 200 will continue on with a second generation.
The Ford Five Hundred on the other hand could be comfortably merged with the Ford Taurus (fifth generation) article, which would outline the Five Hundred first, and then discuss the rebranding under the "Taurus" name. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Volvo 200 - series
A turbo fan has been introducing low quality copyvio photos into the Volvo 200 article, which have of course been reversed. So as to have his own space for this nonsense, he then created a completely unnecessary new article titled Volvo 200 Series - Turbo Intercooler. Please join in the merger discussion here: Talk:Volvo 200 Series#merge. I placed the conversation there in the hopes of maybe being able to begin a conversation with the user, who most likely wont find this page. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Rear wheel drive vehicles and its cousins
What are the use of these categories? I would like to nominate them all for deletion as they are not a useful grouping. They categorise vehicles which have no meaningful common characteristics (e.g. more pertinent things like manufacturer, market segment, etc). For example, of what use is it to know that any particular Honda, Triumph or Ford vehicle share the same drive wheels as each other (and as thousands of other vehicles in the world)? Let's discuss. Zunaid 09:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The same goes for categories like "sedans", "hatchbacks", "2000s automobiles", et cetera—these divisions are too broad to be of any use. Delete the lot of them. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. They serve little (or no) purpose and should be deleted. Stepho (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think all mentioned except "2000s automobiles" should be deleted, those decade cats are good to find same aged cars. -->Typ932 T·C 14:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would disagree. It may be occasional, but there may be cases where somebody's looking for only RWD or FWD vehicles. To take an example, if I'm looking for things comparable to the Traction Avant in the '30s, how else do I find it, if I don't already know about the L-29? (I know, I'm relying on the uncommon; nevertheless, IMO, the principle holds.) Obvious usefulness doesn't exclude possible usefulness. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- How do you propose to find the L-29? Through a category (RWD vehicles) containing 1000 articles, 900+ of which are not relevant to the vehicle that forms your starting point? How would you know that, out of all 1000 vehicles in that category, the L-29 is the one that's "comparable to" the Traction Avant? This is my argument. You are more likely to find relevant "comparable" vehicles through an age category (1930s vehicles) or perhaps in the article itself than through the RWD vehicles category. Zunaid 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I had in mind a double search: cars by decade & RWD cars. (Actually, in this case, FWD cars, which makes it much easier, I admit.... Unless I've had a brain fade, & the L-29 isn't in fact the FWD Cord I recall it is. :( ). I don't say it's of enormous utility, but if it's of some, why delete it? Is there some compelling reason? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would have first said "delete the lot of these", but would it be possible to combine two listings? I don't think Trekphiler's imagined double search is currently possible, but if it was, then these categories would become incredibly useful - I know jack about computers, but maybe such a project is being mooted somewhere? I do think that we should make the category links at the bottom of the page invisible, though. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Typ932, "vehicles introduced in 2006" (and other years) have essentially replaced "2000s automobiles. If every vehicle ever produced in the 2000s decade was included in this category, it would be massive (and that's saying a lot as it a big category as it stands). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I was about to say about this, but it isnt enough, because US vehicles tends to use model years as these, also if the motor show introduction has been earlier than production started this causes so much problems, that using decade cats is best to catch all about same age cars -->Typ932 T·C 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't possible to combine cats searches now (AFAIK), except by opening separate tabs & comparing (which I had in mind). If it was, IMO, it would make the cats even more useful. Even separate tabs has been useful in other areas (frex, "crime films" & "1950s films"). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, having categories for "sedans" and "2000s automobiles" are about as useful as categories like "brick buildings", "people with blue eyes", and "suburbs with McDonald's outlets". OSX (talk • contributions) 12:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- It would be useful if there was an agreed list of categories to use for car articles as there appear to be quite a significant number, and many of dubious use or help as noted above. I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Warren (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- We cant remove all cats, soon its impossible to make nay comparisons/ search similar vehicles in anyway. But I agree there is lots of silly ones that could be removed -->Typ932 T·C 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: What we are doing is using categories as a substitute for metadata. These super-broad categories will possibly become useful when (and only when) WP:Category intersection becomes a reality, which may be indefinitely far away. I like one of the suggestions above to make them hidden categories. What do you guys think of that idea? We'll have to agree on which categories should be hidden, then it's just a matter of adding the necessary template to those categories to hide them. Zunaid 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I am glad that there is work ongoing. Until these are a reality, however, hiding seems like a good option. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Categories to hide
So, which categories can we nominate to hide? And is everyone in favour of this idea? I would nominate:
- All subcats of Category:Automobile layouts
- All subcats of Category:Car body styles
Zunaid 09:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support - there are probably others as well. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support - with quick look couldnt find any other cats -->Typ932 T·C 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Festival automobile international 2011 auctions
Encore une nouvelle catégorie de complétée--Thesupermat (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Machine translated as...
- Another new category completed - Sales by auction Stepho (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Continuously Variable Transmission
I've seen CVT on some articles flip-flop back and forth between being a 1-speed automatic transmission, manual or something in its own right. I'll list the various points as I know them and let the rest of the project comment - and it also lets me play both sides :)
- not an automatic because it doesn't have gears
- Each ratio is often formed by friction between continuously varying sized cones and/or discs instead of classical, teethed gears
- its an automatic but it has only one gear (ie 1-speed auto)
- the continuous part of its name implies it has infinitely many ratios - not just one ratio.
- Its not really an auto or a manual but should just be listed as CVT
- It selects a ratio automatically
- people drive it just like an auto - select D and press the accelerator.
- The CVT mechanism could just as easily be set up as a manual gearbox. Ie a lever which selects a particular ratio possibly from a small set or possibly a continuous selection (like a volume knob). Note: a typical encyclical automatic gearbox can also be 'manualised' to remove the automatic part of its nature.
Note that in a classical gearbox, one gear = one ratio. This is not necessarily true in a CVT. Comments? Stepho (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I consider CVTs to be automatics as they are offered in lieu of conventional multi-gear automatics and manufacturers often refer to them as such. The issue may be one of terminology; an automatic transmission does not necessarily have to select "gears". Substitute "gears" for "ratios" and CVTs fit the definition of an automatic; that is, a transmission that uses a computer to select the most appropriate ratio for a given situation. DSGs are the same in my opinion: the computer does the work, yet they are paradoxically considered to be "automated manuals" because they have a clutch.
- Technology changes and definitions need to be updated to reflect this. If the DSG in a VW Golf is shifting gears automatically, then how is it a manual? Its technical function may be closer to that of a true manual than a conventional automatic, but it is still an automated function.
- A standard multi-gear bicycle may, for example, have seven gears on the rear wheel hub. Each gear cog will be of different diameters, ordered from smallest to largest, thus forming the shape of a cone (see image). Let's assume this bicycle was engineered with automatic gearing. In this process, the basic mechanicals of the bicycle did not change, but a separate system making use of the existing gears was appended to automate the gear changing process. Now let's assume the developers of this automatic wanted to go beyond the seven set gears to an infinite cycle, similar in concept to a CVT. The cone-shaped gear hub concept could be retained and modified so that the gear teeth spiral around the cone. Now obviously this is a very simplistic view, but does having infinite ratios over a set number change the fact that the gearing is automated or not? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- The term automatic transmission described a transmission in which the driver did not have to act to select the gear ratio. The device did it for the driver. CVTs qualify as automatics under this description. CVTs are a type of automatic transmissions, not a separate type. Bradkay (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Automotive transmissions |
---|
Manual |
Automatic / Semi-automatic |
- Note however that the term automatic gearbox has almost exclusively referred to those with a planetary gearset and, most importantly, a torque converter. Technology changes of course, but I don't think the terminology has kept pace. Not everyone would consider a DSG or CVT an "automatic" even though they change ratios for the driver. The term "automatic gearbox" itself needs to be redefined, but we can't OR the issue, it remains to be referenced through a preponderance of reliable sources. Zunaid 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that it should be considered a form of automatic transmission (automatic=driver doesn't have to do the shifting), but this doesn't make the CVT any less its own form of transmission. Just writing CVT in the infobox should suffice. I would consider it an automatic in terms of where to group it, though. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- In all cases I can think of (from Volvo 340 to Ford Fiesta), CVT has been marketed as automatic, as the driver does not need to select a gear. Depends how pedantic one wants to be on the technical definition, but I would suggest that most people would consider CVT to be a version of automatic transmission, as suggested by Bradkey above. Same debate I suppose for automated manuals... is any automatic transmission one that does the job for the driver? It is the same debate I suspect for dual clutch (though Audi's DSG and Porsche's PDK are always sold as automatics as far as I know). Warren (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- There seems to be agreement the CVTs are automatics. But they are not really 1-speed devices (effectively having an infinite number of ratios). May I suggest that CVTs are listed as 'CVT automatic', so a typical selection of gearboxes for a given vehicles could be 6-speed manual, 5-speed automatic and CVT automatic. Stepho (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
2012-2016 CAFE standards
This is to call the attention of any interested editors to contribute in updating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy article. Please see my comment here. The article needs some major work to remove a lot of outdated material, merge the content in the two future section, and add the content of the new 2012-2016 standards (which is nicely summarized here).--Mariordo (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Help starting a page for a new engine technology
I am the developer of The Gadgetman Groove, a modification that is proving to reduce emissions and increase gasoline engine efficiency, and would like to get a page started on Wiki on this technology.
However, being so close to the project, it is insanely difficult to produce an article that does not sound "spammy".
Would you guys help me design a page that is technically accurate and scientific in its presentation of the available data? Mostly, this consists of video reports, now numbering over 1000 citing the value to my clients.
I can't figure out how to present it without sounding like an ad!!! Can you help me?
An illustration of what I'm doing and the science behind it can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/GadgetmanGlobal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GadgetmanPrime (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your "data" does indeed sound "spammy". I don't think I can do much about that though. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- If it gets coverage in the press and journals, than an article on wikipedia will no doubt follow. You can't use wikipedia to promote a new idea without reputable sources and references as by definition it won't be notable. Warren (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Monthly sales figures
See Talk:Honda Insight#Monthly U.S. sales.
Past discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive_21#Monthly sales/production figures
I feel that breaking down sales figures by month is an excessive level of intricate detail that has little encyclopedic value and doesn't do much more than clutter the article. I removed it based on the past discussion, yet another editor insists on reinserting it and can only seem to accept past discussions where monthly numbers weren't actually the subject of the debate so he can claim "no consensus." Hence, a new project-wide discussion. --Sable232 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Monthly and market-specific sales numbers are much too narrow for any article, unless there is a spectacularly good reason to include them. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see no need for monthly figures. What next - sales by town and city? Warren (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yep no need for such detailed info -->Typ932 T·C 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto. Do we go next for daily production, or production by trim level? (Yes, some people will want it.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Months should not be included unless a particular month is outstanding in some way. For example, if sales tripled one month and returned to their former level the subsequent month. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- That merits a mention of the increase, but not a specific figure IMO. It should be in context with the cause, not just thrown in for its own sake. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Months should not be included unless a particular month is outstanding in some way. For example, if sales tripled one month and returned to their former level the subsequent month. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sales figures belong only if they're very high, very low (espcially if below expectations) or if they change drastically. I'd expect to see sales figures in articles on cars such as the Model T and Beetle since they sold so well. And on something like the Edsel or Chrysler TC by Maserati, since they were so low but especially since they were so low versus expectations. And on cars where sales collapsed, like the Chevrolet Citation. Bradkay (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I understand you, you mean total (or annual) sales. On that, I'd agree, if they're notable on their own. The T & Type 1, yes; the typical Ferrari, yes (especially since Enzo reportedly said, "Build one less than the demand."); the Edsel, yes; the '53 Corvette, yes (especially since it later climbed into tens of thousands); the '55 T-bird, yes (since it beat the 'vette so badly); the '58 T-bird, yes (since the new 4-seater dramatically outsold the 2-seater). On the Citation or Fiero, "fell from a peak of foo to less than half", or something, maybe, but that's annual anyhow. Otherwise, they aren't remarkable. If it's, say, Roller or Moggie, maybe...but then, it'd have to be a monthly record, never achieved again, not just a routine increase. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- If there's a single month that's abnormally low or high, I don't think it's the number that's notable so much as why it's unusual.
- That aside, it appears as though we have a consensus to avoid general sales figures by month, correct? --Sable232 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- No doubt. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Japanese tsunami and the auto industry
We have an article Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry, should there also be one for the Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the auto industry ? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's too early to tell what the long term (ie historical) effects will be and Wikipedia is not a news blog. Stepho (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
PROD of Tank cap
I have put a PROD notice on Tank cap. Perhaps some members of this project might feel the current very badly written article is worthy of rescue. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's one sorry little article. A tank cap is just another name for a radiator cap. Radiator cap unfortunately redirects to Radiator but would be better redirected to somewhere in Radiator (engine cooling) - Radiator (engine cooling)#Coolant pressure seems to cover the overflow valve aspect closest but possibly a new sub section would do it better. Tank cap should likewise be a redirect to somewhere in Radiator (engine cooling). Stepho (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tank cap is too generic - it depends what tank the cap is attached to (fuel, radiator etc), and suggest it is indeed ripe for deletion. Warren (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that two people here and another via my talk page think the article can't stand alone means that I've used WP:BRD to delete/redirect to Radiator (engine cooling). Obviously if you think I'm wrong then revert and we can discuss further. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tank cap sounds like something you could wear on your head. Malcolma (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Origin of "Hot hatch" phrase
I am looking for references to the origin of the phrase hot hatch. Please see Talk:Hot hatch/Archive 1#Origin of the name 'hot hatch' with any further info as I can't find anything prior to 1984! Warren (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Flame me
This may sound odd, but can somebody break the redirect at flame job? This is a topic important enough in itself to warrant a page, but if it's redirecting, the redlink won't be open. (And I can't find the mag where I saw a brief history of the topic, or I'd just write the blasted article... :( ). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Whenever you need to change a redirect, click on the link where it says "redirected from" at the top of the page below the article title and edit that page. IFCAR (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not editing the redirect that's the problem, it's deleting it so the link comes back as a redlink that I'm after. As I said, if I had the info, I'd just open the redirect & reuse the pagename. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
April 2011 Automobile-related disambiguation pages with links.
Greetings! We have a new report of the most linked disambiguation pages, including three that are about automobiles. The members of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate your help in fixing ambiguous links to:
- Ford Escort: 253 links
- Ford Falcon: 48 links
- Ford Fusion: 48 links
Cheers! bd2412 T 18:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Warm hatch - proposed merging
Due to the shortness of the warm hatch article, and the duplication of much of the list, I am proposing merging it into hot hatch. Any thoughts? If so add them at Talk:Warm hatch. Thanks Warren (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:BRD. JFDI! --Biker Biker (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, excessive boldness in "big" things like merging that are painful to revert is probably not advised. But I agree with the merge. SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Deed is done. Warren (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, excessive boldness in "big" things like merging that are painful to revert is probably not advised. But I agree with the merge. SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Scope
Does this WP just cover cars? Would a managing director of a car manufacturer fall under this WP or not? Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Anything related to cars is covered by us - eg cars, engines, tyres, car manufacturers and people significant in the industry. But some of these will also overlap with other projects - eg country specific projects, biographies. Stepho (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, the article I have in mind is Frank Searle (businessman). He designed two types on London buses, and was also involved with Daimler and Rover. Will leave it to you guys to decide whether or not he falls under this WP. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Mass article merger
Hi all! Yesterday I was discussing with OSX about further implementing the merges of hybrid articles with their non hybrid counterparts (original discussion,yesterday's discussion and came to the conclusion that they, and pages for high-performance versions of cars, should be merged with their relative page. There is currently no standard for this, and we think that one should be introduced. We also discussed electric cars counterparts, which I think is a topic more open to discussion.
The cars in question that I can think of are:
- Honda Civic Hybrid
- Honda Accord Hybrid
- Ford Fusion Hybrid
- Ford Escape Hybrid
- Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid
- Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid
- BYD F3DM
Any thoughts? --Pineapple Fez 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- We should made list of all those pages, which would be candidates for merging, I would merge all performance versions articles and hybrdi versions, if articles arent too long for merging. We have here lots of these article which could be merged....
- -->Typ932 T·C 21:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've created a list below but categorized them because I feel that they may be treated differently. --Pineapple Fez 03:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would just like to clarify, that an article such as Audi S3 will not be completely merged into the Audi A3 article. Instead, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to appropriate location. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Please see noticeboard incident here.--Mariordo (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is a simple resolution to this. Add merger tags to each article, but link them to the page where the mass merger discussion is taking place. Like this:
- {{mergeto|merger target|discuss=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger}}. That way discussion remains centralized but anyone watching any of the articles will be informed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose to mass mergers. Nowadays, some (hybrid) electric vehicles are more notable and important than their pure petroleum counterparts. Also proposes an Electric Vehicle Tasksforce within this Wikiproject to improve the articles and sections about electric vehicles (some important ones are not in Wikipedia and other non-notable pure petroleum vehicles still appear).--Diamondland (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do which one is more important than other, this is just pure article tidying, its far easier to find all models about same car in same page, we dont need own page for every versions, of course if articles are very long there might be idea to have separate article. -->Typ932 T·C 12:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
List
The following list covers the articles in question. If there is anything missing, please contribute.
*Hybrid/Performance/Electric/Fuel Cell/Other refers to a version of a car, e.g the Honda Civic Hybrid is a hybrid-electric version of the Honda Civic
Register your view
Extended content
|
---|
We are not proposing to merge the Civic, Escape, and Accord Hybrids all into one article, which is what the above guideline applies to. There does not seem to be any guideline outlining a topic-wide merger, so Pineapple fez chose the most appropriate location. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Support - Engineering is much more important than marketing, which shouldn't be enough to give a car its own article. We already have a rule that a badge-engineered car's content belongs on the original page, how is the Audi S3 (for instance) exempt from this rule? One of the few exceptions I could imagine is Mitsubishi's Evolution series, which has developed somewhat of an independent existence. Personally, I have always been arguing in favor of this sort of thinking, on topics from the Suzuki Cultus Crescent to the Rover 200/400/25/45 and various MG iterations. Anyhow, support, but allowing for the occasional exception. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Motions of order
Extended content
|
---|
Opinions/Discussion (1):
I am restoring this discussion that OSX improperly removed from this talk page simply because he disagrees, and reproducing the transcription of the message he left in my talk page:
I stroked out the issues that have been resolved, but #1 is still pending. Besides WP:Civility and WP:Good faith, I request a hold on the discussion at least regarding hybrids (particularly the Civic Hybrid) so we can concentrate in the arguments, particularly WP:Notability. I do not see the rush to do the mergers, plus what I am requesting is just a courtesy, so I have time to develop the arguments once I am back from the holiday break. Please express your views below regarding my proposal.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Opinions/Discussion (2):
|
Case by Case
As it appeard that the group concensus is to do a 'case by case' merger, I think we should begin. I would also like to add that I think it would be more appropriate to group certain vehicles into cases, e.g. Mazdaspeed3 and Mazdaspeed6, becvause they are similar both as vehicles and as articles. --Pineapple Fez 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Scrap the whole 'grouping' thing. --Pineapple Fez 23:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Honda Civic Hybrid
Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, it looks like the Honda Civic Hybrid page has been redirected to the main Honda Civic page and there is no longer even a hybrid section on the main Honda Civic page. I was referred to the Wikiprojects Automobiles on the Talk page for the Honda Civic Hybrid redirect, but the only discussion I can find on the topic seems to have ended in 2011 with "No consensus, keep existing practice" - I am having trouble understanding what happened - ? I would prefer a separate page for the Honda Civic Hybrid or at least a separate section for the Honda Civic Hybrid on the main Honda Civic page. Thank you.
- User:OSX, User:Mariordo, User:Johnfos, User:Ebikeguy, User:Leivick, User:Pineapple Fez Wikikweli (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
The proposition: Opinions/Discussion:
Today expires the request I made for extending this discussion. Since we are
Other suggestions are welcome.--Mariordo (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, the arguments for opposition are in bold, and I have rebutted each:
My final point is an extension to the consistent use of the argument, "but the hybrid version of [insert model here] is extremely notable and has received a profusion of press coverage." I will reiterate for the tenth, eleventh or twelfth time now that just because a topic with a slight variation from another receives press coverage does not instantly mean we must give it a special article all of its own. If you take a look at the vast majority of car articles on Wikipedia, they exist as a single article outlining multiple generations, despite each generation most likely being subject to a plethora of press coverage. Each generation shares little or no engineering with the others, yet they coexist—happily and without dispute as well. Case in point: Toyota RAV4, contains information on three unrelated generations because there is not enough content to separate. I can assure you that the first and second generation RAV4s share significantly less engineering than any generation of Civic Hybrid does with its non-hybrid counterpart. The list of articles that are set out like the RAV4 page would run into the thousands: Subaru Forester, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Mazda Familia, Toyota Previa, Toyota Vitz, Honda Odyssey, Toyota Celica, Toyota Avalon, Hyundai Santa Fe, Opel Vectra, et cetera... the list is endless. Only when, and when only, these articles become too long do we start to consider splitting these up. And it would be absurd to do so by powertrain, i.e. "Subaru Forester 2.5-liter", "Opel Vectra V6 petrol", and "Toyota Previa four-cylinder". If these articles become too big, then without a doubt, they would be broken up by generation; hybrid, electric, and performance variants are no exception. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Honda Accord Hybrid
Extended content
|
---|
The proposition: Opinions/Discussion:
|
Renault 5 Turbo
Extended content
|
---|
The proposition: Opinions/Discussion:
|
Ford Escape Hybrid
Extended content
|
---|
The proposition:
The contents of Ford Escape would also be summarised and integrated into the appropriate generation article. Opinions/Discussion:
Considering that it seems to be consensus in not splitting the Ford Escape article by generation, I would like to expand my arguments for not merging the Escape Hybrid article:
The reasons provided by several editors supporting the merge in the Camry Hybrid and now here is the convenience of consolidating all info for a given generation. This might be a desirable objective by the WikiProject:Automobiles from an automotive point of view, but has no support in Wikipedia policies, that is not how notability is defined, and on the contrary, is violating these policies and principles in the case of the few hybrids that are notable enough to merit its stand alone articles. A summary section in the Ford Escape article seems to be what is missing with a redirecting to the Escape Hybrid article. I respectfully request the editors who are supporting the merge to carefully review the policies I mentioned above and act accordingly. Our work in Wikipedia is aimed to our readers not us, the Ford Escape Hybrid article has existed since 2004 [1], and since December 2007 has fluctuated between 4000 to 6000 viewers per month, enough demand to keep it as a separate article for those searching for info for the hybrid version.--Mariordo (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Mercedes-Benz SLK
If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
The proposition:
On checking something on the Mercedes-Benz SLK page, I was surprised to see the general poor layout, and then also surprised to see two further pages of questionable format for the two generation models, Mercedes-Benz R170 and Mercedes-Benz R171. I would propose as part of a reformat and edit that these two additional articles are brought back into the main article as part of the mass merge as there is a lot of duplication and inconsistencies. Warren Whyte (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- On further reading of some other Mercedes articles, many have a generation per generation article, all by their code names rather than their proper names. Am I treading on toes here, or opening a can of worms? Warren Whyte (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was a discussion in 2009 about the various BMW articles that were titled in the same manner (the current "BMW 3 Series (E90)" page was previously titled "BMW E90"). With the Mercedes-Benz models, it is not as straight forward. The newer models, such as the W221 S-Class would be better served under the page name "Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221)". However, this would really only work for the two preceding S-Class generations as well (the W140 and W220), because the W126 was not really an S-Class as such. The current format (C 240, E 280 CDI, S 320, et cetera) was only introduced in 1993 (the S 320 of 1993, would have been a 320 SE in 1992; the replacement for the 190E 2.6 (W201) was the C 240 (W202), and so on). Unless an editor can come up with a good uniform naming approach, the current format where all models are named in the same way seems to be the best. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you in general, but must note that the S-class has officially been called the S-class (Sonderklasse) since the introduction of the W116, and unofficially at least since the 220S (W111) of 1959. However, C- and E-klasse are much more recent concepts, necessitated by Mercedes' hyperaccelerated growth of model ranges. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was a discussion in 2009 about the various BMW articles that were titled in the same manner (the current "BMW 3 Series (E90)" page was previously titled "BMW E90"). With the Mercedes-Benz models, it is not as straight forward. The newer models, such as the W221 S-Class would be better served under the page name "Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221)". However, this would really only work for the two preceding S-Class generations as well (the W140 and W220), because the W126 was not really an S-Class as such. The current format (C 240, E 280 CDI, S 320, et cetera) was only introduced in 1993 (the S 320 of 1993, would have been a 320 SE in 1992; the replacement for the 190E 2.6 (W201) was the C 240 (W202), and so on). Unless an editor can come up with a good uniform naming approach, the current format where all models are named in the same way seems to be the best. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think on reflection I will leave the current structure of the articles as they are, but continue the edit of the main SLK-Class page so that it makes sense, and reads more like the Mercedes-Benz SL-Class article. However, if strong support exists I am happy to reconsider! Warren Whyte (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no opposition to the mergers, just the page moves. That is, unless someone comes up with a great way to do so, whilst maintaining uniformity that exists currently. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support: and delete those excessive technical specifications lists, converting anything notable into readable prose. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support merging of these articles. CZmarlin (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support -->Typ932 T·C 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support there is definately insufficient content in the R170 article to support a separate article. There are large chunks of both the main article and the R171 article which are just long lists of specifications, and last I saw, spec lists weren't what wikipedia was about. Trim those out and merging should be fine. --Falcadore (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - since the car is actually called the SLK, there isn't the same need for stand alone articles as there is for the W123, W124 etc. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - As with most articles on car models, information on different generations of a same car should be described in separate sections of a single article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ford Fusion Hybrid
Mariordo (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The proposition: The excessively crufty "fuel economy and environmental performance" section also requires a significant pruning. See also: Talk:Ford Fusion Hybrid#December 2010 multiple issues. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And the potential out dating is no excuse for not having this table, it just implies hard work to update the info at least once a year. I do so in the articles I created or where I am the main contributor. I hope that if consensus tilts towards the merge at least this table is preserved. As the Toyota Camry Hybrid demonstrates (and now in the newly merged Ford Escape Hybrid), OSX trimmed all the "green cruft" and left only the automotive info. Finally, it takes quite an amount of time to develop arguments based on evidence, so rushing the discussion goes against the quality of the arguments, and again, what is the rush for getting rid of the hybrid articles if there are dozens of gasoline-engine articles. Considering the list proposed above, the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and the Honda CRZ (and now the Toyota Prius V I hope) will be the only HEVs to have their own article in Wikipedia, just because of the desire of some editors in this project, who consider a Project guidelines more important that Wiki written policies (pagainst WP:CONLIMITED) and have enough votes to get away with it.--Mariordo (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. The hybrid Fusion is just another choice of power unit/fuel type options and can be dealt with perfectly well within the main car article. The generic details of hybrid technology is then dealt with in the relevant technical article. I would not expect to see a detailed examination of diesel technology or E85 fuel in each and every car article, but relevant references to the main wiki article. The search argument above by Mariordo is all well and good, but how many Google results for, say, "Ford Fusion V6"? Oh, that would be 1,730,000 on Google.co.uk, over 400,000 more than the quoted hybrid search above, where the car isn't even sold in the UK, and I don't see an argument for a stand-alone Fusion V6 article. On another matter, why would anyone suggest merging the US Fusion with the European Fusion? Two completely different cars that just happen to share the same name (just so we are clear that I only support mergers where the case is well made!). I would have thought anyone who supports hybrid technology would prefer to see this on the main article page so that it is then by default seen as a mainstream powertrain. Warren Whyte (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel it necessary to note that my opinion that most of these articles should be merged is not part of some sort of gearhead anti-environmentalist agenda. While I do not feel that there have been any suggestion of such, I worry that these debates could seem as "motorheads versus greens" to someone on the outside looking in. For the record, I commute by bike or train and am completely in favor of more efficient and cleaner transport (and less of it, too). Hybrid cars are both technically and socially interesting, but: when based on an existing car I believe that they belong in that article rather than in a discrete entry. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid
Mariordo (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The proposition:
As the evidence presented shows, from the POV of Wikipedia policies there is no justification for a merger, and Project guidelines do not supersede Wiki policies (please see WP:CONLIMITED). The merger of this article quite frankly is a disservice to Wikipedia readers.Mariordo (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - These articles are far too large to be made into a single article. Besides all this merging just takes more content off wikipedia. Personally I do not like scrolling though enormous masses of info. Where possible it is best to have separate articles and with these articles more than any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.128.215 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC) What we should maybe do is if these idiots insist on merging these articles to try to eliminate the EV articles, we should just get rid of the gas car content in the merged article. That way more people will know about electric cars than ever before. These idiots should know it cuts both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by High voltage41 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for using the word idiot, and you are right this is for hearing viewpoints. These two articles though are extremely large and can not be merged without losing an astounding amount of material. As an avid wiki reader and editor I personally find it much nicer to have separate articles for EVs and plug in hybrids because I am not interested in reading about the gas car even if the body and interior are exactly the same as for the mini E. I find it frustrating when some editors suggest vehicles such as the Ford Focus EV, which are very different from Gas to electric, make comments which are untrue, such as that they are simply different drivetrain options. To sum it all up merging articles loses information and those in market for an EV are not interested in gas cars even if they are similar, different audience.--75.155.128.215 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Mazda Rotary Pickup
Extended content
|
---|
The proposition: Opinions/Discussion:
|
Rover P6 Estoura
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
The proposition: Opinions/Discussion:
|
Audi Coupé B2
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
The proposition: Opinions/Discussion:
|
Audi 4000CS quattro
Extended content
|
---|
The proposition: Opinions/Discussion:
|
Mitsubishi i-MiEV
Mariordo (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Opinion/Discussion:
See the suggestion that this be merged into the gas version seems quite biased. Why is the article on the gas version said to be the parent? Why not merge the gas with the electric as a small paragraph? To have a consensus merge you would have to completely change the way these articles are written, just to be fair, with equal sections on both vehicles and not assuming either to be the parent. Which came first the chicken or the egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.128.215 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Subaru Impreza WRX STi
If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
To merge Subaru Impreza WRX STi with Subaru Impreza WRX?
Opinion/Discussion:
- Strongly oppose - notable, length of article. ---North wiki (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - As per above--the TOC is even too big for my screen. --Pineapple Fez 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Provisional Support - In theory. STi's are in the end just hi-po examples of the WRX and share the same image and history. To all but the fans the two are interchangeable. That having said, because of the length of the STi article that won't be achievable without dumping a very large portion of the article. It's vergeing on attempting to compress the range of HSV models articles into Holden Commodore. Based on this a simple merge isn't going to work, and the sheer volume of material to be removed would in effect make this merger discussion closer to an AfD. While this arguement has been used in defence of the hybrid cars that was an easier edit to achieve because of the volume of cruft and over-description. I would like to know the practicalities of the merge before a confirmation of a merger tick or cross. --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral both articles are a huge mess of cruft. If someone wants to reorganize them and either merge them or leave them separate I would support it either way. --Leivick (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment indeed - perhaps both articles should be tagged for major re-write prior to merger. A simple merge likely would not be simple. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Too soon - both huge crufty messes, largely useless. Could they be split into WRX by generation, each including the STi version? In terms of notability, generation trumps spec. I would welcome some serious pruning, but arguing with fanboys isn't exactly my idea of fun. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Second proposal
- Subaru Impreza to be split into:
With the contents of Subaru Impreza WRX and Subaru Impreza WRX STi to be cleansed of cruft and merged into the appropriate generational article. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support: as nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support: as nominator. -->Typ932 T·C 13:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Provisional support - I could see each WRX generation (including STi content) also needing separate pages, based on the amount of material that would remain even after heavy cleaning up. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - This makes more sense than the other proposal. --Pineapple Fez 21:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose.
- For starters, on procedural grounds: there's an entire wikiproject -- WP:WRC -- who can lay claim to this article just as legitimately as we do (see the talk page), and as far as I can see they've not even been consulted on these mergers. Mashing the two together just because it suits us is a Very Bad Idea™ (and that objection stands for every proposed merger of homologation specials, or any other merger where more than one WikiProject has a banner on their talk page).
- Second, I'd say it's going to be impossible to write a good, cohesive history of the STI if its broken up across three articles. The development of the cars by Prodrive, the delay in switching from the Legacy Turbo to the Impreza in the early '90s, the twenty year rivalry with the Lancer Evolution, etc. None of that is relevant to the mass market versions, but it's very relevant to the WRX/STI.
- Finally, the performance editions have an independent notability as demonstrated by multiple books dedicated only to them: "Subaru Impreza" by Graham Robson (2007), "Subaru Impreza Turbo" by Andy Butler (2006), "Autocar on the Subaru Impreza Turbo" (2008), "Subaru Impreza WRX" (Japanese), etc.
- I'd be OK with an eventual merger of the WRX and STI articles in due course, as long as everyone is consulted, but that's as far as it should go. --DeLarge (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment As the competition versions of the WRX and WRX STI, while admittedly high-profile, make up a very small number of the vehicles, aren't the competition versions very much a secondary consideration? Additionally are the WRCs even relevant? Ford Fusion article does not contain detailed history of the evelution of Fusion NASCARs, which like the WRCs are modified well beyond their production roots. --Falcadore (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- They may be a secondary consideration to the Impreza as a whole (although I wouldn't necessarily say so -- the company's image was completely transformed by rallying, and it wouldn't shock me if it turned out that turbo'd Imprezas were the bestsellers in the 1990s); however, they're not of secondary consideration to rallying. In fact, without the WRC and Group A/Group N, I suspect that the WRX and STI wouldn't even exist (the same is true of the Lancer Evolution). This is why I objected to us not informing the Rally WikiProject -- what's significant to us and to them are entirely different, but their interests are just as legitimate, as is their entitlement to be included in the discussion.
- By the way, there's significant differences between rallying and other forms of motorsport like NASCAR. Specifically, the rally-rep cars must be (a) built in relatively large quantities -- 5000 per year must be sold before the rally versions can be homologated for competition, and (b) even the most high-powered, top-end race versions must be completely road-legal, since they're required to drive on public roads between the special stages they compete on. It was a lot more than just sticking a badge on a racing car for marketing purposes; the road and race versions are inextricably intertwined, hence why books like this and this exist. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment As the competition versions of the WRX and WRX STI, while admittedly high-profile, make up a very small number of the vehicles, aren't the competition versions very much a secondary consideration? Additionally are the WRCs even relevant? Ford Fusion article does not contain detailed history of the evelution of Fusion NASCARs, which like the WRCs are modified well beyond their production roots. --Falcadore (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Today['s] NASCAR race cars have very little in common with street cars. Almost every detail of a NASCAR car is handmade. The bodies are built from flat sheet metal, the engines are assembled from a bare block and the frame is constructed from steel tubing... "[3] ---North wiki (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rally prepped Imprezas, which take the form of the WRX and STI models, are road cars. They are built for the road and driven as such. Group N specification Imprezas, the most numerous of the modified competition Imprezas, are highly specialised extreme modifications, and many of which are not done by Subatru or by Subaru Technology. Interior is stripped, roll-cage inserted, complete replacement of suspension package with adjustable options as rally specification suspension systems are completely incompatible for road use, replacement of exhaust systems, removal and raplcement of dashbord electronics. Even at 'showroom specification' Group N level, these are highly modified very-low volume cars. Group A and WRC models are of course even wilder again, and much even lower volume still with a mere handful built - and handbuilt by Prodrive not by Subaru. Apart from the prestige of rally competition, it is comparable for say for example Ambulance modifications of vehicles like F-Series trucks - which wikipedia does not cover at all. While the rally prepped 5000 hologation cars might come close to rally car specifications, the rally cars themselves are not the primary intention of what these vehicles are for, and more than any of the 500 Group A touring cars of each kind created with circuit racing homolgation in mind the the 1980s. While these cars wer created with modifications for rallying in mind, they still had to sell 5000 of them to the public of which the vast majority would never be converted to rally cars.
- As for the special stage claim? Most if not all contries give special dispensation registration to rally cars for competition. In point of fact they are not road legal, but allowed under special caveat, because otherwise the sport would not exist. --Falcadore (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is getting a bit tangential, but...
- Your experience is the polar opposite of mine. Aside from Australia and Greece (and possibly US/Canada where the sport's profile is much lower) I can't think of a country with "special dispensation" for rally cars. They have headlights, indicators, treaded tyres, licence plates, and meet the minimum noise and emissions requirements, all of which are tested in scrutineering. Ergo they are road legal. It's not a claim, it's a plain and simple fact up in this part of the world. The mods you mention may render the car "non-standard", but they're certainly not automatically illegal for road use. And many of those mods -- removal of dashboards, heavy engine mods, removal of exhaust systems -- were forbidden under Group N, at least prior to 2001.
- If they're getting a "special caveat", why bother fitting licence plates, treaded tyres, etc in the first place?
- As an aside, aren't you getting your terminology confused? A "rally-prepped" car is one which has been prepared for rallying, not the bog standard, unmodified vehicle. --DeLarge (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are right about tangential, but in essense I was merely disputing that the rally prepped homolgation specials are actually rally prepped. The differences between a Group N rally car and an unmodified STI are still marked. Considerably less than Group A and WRC. And btw - never said anything about modifying engines.
- The intent of disputing the rally prepped claim was to suggest that based on modifications and the numbers that are modified (compared specifically to the numbers that are not modified), that competition is not the primary goal of these cars. While it might have been the reason the cars were created, if it was the primary goal then majority of that 5000 (multiplied by the number of models that is re-homolgated) would actually be rally cars. --Falcadore (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me the Motorsport project would also have some interest in this, beyond just rallying, since it would (does) touch on homologation & how it works (or doesn't...). From Falcadore's comments, I get the sense he thinks we shouldn't do pages on rally specials or ambulance bodies, with which I would disagree (because I favor including as much as possible, & because, if there are pages on Pokemon characters & every episode of "Seinfeld", the bar for inclusion is already pretty damn low). I'd agree, tho, the "homologation specials" are only tangentially related to the actual WRC cars. (And that presumes Subaru isn't outright cheating on how many are built, & whether they're actually for sale, or just "for sale" to a very select group of customers masquerading as "public".) Which might be reason enough to have a separate page, to address the situation (fact & fiction), without cluttering the Impreza page proper. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say we should not. I said there are no ambulance modification pages. Not an opinion, a statement of fact, the pages do not exist. --Falcadore (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies, then. I got a different impression. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say we should not. I said there are no ambulance modification pages. Not an opinion, a statement of fact, the pages do not exist. --Falcadore (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me the Motorsport project would also have some interest in this, beyond just rallying, since it would (does) touch on homologation & how it works (or doesn't...). From Falcadore's comments, I get the sense he thinks we shouldn't do pages on rally specials or ambulance bodies, with which I would disagree (because I favor including as much as possible, & because, if there are pages on Pokemon characters & every episode of "Seinfeld", the bar for inclusion is already pretty damn low). I'd agree, tho, the "homologation specials" are only tangentially related to the actual WRC cars. (And that presumes Subaru isn't outright cheating on how many are built, & whether they're actually for sale, or just "for sale" to a very select group of customers masquerading as "public".) Which might be reason enough to have a separate page, to address the situation (fact & fiction), without cluttering the Impreza page proper. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - The content of the WRX/STi pages is of a different purpose than the Impreza page. People visiting the WRX & STi pages are looking for rally or street racing information; people visiting the Impreza page are looking for passenger car information. But, I do think that the WRX and STi pages could be combined together though, and I think that would be appropriate since they are very closely related both technically and in purpose. In either case, about 75% of the WRX and STi pages should be deleted and burned in a fire. They are truly terrible articles. Throw out all of the "revs," all of the autocross/rallycross results (at least those that are not cited), throw out the 2007 WRX WRC specs and the "plans for the '08 car," (seriously?), throw out the Super GT car specs, etc etc. All that should remain is notable racing results, major revisions, and the typical specs that are listed in any other WP:AUTOS article. We could combine the two, remove all the non-notable information, and the new article would be half as long as one of the two is now. Bdc101 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - WRX pages are dominated by info about their competition heritage etc. Therefore merge will make new parent article large and with little relevance to any of the freshly merged articles. It would become a 'jack of all trades - master of none'. (First post on a talk page, hope its appropriately written etc) ARDawson (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ford Focus BEV
Mariordo (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
To merge Ford Focus BEV with Ford Focus (international)? Opinion/Discussion:
Suggestion: The need to sort and reorganized the Foucus articles was raised at the beginning of this discussion. Nevertheless, in order to avoid confusion and more contentious arguments, I suggest that we close this and the other open merger discussions (to me all the open discussion are a clear no consensus so articles are to be kept separately), and start a new discussion about the merge and reorganizing of the Focus articles along the lines proposed by OSX in this talk but in a new section, even though I would prefer to have such discussion in one of the Focus pages, tagging all the other, just as it was done with Prius article. This approach will allow a broader participation than just the WP:AUTO editors, including those who along the years have contributed in creating and expanding those articles.--Mariordo (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
Mini E
Mariordo (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
Opinion/Discussion: * Strongly oppose - notable, different drivetrain, different technology ---North wiki (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Those that oppose the current proposed merger may wish to reconsider in light of the proposed article split at Mini (marque). Currently the one page details all BMW era Minis and is very cluttered, and it is proposed that the Mini hatch/cabrio/clubman has its own page as a car model, as distinct from Mini the manufacturer. This has already happened with Mini Countryman. The only thing delaying the Mini hatch/cabrio/clubman page is to decide on a succinct name, but as and when that happens, I would suggest the Mini E article would live very happily within that article. Warren (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
BYD F6DM
Mariordo (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
Whoever included this plug-in hybrid concept in the list forgot to check that there is no article for the BYD F6 gasoline sibling to merge to, so such a merge is an impossibility.
|
Volkswagen Lupo
Extended content
|
---|
As per the merger list proposal above, I have added merge tags to Volkswagen Lupo GTI to merge into Volkswagen Lupo. I propose to also reduce the advertorial content, and to locate some references during the merge edit. Warren (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
|
Ford Taurus SHO
I think we can merge it into Ford Taurus right away without reviewing. I was supposed to do it months ago but I completely flaked out and I still don't know how to merge pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanhasaccount (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please do. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- ^ If the intended destination is a combination article that does not exist, do not create its Talk page, as it may be speedy-deletedWP:CSD#G8 or nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
- ^ "2011 Ford Fusion Hybrid FWD - Source". Fueleconomy.gov. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
- ^ "Ford Fusion FWD 2.5L -Source". Fueleconomy.gov. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
- ^ "Comparison Ford Fusion FWD FFV vs Gasoline -Source". Fueleconomy.gov. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
- ^ "Ford Fusion FWD 3.5L -Source". Fueleconomy.gov. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
- ^ "Comparison Ford Fusion AWD FFV vs Gasoline -Source". Fueleconomy.gov. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
- ^ "Reported E85 Prices". E85Prices.com. Retrieved 2010-11-03.