Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Separate articles or separate sections for motorsport

Following on from the last discussion, since I cannot write on archived discussions, here is what I found... a separate article of the motorsport career of the Toyota Supra. Therefore if OSX wants to write a separate article about the motorsport career of a particular car, I can't see why not. I would if I was him. Donnie Park (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tuckered out

Can I get some more eyes on 1948 Tucker Sedan? User:HornColumbia is re-adding mention of a convertible, which appears to be nothing more than a private project by a former employee, but is making it out as a notional prototype. Restorers haven't been able to confirm it was a factory car, & chief designer Alex Tremulis denies it was done in-house (or so says at least one website). If this was any marque but Tucker, it seems to me, this would never get in. Evidence for it being genuine would seem to need to be much stronger than it is. HornColumbia seems to be saying the car's existence is evidence of its being genuine, which I find dubious at the very least. (I've seen pix of a '49 Ford 3-window & '30s 4-door COEs that look stock, too, so it proves nothing.) I've already removed it twice, & I don't want to get in an edit war over it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OTOH... Consider this one resolved. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

There is a discussion at Nissan Atlas, can anyone interested please join the discussion to let their opinion be known. Thanks Jenova20 08:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Countries by Traffic Death Rate

Let's please have some talented, interested contributors weigh in here as to how best to present a List of countries by traffic-related death rate. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move for "Option (magazine)" back to "Option (music magazine)"

The primary rationale is, why should the U.S. music magazine be considered more notable to the Japanese car magazine of the same name to be in its namespace

If you are interested, please join the discussion here whether you agree or disagree with this proposal and let your opinion be known. Thanks Donnie Park (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cadillac Biarritz vs. Brougham

Under Cadillac Eldorado, under "4th Generation", there's a photo in the box on the right side of the page that's labelled "1959 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz". However, the text clearly describes the difference between a regular Eldorado and a Brougham, and if the description is correct what's pictured is definitely a Brougham, not a Biarritz.

199.44.16.49 (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Kirbert 8/28/2011

As long as you have sufficient justification, please feel free to correct the article. As a general rule, obvious updates can be done without permission. If something is controversial, then ask a question on the article's discussion page - see the 'discussion' link at the top of each article. For questions that affect multiple automobile articles, then ask here. And registering a user name will be beneficial. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  00:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
"the text clearly describes the difference between a regular Eldorado and a Brougham" If anything, it distinguishes the Biarritz 'vert from the Brougham 4dr HT, which makes the pictured 'vert an obvious Biarritz. Do you mean something else? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of American De-Dion article

I think that this article should be renamed De Dion-Bouton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G64Clayton (talk • contribs) 06:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The article in question is American De Dion (automobile).  Stepho  talk  07:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
We have already De Dion-Bouton article.... -->Typ932 T·C 11:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Shooting brake

I would welcome a few more opinions on shooting brake, which is at the risk of disappearing in a puff of exclusionist smoke. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bluecar

I request your help/advice regarding these two articles: Pininfarina B0/Pininfarina Bluecar and Bolloré Blue Car. I believe these cars are the same, and the articles' content is almost the same too. The only difference is their origin, which easily could be merge in a history sections, but as a production car I have no doubt we are talking about the same EV. The question is how to merge them. Pininfarina is the manufacturer but Bollore is doing the comercialization and actually is close to deploying 3,000 cars in Paris by December. Is there any guideline agreed by WPAUTO for these cases? Which one should have the content? Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted the merge tags to point to a common discussion area at Talk:Pininfarina B0#Merge with Bolloré Blue Car.  Stepho  talk  04:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

use word petrol instead Gasoline

I prefer that we use word Gasoline instead petrol.
world wide is confusing, some region refer diesel as petrol,(from petroleum), because thicker consistency!
some refer Gasoline as Naphtha, (from naphthalene)
Others use gas instead Gasoline. Gas is a different product!
Oh world of confusions!
I propose use the right word for the right product
example:...Gasoline (UK. petrol) engine... ...Gasoline engine (UK. petrol)... or just the right nane. 8-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.128.98 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that this is English language wikipedia, how many English speaking countries don't understand what petrol is? It doesn't matter what it is called in spanish, french, dutch, german, latvian, etc because this is English wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why petrol is prefered over gasoline, or gas.(Regushee (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
I don't think it is. We should be following WP:ENGVAR. The main page is at Gasoline, not Petrol and internal usage should follow the rules outlined in the MOS. --Daniel 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR covers this. Countries with strong ties to Britain prefer 'petrol'. Countries with strong ties to the US prefer 'gasoline'. Articles with strong ties to such countries should use the nationally preferred word. Articles with no strong ties to a particular country (eg vehicles sold world-wide), or with ties to a non-English speaking country (eg Japan) should continue to use whichever word the article has historically used. This last point is to avoid edit wars that flip-flop between the two choices. Once a word has been chosen (usually by an early editor simply using his/her/its own preference) it should be used consistently within the article - ie don't mix the two in the same article. Changes from one style to another should only be done 1)after agreement on the talk page (never unilaterally), 2) based on a very good reason (US being the major market for Ford Mustang is a good reason), (US being the biggest market for Japanese Toyota is not a good reason), otherwise it stays as it is. Anything else will be an endless source of time wasting. if you think the reader is too dumb to figure it out then use the most appropriate word as explained above and link it to gasoline. Expressions such as 'petrol (US: gasoline)' or 'gasoline (UK: petrol)' or 'petrol/gasoline' are clunky and should be avoided. 'Gas' should always be avoided (even on US articles) to avoid confusion with LPG and flatulence.  Stepho  talk  22:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I am entirely happy that this issue has been settled, and that there are clear definitions to cite from to revert a future editor who decides to embark on a "convert the gasoline heathens to petrol" or vice versa. My thanks to past editors who solved this problem.(Regushee (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
I was unaware there had ever been an issue over it. :/ However, a further question for clarification: would a dual use of "petrol (gasoline)" at first instance be out of bounds? I'm not advocating, only asking. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I would avoid expressions like 'petrol (gasoline)' simply because it sounds so awkward (would you use it in conversation?) and breaks the user's train of thought. The general idea on Wikipedia is to use a term in a straight forward manner and have a link to an article that expands on it. This is true of word choices (eg petrol and gasoline, acronyms (eg EPA), bits of technology (eg supercharger) and many other uses. Users who understand the word just keep reading without interruption. Readers for who it is a new word follow the link then return with new knowledge.  Stepho  talk  03:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Three wheeled cars

The entry for Morgan needs to be updated. Morgan Motors in the UK is making the Morgan Aero again. It is in the traditional three-wheeled layout (2F-1R), engine in the front with the single rear wheel driven. You can find information on the redevelopment and great pictures on the Morgan Motor website. 222.33.65.73 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Paul

WP Automobiles in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Automobiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Its now "online" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost -->Typ932 T·C 12:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking to Euro NCAP

This was being discussed on the Prius page and in the above discussion but it affects multiple pages and is a bit of a disraction to the template discussion, so I've split it out to here to keep the confusion down.

The purpose of WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK is to prevent every second word in an article being a blue link when most of the words or expressions are obvious to most readers. I think we all agreed above that linking to 'adult' was not needed because its meaning is so obvious. However, 'Euro NCAP' is likely to be a new thing to many readers outside of Europe. For readers within Europe it would also be helpful to know the details of the tests. I think we are all agreed that it should be linked to at least once. The argument seems to be whether it should be linked to once per vehicle generation. My opinion is that there is enough screen distance between the generations to warrant a new link for each generation. Somebody reading about the third generation might be curious about the details of Euro NCAP but then has to go searching through the rest of the article for the link. This is inconvenient for the reader and breaks their train of though. However, the linking need not be done again if the screen distance is small. For instance, if two sets of tests were done for a particular generation (say, 2010 and again after improvements in 2011), then the second mention of 'Euro NCAP' should not be linked. To summarise, repeated links are worthwhile if the distance between them is great but not worthwhile if the distance between them is small. Would others like to express an opinion?  Stepho  talk  23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that is so logical so as to be boring (barbed compliment). Agree in full: it is kind of how I approach wikilinking already.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed
Plus so much of that section is exemptions appropriate to this that i don't see how it matters.
Euro NCAP could be misspelt so many different ways to someone who only just came across it so i'm in total agreement.
Thanks Jenova20 08:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That's the best argument for repeated links I've seen. ;p I'd agree. Also, given many readers will only look at one generation in detail & may only skim the rest of a page (or not even look at it), it makes sense. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Making your marque

After numerous rv by User:Eddaido here, & remakrs to "debate on talk", which he has refused to do beyond complaints ("plain weird creepy cliquey talk"), insults ("just some simple-minded people"), & misrepresentations ("editing from France"), I am bringing the issue here. AFAICT, his only argument amounts to "I don't like it". Am I the only one who's heard Europeans (in particular) & car guys (in general) refer to European makers as "marques"? Am I wrong thinking, at the very least, a Brit "Engvar" which uses "marque" over "brand" should govern? Am I wrong thinking, if nothing else, the original usage (which was "marque", IIRC, til Eddaido wanted it changed in April & couldn't get his way) should stand? I am getting tired of him. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule you have gone over the limit.... you should maybe ask some admin to deal the case -->Typ932 T·C 06:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We both did, & I saw no sign any further effort on my part was going to accomplish anything... I have taken the page off my watchlist, & will have no further part in it. If there is an interested admin or other 3d party, I invite any appropriate action. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
As an Australian who has read plenty of Australian, British and American car magazines, I've always treated 'brand' and 'marque' as interchangeable, with 'marque' being the preferred choice of British magazines. Which brings WP:ENGVAR into play. Since Talbot is British, then British word choices would be better and American word choices (in this case) definitely take back seat. I notice that brand talks about being defined by the American Marketing Association. Which part of Britain is that an official body for?  Stepho  talk  08:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Having looked at the discussion on the article's talk page I have changed it back to "marque" and agree with Trekphiler that Eddaido's argument boils down to "I don't like it". Given the overwhelming use of "marque" in British motoring articles, including critically both Rootes Group and Chrysler Europe, both of which were owners of the marque, I see no reason to support the use of "brand". --Biker Biker (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I first encounted "marque" in a Brit publication & considered it at first a peculiarly Brit affectation. Since then, I've seen it in mainstream U.S. magazines (tho perhaps always in a European context or by Brit expats), & have long ago come to consider "brand" & "marque" interchangable, tho in ref cars (in particular European ones), I tend to prefer "marque" (which may be more a matter of treating Brit English as inherently superior, which is a commonplace in all areas in many people, I understand...) OTOH, my exposure to Brit English, in Canada, is liable to be greater than in the U.S. (& less, I expect, than in Oz, say); I've always felt pretty comfortably "bilingual" & not necessarily typical. That all said, I'm gratified not to be in a minority of one, again. :D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This debate comes up with some regularity on various auto articles. Often it's an American editor who insists that "marque" is a foreign word: s/he's never heard it, therefore it's foreign and dumb and needs to be replaced with "brand". I don't agree. My view: while the two words denote the same concept, the connotation is different; "marque", in English, connotes an automobile make rather than, say, a brand of dill pickles. Says so right above the table of contents in Brand. The fact that marque redirects to brand is an excellent illustration of why we have the redirect system: it allows us to use the most precise possible language in any given article without having to stop and explain the basic terms which differ from everyday general context only in terminology. It means we needn't elide the terms and phrasings of any given subject; it means we needn't write an article at a 4th-grade level of comprehension. It lets us refer to a "marque of automobile", which is contextually the most proper usage, and anyone who doesn't know just what the word means or wants to know more about the concept can simply click the link and keep right on learnin' new stuff! We may want to consider developing a project-wide policy on the matter. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I heartily agree with the above comments. I frequently encountered "marque" in American automotive writing, so I don't think it's a particularly British term. Being that the "-que" appears French, I wonder if the disgust that some people have for it stems from a sense of Francophobia and little else (which the opposition in this case almost seems to admit). But even if it were exclusively British, it's still the correct term in this case. --Sable232 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
None of us looked up the dictionary: Wiktionary says 'marque' means brand. So does the Cambridge dictionary (although their American section keeps redirecting it to 'business English'). But of course the Mirriam-Webster dictionary (the source of most American spelling and word choice differences, for better or worse) has no mention of brands. I don't think it is a Francophobia thing - it seems like a simple case of an American not realising that the outside world doesn't always act the same way as America does. With luck we can educate him.  Stepho  talk  21:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I had no idea this was so widespread. I've never come across the problem before. It was from the start my sense this was a matter of ignorance, not malice. It appears to have gone a bit past that, regrettably.
As for the dictionary, unfortunately, it's frequently unhelpful in cases of specialist or technical terms that haven't gained currency outside a field. It wouldn't surprise me a lot this was one of them. (OTOH, my PC's dictionary says "marque" is specifically a car maker, hence a narrow technical use of "brand", & the word derives from French "to brand", ultimately Scandinavian origin...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Stepho-wrs, yes, I did look in the dictionary. NB Brand states (by my hand) In the automotive industry, the terms ''marque''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marque "Marque" at Merriam-Webster]</ref> or ''make''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/make?show=1&t=1318095759 "Make" at Merriam-Webster]</ref> are often used to denote a brand of [[motor vehicle]]. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your first link (same as my second link) has no mention of cars, companies, brands, etc. But the link to 'make' was interesting because it suggests (to me anyway) that 'make' was derived from and used similar to 'marque'. Anyway, I think eveyone who has commented so far has agreed that 'marque' is a valid term for European cars. Eddaido hasn't made any counter arguments, even though I left a comment on the Talbot talkpage about this discussion. So my feeling is that Talbot can keep using marque (with the occasional link to brand) and that any changes to 'brand' should be reverted as community consensus. Are we done or do we need to formalise it in the conventions page?  Stepho  talk  07:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
If this is as commonplace as suggested, a convention might be desirable. As for necessary, IDK... I have a feeling those inclined to question it won't pay attention to the convention anyhow. If it would allow a rapid settling of the matter, tho, I'd support it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's just it: once a convention is in place, supporting reversion of changes that contravene the convention becomes as simple as pointing to the convention—thus eliminating the "need" or basis for protracted quarrels like the one in the section immediately below this one. So:

Proposed convention

I propose the following convention be adopted:


—Scheinwerfermann T·C01:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Marque my words Red Floyd

letter of marque
French cattle brand

I dislike the recent North American manner of using marque because it is being used inaccurately. It has a proper meaning in this context and should be allowed to retain it, not wasted as a pure synonym for brand - which is all that some people seem to know of it. It is particularly a waste in what is intended to be an encyclopedia and what we wish to be a reliable reference for anyone.

Pink as a name for a colour is comparatively new, before that the colour was just (paler) red. This new name for the colour came from the pink (flower) which just had serrated = pinked edges to its petals and a pale red colour. The word now provides a useful distinction. Some seem to want to do the equivalent of calling pink red - Red Floyd? Red Cadillac?

Marque is a French word usually translated into English as brand. Marque is not an English word (OED 2011 edition) though it appears in English in 19 compounds (OED 2011) and it is also mentioned as being in use as an alternative word for a brand of car.

The word marque for a brand of car in English is limited to a small number of brands, those that were of a highly tuned racing nature when the same or similar vehicles were also used on the road. The motorized equivalent of thoroughbred racehorses. (so breeding etc was used for cars, strange but true)

Rolls-Royce was never a marque, Bentley was a marque.

I suppose these misunderstandings just must occur when people of quite different linguistic backgrounds try to use the same language - they think they have understood and yet they have not.

Using the word marque for any old brand of car that is not made in the US defeats any reason to use the word in the context of cars. Mean brand then just use the word brand.

I look forward to further discussion on the use of marque - if it is necessary.

I'll go now and fix the Talbot article. Eddaido (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope that "fix the Talbot article" doesn't mean that you will revert marque to brand, as there is clear consensus in this discussion that you were wrong. Please don't start a disruptive edit war - just accept the consensus and move on to something more productive. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Eddaido, thank you for this new information - you have given us some helpful words to digest. Can I ask for a small favour in that you hold off on reverting the Talbot article until we are a bit closer to consensus. I'm hoping that one side or the other will convince the other side through civilised arguments instead of being like street brawlers, punching it out to the end. Your further contribution to this discussion is also valued, through either new information or simply explaining it to those slow to understand. Thank you.  Stepho  talk  07:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
♠As the apparent instigator here, I will confess ignorance of the very narrow usage Eddaido is adopting here. I must point out, however, he appears to be arguing against the tide of usage & against a common occurence in English. IDK what it's called (tho I know it has a name... :( ), but it's the tendency of meanings to migrate from their original usage to new, & frequently entirely unrelated, ones. It's evident to me that is what is in play, even in progress, here. We are reflecting the change is happening, indeed has happened. It's not limited to WP, as already demonstrated, & it's far from a new phenom.
♠That said, I am troubled by what seems to me a condescending tone in Eddaido's above post. I get the sense of "I know best, so shut up & do it my way", or "I'm right, & anybody who disagrees with me is stupid". That may not be the intent (& I may be too touchy, IDK), but, for me, at least, that is the result. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This post by Eddaido illustrates your point perfectly. It is hard to take this editor seriously when he/she resorts to such childish tactics. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've done my share of stupid things in anger (or frustration), so I'm not going to criticise that one. There are times (scroll down to CN7) when it's hard to see how any sensible person can't see your POV, so I know how he feels. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Well if you can find a condescending tone it must be because you have realised what a fool you have made of yourself. Your claims right at the beginning above also include plain misrepresentations of the facts - I suppose you are attempting to spare your well-earned blushes with bluster, again. Eddaido (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I was holding off on sharpshooter for later. Now I see it has been referred to I can point out that (perhaps touchy) Trekphiler has just blustered again. Trekphiler please give a reference to show your opinion is correct. Eddaido (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the usual refuge of the small-minded: resort to insults when reasoned argument fails. If I "made a fool of myself", I'm in very good company with the likes of Kettlewell & Twite, if not Ireland & Jeanes, whose opinions I would pay more credence than yours. If anyone is a fool, it's you for failing to recognize language changes, despite what you might like.
As for "sharpshooter", no, I don't think I will, since I have no intention of adding it to the article space. Nor do I feel a need to defend the position against someone who adopts an insulting attitude in preference to reasoned argument. I will say I've seen it in documentaries attributing it as far back as the American Revolution (describing the green-jacket Rangers).
As for "plain misrepresentations of the facts", I invite examination of this, as well as this. Your own allegations will not survive examination of the evidence. I have no fears mine will.
I might also point out you owe me an apology. So far, I've been nothing but scrupulously polite when you've repeatedly called me stupid. I assure you, the temptation to respond in kind has been strong. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, may I suggest that we hold back on personal attacks and discuss the facts at hand.

I did a quick web search yesterday and found plenty of websites using 'Talbot' and 'marque' together - implying that the terms are in common use. It could be argued (but not by me) that the terms are being used wrongly but nonetheless, they are in use together. Some of the dictionaries referred to above explicitly say that 'marque' is equivalent to 'brand' when talking about cars. The same dictionaries also list 'marque' as an English word that was derived/copied from French. English has copied plenty of words from other languages, so this should hardly be a sticking point. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (a subset of the OED mentioned by Eddaido) explicitly says "a make of car, as distinct from a specific model:", back formed from "to brand" of Scandinavian origin, implying that Rolls-Royce would be a marque but that the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost is not. An example of Rolls-Royce being called a marque by a reputable user is the BBC (the BBC is a stickler for correct use of language).

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit and do some folk etymology. I suspect that in the early days French cars sold in Britain were seen by the British as exotic. The French labelled them as 'marques', so 'marque' came to be seen as a word used for upper class cars. Each manufacturer wanted to be seen as better than the rest, so the term was gradually applied to lesser and lesser cars over time (with the cheap cars getting it last). Whereas French cars never really sold in America in great numbers and so the term didn't find its way into the American language. I'm not claiming any great authority on this except that it corresponds with my reading of British and American magazines and books, and so I don't have any problem if someone points out flaws in it.

But as I said before, 'marque' is in common use in Britain and several reputable English dictionaries support the use specifically for cars.  Stepho  talk  08:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

♠Some more folk etymology may also have been in play: "marking" or "branding" a company.
♠More important in context, I think, is a misapprehension by auto writers, broadening "marque" from a racing company usage to a general automotive one. Misapprehension or not, this sort of broadening of usage is a commonplace, & despite Eddaido's objections, it has already happened. I suggest WP is in no position to turn it back, even if that was possible, & it's not. In short, get over it.
♠I might also point out the effort to make this about me suggests Eddaido has no actual arguments & prefers to deflect attention from that fact. I'm happy not to insult him; I am disinclined to not answering. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:35 & 09:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't resile from any of my statements or actions regarding this discussion.
I would like to ask Trekphiler how he sees his personal concept of marque should be used — for example there are plenty of references to Cadillac as a marque, is that how he sees the word should be used? Might it be used (heaven forfend) to replace all use of the word brand with relation to automobiles? Or does he see it as being in some way limited in use in that regard? Eddaido (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
♠My personal concept has nothing to do with it. My view doesn't govern. What does govern is the extant usage by magazine writers & others who do use marque in preference to brand. If it should (in the opinion of some, or me) replace brand is not the issue. Does it in the literature? Has it? I suggest, in large measure, it already has. WP is not in a position to reverse that, & as I understand the policy, it would be contrary to try. Not to mention futile.
♠It appears you prefer to attempt to reverse a trend in the name of linguistic purity. The BQ Tongue Troopers would love you. I'd compare you to Cnut trying to hold back the tide, except, contrary to popular myth, he was trying to show it was hopless. You appear to believe it's not. The weight of historical evidence in linguistics is against you. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, let me extend that. I meant your view of the correct current usage. Eddaido (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
My personal view? I tend to marque for European companies & brand for American & Canadian (&, for no really rational reason, Japanese). That may be governed by a bit of "elitism" (the same kind that tends to prefer an English accent over others). As said, however, my view holds no particular sway. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

We take a momentary break from our mud slinging match to discuss the actual issue at hand...

WP:ENGVAR says that articles with a strong link to a particular variety of English should prefer using that form. E.g. British car articles say 'bonnet', 'boot' and 'colour' while American articles say 'hood', 'trunk' and 'color'. In the same way, British car articles are allowed to say 'marque' while the rest are allowed to say 'brand'. Arguments against this have to either go against WP:ENGVAR or argue that 'marque' doesn't mean the same as brand in Britain. If you have plenty of references to Cadillac as a marque then I have no problem if you change that. But I suspect that you will have an uphill battle with other Americans and WP:ENGVAR favours the common usage over the less common usage. You know, mud wrestling is more fun with girls than middle aged blokes. Sigh :(  Stepho  talk  12:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wanted his final revelatory statement to stand in all its glory. You've obscured it. For the record an hour ago the score (within Wikipedia) was Cadillac and marque 189, Cadillac and brand 773. Eddaido (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
♠And yet again, making it about me & utterly ignoring the actual issue at hand. This whole section is a glorified "I don't like it" masquerading as debate. As for the in-WP "score", it makes little difference, since WP is governed by the sources, not the other way around. Of course, since Eddaido refuses to acknowledge any sources except ones agreeing with him, it would appear not to matter to him what the sources do or don't say. He appears intent on imposing his view regardless, even as usage outside WP contradicts him.
♠I might also wonder exactly what was such a revelation. Unless it's his belief I intend, or hope, to impose my own view, because he does. I've said from the outset (but he refuses to pay attention) I adopted this based on the sources I've seen, & in this instance, Talbot being European, "marque" is appropriate, both on sources & on Engvar. What part of that is news? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Then take the moral high ground and ignore barbed attacks. Then he will look like a raging monkey while you look like a calm, civilised professional. I'm saying this to both sides. Or I could just ask an administrator to block both of you for a week. Now, shall we discuss the issue on its merits or continue flinging monkey dung...  Stepho  talk  21:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You're entirely right. I think my views are clear enough. So, I will say no more on the subject. I'll look in on the matter in a couple of weeks, if I remember. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Valid reference?

This website contains scans of old American car brochures and it has been used as a reference in some articles. Prior to 1978 (i.e. 1977 and earlier) any work published in the USA which did not explicitly state that it was copyrighted, was assumed to be copyright free. Thus, there is no copyright problem (assuming no copyright assertion can be seen on the scanned copy) for car brochures prior to 1978. From 1978 on copyright is applied automatically and thus WP:ELNEVER comes in to play and the work should not under any circumstances be linked to from Wikipedia - let alone be used as a reference. Also, the 1978 rule only applies in the USA, so it must be assumed that any non-US car brochure e.g. for Holden (Australian) is copyright and should not be linked to, regardless of how old it is.

So now that's clear, what do the members of this project think about the site as a reliable reference for automobile articles prior to 1978? Should we allow it our bounce it? --Biker Biker (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The external links guideline specifically states that it is not applicable to references, so that part is moot. However, if we are going to go by that, it says that the links are permissible when the website is using the copyrighted work in compliance with fair use. It appears to me that the website is in compliance with fair use, being that it's for non-profit educational purposes and does not harm the copyright holders' market value for the work since the original copies were given away for free and even if not they have no value as marketing tools for them today anyway.
As for your question, I see no reason why manufacturer documentation can't be used to reference basic things like specifications, option availability, etc. as long as it doesn't delve into making marketing puffery (for lack of a better word) appear as fact. --Sable232 (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hold it. I don't think I agree with Biker Biker's interpretation of the assumed-copyright provisions of WP:ELNEVER. In the first place, the actual content of the brochure is not being presented; images or whole pages are not being scanned in and used in articles, for example. Rather, the brochures are being used as sources and not as external links, which would seem to make WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER inapplicable. Moreover, we're not talking about books, magazines, or any other type of work that could reasonably be assumed to potentially be subject to rights restrictions. Rather, we're talking about advertising and promotional material originally designed and intended for wide and free distribution. As such, it seems to me the copyright provisions Biker Biker cites may not be applicable to cases of this nature as exemplified here, here, and here. My interpretation may not be correct; I have asked over at MCP, but until we have a definite answer on this, I think we (Biker Biker and the rest of us alike) ought to hold off on deleting refs to advertisements and promotional literature. —Scheinwerfermann T·C01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Asked and answered here. I now understand Biker Biker's valid beef is with the remote site hosing © materials without permission. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

First U.S. Nissan Leaf delivered

This is to invite any interested editors, particularly those with experience with car pics, to participate this ongoing discussion. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

L-head and flathead

See Talk:Lincoln V12 engine#L-head and flathead. This will probably be a very quick fix for someone who knows US automotive terminology, but currently it's a bit confusing. TIA Andrewa (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Marque used for US articles

There have indeed been editors running through Wikipedia changing brand to marque. They have much more running to do yet. This is a short random list to show the percentage of references to marque as against brand for these cars within Wikipedia as of about 20 hours back.

portrait of an Englishman under intolerable stress further exacerbated by Wikipedia 'domestics'
  • Cadillac 16% (189 / 973)
  • Chevrolet 20% (293 / 1200)
  • Chrysler 24% (305 / 947)
  • Ford 14% (808 / 4798) a special case
traditional marques
  • Bentley 49% (189 / 195) (VW) marketed in USA
  • Ferrari 25% (330 / 991)
  • Alfa Romeo 30% (173 / 412)
  • Jaguar 25% (293 / 862)
  • MG 10% (200 / 1750)
  • Triumph 14% (260 / 1629)
  • Talbot 16% (110 / 566)

Eddaido (talk) 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the European manufacturers using 'marque' but I don't feel comfortable using it for the American manufacturers (Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler and Ford in the list above). Most of my arguments above were for allowing 'marque' to be used for British/European manufacturers but I'm on less stable ground for determining its usage in American. The American dictionaries don't seem to like using 'marque' and I don't recall seeing it in American magazines. Can some Americans chime in about about how common 'marque' is in America? In the absence of other information I would be inclined to invoke WP:ENGVAR and revert the American articles back to 'brand' (or 'make' or 'manufacturer' according to the previous usage on each page). Is it one or two users doing this or lots of users? How long has it been happening for? Is it by American editors or non-American editors?  Stepho  talk  14:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot claim to be American (though my NY born grand mother would have done and always did even (especially) after moving to London) but I do have a copy of Webster's dictionary from 1961, which was a year in which that tome received a more extensive than usual make-over. Here's Websters in 1961:
"marque...a brand or make of a product - used esp of sports cars. [Example]: The radiator, while still retaining the distinctive appearance of the marque... (Grenville Manton)"
I've no idea who Grenville Manton was, and left to my own devices I will instinctively avoid using the word "marque" in Wikipedia because other synonyms and quasi-synonyms seem to find it easier to achieve consensus regarding their meanings. BUT the appearance of the word in Webster's 1961, supported by a definition that works just fine for me here in England, suggests that the meaning of the word in the USA is not (or at least in 1961 was not) measurably different from the one that an Englishman would recognize. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears as this article is asking the opinion of an actual American concerning this subject. I'm assuming that Trekphiler is Canadian (which does entitle him to claim the moniker "North American", but typically "American" applies to anyone who has legitimate USA citizenship). So speaking as a genuine American, I will emphatically state that the use of marque should not used for articles written about vehicles built and sold in the USA. Marque is an European descriptor. I've read this article from the beginning, and being aware of those who are contributing to this discussion, I'm aware that some of the editors might take the opportunity to "get snippy" and try to brush me off. Tough. The use of "marque" will not be recognized in an American context. Now, just to make things confusing, using the word "marque" to describe Ford products sold in England or its former colonies, like the Ford Taunus or the Ford Ka won't concern me one bit. But using the word on a Ford Mustang or a Ford Focus will. Commence the bickering(Regushee (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC))
No bickering from me, that seems entirely reasonable. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
But it isn't. Marque is used by Americans in reference to American nameplates. See a small selection of many examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I would be strongly opposed, therefore, to an artificially-contrived distinction, based on nothing more than this or that or some other editor's "I don't like it", between American and European nameplates with respect to the terms "brand" and "marque". —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
That does seem to show that the word has been used (both past and present). But is it something that the common reader would accept. I don't recall seeing it in my own reading of American material, so I'm uncomfortable supporting it but I really would like some more comments from Americans (thank you to Regushee for his comments).  Stepho  talk  22:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Another confirmation here that it is used in American sources. Besides the New York Times, Automobile Magazine, and U.S. book references (Buick, Ford, and Oldsmobile) above, U.S. publication Popular Science uses it, going at least back to 1954 here (where it is explicitly defined as the "proper term" used by "sports car aficionados" to name the make of their car), and decades later here (in the 1980s referring to Japanese luxury car marques). Another longtime U.S. publication Car and Driver has used it interchangeably with brand here (and applying it to car makes regardless of country); and so does U.S. publication Road & Track here (referring to the Lincoln luxury marque). Heck, Toyota's U.S. branch even uses it in official context (calling its Scion car line a "marque of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A."). Marque has greater specificity for cars than brand (one can commonly hear of a "premium car marque" and a "detergent brand", but only cars use both). Marque is used in the U.S., and while not as broadly used as brand (given that brand covers a wider variety of products, goods, and services), it is hardly an obscure term. if there's a fear about reader confusion, it can be wikilinked. My two cents SynergyStar (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the examples of American brands being referred to as "marques", in this age of articles being written by just about everything from just about anywhere, and that this has been going on for several decades, just brings to mind the fact that the authors of these articles may have been European, and as such may have used the term simply out of convenience. Unless we'd like to actually research the ethnicity of each author who used the term "marque" when writing their particular article, it seems a safe assumption that, with some exception, the articles using the term "marque" might not have been American. It is also entirely possible that the author of articles presented as examples, may have used the word to add an aire of sophisication, using an European word, not realizing that by doing so would begin this somewhat laughable dialog here at Wikipedia, debating the merits of using such word. Now, as an American, I can speculate that one reason why the word won't likely be used when describing an American automobile brand, is for some reason, the French don't like us. And due to the fact that the word is indeed French, I highly doubt that any American would choose to use a French word to refer to an American car, even if it has a French name, like Chevrolet or Cadillac. Just to remind anyone interested, a Cadillac is commonly known in America as a "Caddy", and a Chevrolet is also called a "Chevy". Just sayin'(Regushee (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC))
The 'air of sophistication' theory sounds plausible (although it would have to verified). Just a reminder that 'marque' is a French word and also an English word (copied from the French, with verified usage in American and British media). The issue is not whether it is an English word but whether it is palatable enough for the American audience. Sounds like so far we have 2 firm 'no's and my weaselly 'probably not'. Does somebody want to put a notice on the offending pages that this is under discussion?  Stepho  talk  05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I find this ongoing vaguely interesting: I am a long-time car fanatic and have spent seventeen years of my life in Sweden and seventeen in the US. "Marque" (Märke in Swedish) simply means "brand": whether it is for jeans or for cars (=bilmärke) - but it is always equivalent to a brand rather than model, i.e. "Levi's" or "Ford", never "501" nor "Mustang". In the US, I usually encounter "marque" as a word used with posh connotations, a word preferred to the demotic "brand" when describing premium or imported badges.
Nonetheless, while I feel that "marque" is perfect for describing Talbot, I also would never feel that "brand" would be incorrect. Sure, "brand" has a cheapening feel to it, but it is not untrue. For us to accept marketers chosen words is wrong in a way. Finally, this all boils down to feelings: I feel that "marque" is the truest way to define Talbot (before the 1308 at least), whereas I would never use it for Toyota's Scion brand. I am sorry to be of no real help.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's really a little bizarre to see a discussion of this nature with respect to American writers and American auto nameplates in which the only two words under discussion are "marque" and "brand". A better case can more easily be made for the use of make than for "marque" or "brand".

(Regushee, I certainly get that you don't like the use of "marque" to refer to an American auto nameplate, but I am finding it very difficult to square your "authors-could-have-been-non-Americans" assertion with the variety of sources and ages thereof in the examples I provided, to say nothing of the supernumerous examples I didn't provide. Surely you had a look at the examples, and maybe took a moment to see what comes up in Google Books, for example, before insinuating that the examples of American usage of "marque" for American nameplates are spurious…right?) —Scheinwerfermann T·C08:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I did a check on the US articles in question:
  • Cadillac was changed from 'brand' to 'marque' in late 2010. Nobody else complained.
  • Chevrolet only uses 'marque' for its European sections and has done for years. Nobody else complained.
  • Chrysler uses 'marque'. It has changed back and forth a little but no real edit wars.
  • Ford has no mention of 'marque' except for some European time line boxes at the bottom. Can't see any mention of it in the article's history back to early 2009.
My own conclusion are that 'marque' is a valid word even for Americans, that 'brand' is an even better word or new articles, changing either word is not needed (see WP:RETAIN), nobody else is making an issue of this and that this discussion is a waste of time.  Stepho  talk  04:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
With thanks to Stepho-wrs and his welcomed contributions, this is a discussion that demonstrates that there are some in the Wiki-Auto Project "fiefdom" that continue to insinuate that their views are scholarly, and should be set as policy. Whether it is commonly accepted in casual conversation, or a recognized cultural practice, these "recognized personalities" just want to make sure that they are THE ABSOLUTE noted authorities, and that their opinion really should be regarded as policy. It is why I don't get involved for the most part, because as soon as I add to what I'm assuming is an welcoming environment, it really isn't. Personaly, use what ever term the author wants to use; another newbie editor will see it, and change it, and the entire process begins all over again. Someone should create a bot that supplants "marque" for "brand", just to hack them off. Have at it (Regushee (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC))
WP:RETAIN says to just leave the thing alone. If somebody changes it then it is allowed to be instantly reverted to the original form. Consensus on the article's talk page is required to change the status quo.  Stepho  talk  05:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales Figures in Car Articles

If anyone here is adding them can you state where the figures are for, ie: USA, Europe, the world. They're not much use otherwise. Thanks Jenova20 08:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Safety

Euro NCAP test results for a RHD, 5-door hatchback variant on a 2004 registration:

Test>reference goes here< Score Points
Overall: N/A N/A
Adult occupant: 34
Child occupant: 43
Pedestrian: 13
Safety assist: N/A N/A

Euro NCAP test results for a RHD, 5-door hatchback variant on a 2009 registration:

Test>reference goes here< Score Points
Overall: 102
Adult occupant: 88% 32
Child occupant: 82% 40
Pedestrian: 68% 24
Safety assist: 86% 6

These will appear on a few articles to neaten up and replace my own additions and also weasel statements and possible bias/POV statements. Can people notify me if they spot something amiss or just not move/edit them without doing so as they won't match up anymore and will cause me a LOT of work. These all sync up nicely and without being tampered with, are unbiased, complete, and matching. So please notify me before modifying or changing them as it causes me more work afterwards. Thanks Jenova20 09:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Any opinions would be beneficial =] Thanks Jenova20 09:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Consistency between articles is always good. Why not make it into a true template so that it could be inserted into an article as
  • {{Euro NCAP results |adultpoints=34 |adult=5 |childpoints=43 |child=4 |pedestrianpoints=13 |pedestrian=2 |safetyassistpoints=n/a |safetyassist=n/a |ref=xxxx |style=stars}}
If building a template seems daunting then I can help you with that. But there is no need to link to common terms like adult, child and pedestrian.  Stepho  talk  13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why they're linked, i just kind of left it that way.
I'll remove it from my template.
And i don't know how to create templates as you did, i've never been able to do it.
Thanks for the feedback though Jenova20 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm only a beginner for templates too, but we can work on it together.  Stepho  talk  00:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
That won't work, i already had a test on them.
I'm dyslexic, i can learn coding quite slowly and templates would take me weeks/months to master.
Copying and pasting my current table is working fine.
Thanks Jenova20 08:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


After feedback these are the new versions, let me know what you think:

Euro NCAP test results for a LHD, 5-door hatchback variant on a 2011 registration:>REF GOES HERE<

Test Score Points
Overall: 91
Adult occupant: 86% 31
Child occupant: 83% 40
Pedestrian: 47% 17
Safety assist: 43% 3

I can remove the red X and put back in "N/A" if you prefer? I'm neutral on them tbh. Thanks Jenova20 11:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been discussing the use of this format on the Toyota Prius page with Jenova20, where I too pointed out that WP:OVERLINKing the common single words adult/child/pedestrian is inappropriate, concurring with User:Stepho-wrs. Furthermore, WP:REPEATLINK specifies that subsequent nearby repeated linking, such as with Euro NCAP, is also inappropriate. J20, you need to obtain consensus to edit against these Wikipedia guidelines. Rostz (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I definitely favor "N/A" over the big red X (at first glance it looks like a great big failing grade), but otherwise have no opinion. IFCAR (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Rostz please read the section you are pushing on me again as tables are clearly exempt and the line before it is necessary and in line with policy.
I agree IFCAR, i think the red X is a bit much, just wanted to try and get some more discussion going and stimulate a conversation on this.
Are we all agreed on the new format?
Thanks Jenova20 13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Euro NCAP test results for a LHD, 5-door hatchback variant on a 2011 registration:>REF GOES HERE<

Test Score Points
Overall: 91
Adult occupant: 86% 31
Child occupant: 83% 40
Pedestrian: 47% 17
Safety assist: 43% 3

This would be the table then to replace the safety sections, except for anything else significant in those sections. All agreed? Thanks Jenova20 14:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ill suggest a template, and we need different templates as test before certain year has threee starred values and the new systems has total value as starred and points to certain aspects -->Typ932 T·C 15:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I just used the same table as it was easier to compare a pre-2010 model with a 2010> model in the article that way.
I see your point though and welcome the contribution.
Thanks Jenova20 15:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The biggest obstacle i see to using another table for older models is that Euro NCAP make the tests harder every few years and this could possibly bias the results when comparing newer cars with older ones.
My reason for doing this in the first place was to eliminate the bias some vehicles have on safety tests.
Thanks Jenova20 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding J's dyslexia, I can do the actual template coding for him. That just leaves J and the rest to decide what we actually want to display. The WP template could have a parameter to select if it is based on the pre or post 2010 test, which should be mentioned in the final display. However, I will need some help figuring out how to convert between points, percentages and stars (or are these necessarily separate numbers that have to supplied by an editor for each particular use). Stepho  talk  04:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How's this for a first pass:

{{Euro NCAP |desc=the [[Batmobile]] |adults=86 |adultp=31 |childs=83 |childp=40 |peds=47 |pedp=17 |safetys=43 |safetyp=3}}

Euro NCAP test results for the Batmobile.

Test Score Points
Overall: 91
Adult occupant: 86% 31
Child occupant: 83% 40
Pedestrian: 47% 17
Safety assist: 43% 3

It's still a bit rough around the edges. I will need to add another parameter to select 2009 or 2010 tests and I'm not sure of the exact conversion of 91 points to stars (which range corresponds to 1/2/3/4/5 stars, half stars?). Also haven't decided if the reference should be part of the 'desc' field or a field by itself. See {{Euro NCAP}} for more details.  Stepho  talk  07:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Euro NCAP changes the test regularly, i don't know if they changed it last in 2009/2010 or early 2011.
2)I don't believe they have ever made clear the results that equal stars.
3) The infobox used before each table to state which model, side driven and year of the tested model stated the year of the test and tested model - maybe it can be incorporated into the table?
Love the batmobile results but surely safety assist is too low since it has airbags/ejector seats etc?
Thanks Jenova20 08:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm still heavily leaning to one side on this about having just one table so the results are comparable between different generations and models.
It works for the previous tables as in the Opel Corsa article, just feels as though something more could be done.
Thanks Jenova20 08:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's a little more work done. 2010 onwards test results are shown by including safety assist values (I have assumed that the actual result values are adjusted by NCAP themselves to reflect different weighting for individual tests and therefore I can just display them as-is). Missing values display '?' (easily changed to 'N/A' or similar or even by not displaying the line). Batmobiles from different years will, of course, have different safety ratings. You can choose % scores or star ratings by using adults=86 or adultr=3 . I might add an optional parameter to automatically convert % scores into stars. I will work a bit more on getting the total stars to match their published results.

{{Euro NCAP |desc=the 2011 [[Batmobile]] |adults=86 |adultp=31 |childs=83 |childp=40 |peds=47 |pedp=17 |safetys=43 |safetyp=03}}

Euro NCAP test results for the 2011 Batmobile.

Test Score Points
Overall: 91
Adult occupant: 86% 31
Child occupant: 83% 40
Pedestrian: 47% 17
Safety assist: 43% 03

{{Euro NCAP |desc=the 1965 [[Batmobile]] |adults=86 |adultp=15 |childs=10 |childp=08 |peds=09 |pedp=03 }}

Euro NCAP test results for the 1965 Batmobile.

Test Score Points
Overall: 26
Adult occupant: 86% 15
Child occupant: 10% 08
Pedestrian: 09% 03

{{Euro NCAP |desc=the 1965 [[Batmobile]] |adultr=3 |adultp=15 |childs=10 |childp=08 |pedr=01 |pedp=03 }}

Euro NCAP test results for the 1965 Batmobile.

Test Score Points
Overall: 26
Adult occupant: 15
Child occupant: 10% 08
Pedestrian: 03

 Stepho  talk  04:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure giving the choice of percentages or stars is good since i can't recall NCAP ever stating what percentage equals a star and that could then be seen as us biasing the results.
By giving the choice rather than having a solid template people will just keep reverting and changing between the two over petty things.
What's wrong with reporting the results as NCAP does as it avoids the bias that changing them could have?
Thanks Jenova20 09:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I won't add the feature of converting % to stars for individual results - less work for me :)  Stepho  talk  09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Very good point. The for calculating the overall star rating is complex. I believe it is beyond the scope of this template to try to calculate that rating when it is already published. Given that a detailed assessment of each vehicle's performance in each of the four areas as well as the overall star rating is published (and referenceable) at euroncap.com, there is no need to calculate anything. The ratings are very clear - new ratings scheme is four percentages plus an overall star rating, while the pre-2009 rating is three sets of stars and no percentages. To be honest I think it would be better to have two separate templates to avoid any confusion or mis-presentation of the data. That has a further advantage that you only display the relevant categories so you don't have empty rows in the table. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that.
I did want to use the same table but i can accept that empty rows is not desirable.
Thanks Jenova20 11:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So here's my take on a Euro NCAP template for the current rating (see User:Biker_Biker/sandbox/Euro_NCAP

Euro NCAP test results
Audi A6 (2011) [1]
Test Score Points
Adult occupant 91% 33
Child occupant 83% 41
Pedestrian 41% 15
Safety assist 86% 6

And here is the code that calls it: {{User:Biker Biker/sandbox/Euro NCAP|vehicle=[[Audi A6]]| year= 2011 | reference= {{cite web | url= http://www.euroncap.com/results/audi/a6/2011/435.aspx | publisher= Euro NCAP | work= Test 2011 | title= Audi A6 | accessdate= 5 October 2011}} | overall=5 | adult_percent = 91 | adult_points = 33 | child_percent= 83 | child_points= 41 | pedestrian_percent= 41 | pedestrian_points= 15 | safety_percent= 86 | safety_points= 6}}

I haven't put documentation on the template yet as it is in my user space, but what I have done is used "proper" parameter names to avoid any confusion. What do you think? --Biker Biker (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Only thing missing is the vehicle body style (3-door hatchback, 5-door estate, 4-door saloon, 2-door coupe etc) as Euro NCAP uses a different weight to smash the car into depending on which.
Without it the results are potentially biased.
Thanks Jenova20 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Like so:

Euro NCAP test results
Audi A6, 4-door Saloon (2011) [2]
Test Score Points
Adult occupant 91% 33
Child occupant 83% 41
Pedestrian 41% 15
Safety assist 86% 6

Jenova20 14:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Taking on board some of the above suggestions (eg more obvious parameter names) and reading at euroncap.com, I altered my template to cover 1997-2003 (stars for adult/pedestrian, no overall result), 2004-2008 (stars for adult/child/pedestrian, no overall result) and 2009 onwards ( points/percent for adult/child/pedestrian/safety, overall stars). No data is calculated. All years are covered by calling a single template. Here's what it looks like;

The code for 2009 onwards tests (including safety assist)

{{Euro NCAP |year=2011 |overall_stars=4 |description=a sample 2011 car |reference=<ref>Reference 2011</ref> |adult_points=86 |adult_percent=31 |child_points=83 |child_percent=40 |pedestrian_points=47 |pedestrian_percent=17 |safety_points=43 |safety_percent=3 }}

displays as:

Euro NCAP test results
a sample 2011 car (2011)[4]
Test Points %
Overall:
Adult occupant: 86 31%
Child occupant: 83 40%
Pedestrian: 47 17%
Safety assist: 43 3%

For pre 2009 tests (without safety assist), specify the star parameters. The code

{{Euro NCAP |year=2007 |description=a sample 2007 car |reference=<ref>Reference 2007</ref> |adult_stars=5 |child_stars=3 |pedestrian_stars=1 }}

displays as:

Euro NCAP test results
a sample 2007 car (2007)[6]
Test Score Rating
Adult occupant:
Child occupant:
Pedestrian:

Very early tests (pre 2004) can omit the child scores. The code

{{Euro NCAP |year=2001 |description=a sample 2001 car |reference=<ref>Reference 2001</ref> |adult_stars=4 |pedestrian_stars=2 }}

displays as:

Euro NCAP test results
a sample 2001 car (2001)[8]
Test Score Rating
Adult occupant:
Pedestrian:

I'm not wedded to the exact format of the top lines/rows, nor am I worried if it uses a single description parameter or splits it into many smaller parameters (that's what we're determining as a group here) but I really would like to keep it to calling a single template.  Stepho  talk  22:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with those.
But...again you do need to state what was tested (Saloon, Hatchback, Estate, Coupe) since the results are useless otherwise as they cannot possibly be applicable to every body style the vehicle was produced in.
Euro NCAP state the same as they use a different weight and height for their test and since every body style will have different standard safety equipment, weight, size, height, etc.
It really wouldn't make much sense if the 3-door hatchback had the same safety rating as the 2-door pick-up truck version you see.
Thanks Jenova20 08:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I've used the general purpose 'description' parameter to cover all of those. E.g.:
  • |description=a 2004 LHD Ford Mondeo small family wagon with twin overhead fluffy dice
I've no real problem if the consensus is to split it up into lots of separate fields but my gut feeling is that they will simply be merged back together for display and that the exact division will cause heaps of trouble with some cars (although I can't think of a concrete example off the top of my head).  Stepho  talk  13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer having the car's name & year within the table. Otherwise I like it. So can we get some consensus and move forward with a usable template? --Biker Biker (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good - keeps it altogether. I have modified {{Euro NCAP}} as per your suggestion (in fact, I stole some of your code). I've also updated the documentation for it. Only a single template is called from an article with the parameters approriate for that year. The template renders that information according to the year and parameters given.

{{Euro NCAP |year=2011 |overall_stars=4 |description=a sample car |reference=Reference 2011 |adult_points=86 |adult_percent=31 |child_points=83 |child_percent=40 |pedestrian_points=47 |pedestrian_percent=17 |safety_points=43 |safety_percent=3 }} displays as:

Euro NCAP test results
a sample car (2011)[9]
Test Points %
Overall:
Adult occupant: 86 31%
Child occupant: 83 40%
Pedestrian: 47 17%
Safety assist: 43 3%

{{Euro NCAP |year=2001 |description=a sample car |reference=Reference 2001 |adult_stars=4 |pedestrian_stars=2 }}

Euro NCAP test results
a sample car (2001)[10]
Test Score
Adult occupant:
Pedestrian:
Note: some of the previous examples are now being rendered with the latest version of the template, so they may not look as they did when they were being discussed.  Stepho  talk  02:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
So are these templates ready to be used like this?
They look great
Thanks Jenova20 09:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
As long as nobody has any further suggestions, they are ready for immediate use.  Stepho  talk  21:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Great!
Do i just copy and paste the code and adjust the numbers?
Thanks for the help Jenova20 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, cut and paste from its documentation page at {{Euro NCAP}}.  Stepho  talk  08:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you add the points columns to the two tables before 2009?
Just noticed they are missing.
Thanks Jenova20 11:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
pre 2008 scores have been added. See {{Euro NCAP}} for examples.  Stepho  talk  04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
If i'm not irritating you can i make one final request that score and points are standardised in all 3 templates to just points and also that in the two older templates the rating is put at the end to be comparable with the percentage column on the new template?
I just want them as similar as possible for comparison.
Thanks Stepho Jenova20 08:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem swapping ratings and score for the pre 2008 tests (will do so later today). However, I would like to keep the columns titles as they are because it matches the names used at euroncap.com .  Stepho  talk  04:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with the finished templates.
They look great!
Thanks for everything Stepho Jenova20 15:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Once we're comfortable with Euro NCAP, we can make some more for NCAP, Latin NCAP and ANCAP.  Stepho  talk  22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ive tested this and it works okay, I also added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles template list -->Typ932 T·C 05:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Ups I was too early the 2004-2008 version has some problems, the documentation is missing scores and the reference isnt working, see for example Fiat 500 (2007) -->Typ932 T·C 05:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for testing it. Documentation is now fixed. I'm working on the references.  Stepho  talk  09:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The reference parameter is giving me trouble. Temporarily you can make it like {{Euro NCAP |year=2001 |description=a sample car<ref>some reference</ref> |adult_stars=4 |adult_score=34 |pedestrian_stars=2 |pedestrian_score=20 }}  Stepho  talk  09:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Check for example Template:Infobox company it has footnotes parameter in the end, maybe some help? -->Typ932 T·C 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it! Let me just say that wikimedia programming is seriously screwed when combining ref tags and parameter expansion. It took me an hour to find the #tag: tag parser extension function :( Anyway, all reported problems have been fixed.  Stepho  talk  21:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It works but it cant show full reference details eg. <ref name="www.euroncap.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.euroncap.com/tests/Fiat_500_2007/298.aspx|title= Fiat 500|accessdate=2008-01-29|work=www.euroncap.com}}</ref> this is shown only as ref number, bare URLs it can show. Also the documentation in Template:Euro NCAP/1997 has minor problem "a sample car (2001)Unknown extension tag "refreference 2001" -->Typ932 T·C 05:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The 1997 documentation is only meant to point you back to the main template but I will fix it anyway. I will do more work on the reference problem. Wikimedia programming sure is quirky :(  Stepho  talk  08:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be working now:
{{Euro NCAP |year=2001 |description=a sample car |reference={{cite web|url=http://www.euroncap.com/tests/Fiat_500_2007/298.aspx|title= Fiat 500|accessdate=2008-01-29|work=www.euroncap.com}} |adult_stars=4 |pedestrian_stars=2 }} gives:
Euro NCAP test results
Fiat 500 (2007)[6]
Test Score Rating
Adult occupant:
Pedestrian:
  1. ^ {{{reference}}}
  2. ^ {{{reference}}}
  3. ^ Reference 2011
  4. ^ [3]
  5. ^ Reference 2007
  6. ^ a b [5] Cite error: The named reference "EuroNCAP2007" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ Reference 2001
  8. ^ [7]
  9. ^ {{{reference}}}
  10. ^ {{{reference}}}
Beware that the reference parameter does not require <ref></ref> because the template adds the ref tags for you. But it does highlight that I need to add a reference_name parameter. Note: refs 1..10 are from previous examples above that used older, broken forms of the template.  Stepho  talk  09:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That's jibberish to me lol
Thought you were done already with these?
Thanks Jenova20 16:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
They are in a workable state now as long as you follow the doc page at {{Euro NCAP}}. The only problem that I am aware of is if you want to use named references (ie for using the same reference more than once in the article). I am looking for a way to add that feature over the next few days (been busy at work and home) but the rest will work just fine. I have a work-around if you need it immediately.  Stepho  talk  05:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

{

At last, I got the reference and reference_name parameter working. Note: a few people have been using them on pages already but are using reference=<ref>xxx</ref>. The template puts these in for you, so doing it twice gives some strange result. Just use reference=xxx. Or cut and paste from {{Euro NCAP}}. No other problems that I know of. If you find any or have any suggestions, then please let me know on the template discussion page.  Stepho  talk  04:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do.
Thanks Stepho Jenova20 09:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_29&oldid=1136054250"