Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

File:3ptMotorStarter.JPG

File:3ptMotorStarter.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile

I have a complaint with Template:Infobox automobile. The Engine field shows up as Engine(s) but the Designer field doesn't show as Designer(s) as is needed for some articles (C3 Picasso and C3 in particular). Can someone change that? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do they have many designers? usually its for main designer. Pls discuss it on the template talk page also, seems also that the merging to other projects (bus, etc) is destroiying our good template, thats why I opposed it in the merging proposition discussion. -->Typ932 T·C 16:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately when merging two templates there will have to be compromises but thanks for that, i'll take it to the template page ツ Jenova20 (email) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Image formatting in articles

I was formatting images in automobile and motorcycle articles in accordance with the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Image syntax as at 28 July 2012 when I was told to stop doing that until I discuss it here first.

Is the use of the "XXXpx" parameter preferred over the use of the "upright=x.xx" and "frameless" parameters in this project?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unforcing image sizes doesn't need more discussion. There is already broad consensus that it's better. Frameless is just a way of getting rid of the wasted caption frame if an image doesn't have a caption, or if an infobox handles the caption. It's trivial, and clearly better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with DB. Better. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
One thing: if you switch from thumb to frameless, you should delete the caption, if you don't want it, or else move it to the infobox's |caption= field. In many cases the captions in infoboxes are redundant and should be deleted, but in others they are necessary to explain the lead image, like if it is modified or is a particular version. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
And now I have a spooky bug: User:Dennis Bratland/sandbox. If my default thumb size is set to 180px, certain upright ratios don't display. But only for File:1976 Kawasaki KR250 01.jpg. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't notice that it was a thumbnail. Not sure why a thumbnail was inside an infobox, though. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion if you change something, this rule should be then followed in every article that we dont end to have different systems used in the infoboxes. And it then should be maybe added to the WP guidelines. -->Typ932 T·C 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, it already is added to the WP guidelines. Check the link near the top of this section. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you both mean WP=Wikipedia or WP=Wikiproject? IMHO if it is already part of Wikipedia style guide then that trumps the Wikiproject and nothing should be needed in the latter w.r.t. image format/size, instead it should focus on image quality & content. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
And all-or-nothing change rule would be impossible. The infoboxes are already inconsistent, so it's too late to worry about that. And even if they weren't, it would take a massive number of edits to change them all at once to some new standard. Even if a perfect standard had been agreed upon, which it hasn't. In the end, it's clear that editors are free to WP:BOLDly make changes, particularly when the changes are well within major policies and the MOS.

And Biker Biker is right that project-level conventions aren't even the equal of WP:Guidelines, let alone WP:Policy. {{Infopage}} says exactly that right at the top of the convention page. If you look at the history, most of these project conventions were the result of a brief discussion between two or three editors. They're useful in promoting consistency, but they aren't mandatory. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

With WP I of course mean this Wikiproject where we are discussing, its not too late because we now have 99% boxes with 250px , in my opinion its not good idea to use different sizes/styles in boxes, so that some has 300px or 180 or whatever stylings -->Typ932 T·C 02:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see a similar method as those used in several other language automobile projects, where all one does is type the name of the image and all formatting is taken care of automatically.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I could add an 'image_file' parameter to {{Infobox automobile}}. Given only the image filename, it would format the image consistently. It would also incorporate the 'caption' parameter (if present) and override the 'image' parameter (if present).  Stepho  talk  06:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I would welcome this. Should probably be put for a vote someplace, no? It would be great if we could deprecate the earlier setup; a bot could then easily deal with changing all the relevant files.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No need to vote IMO, JFDI. It brings us in line with other projects and gives an easy method for complying with the image usage policy. It seems like a no-brainer. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Stepho's is a good idea. Several times I have been puzzled that it seems to happen like that anyway when I have changed an image yet picking up a new infobox template it is necessary to fix a size. Eddaido (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
yep that would be good thing to do, all is need then to have some bot to do the huge job -->Typ932 T·C 12:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done for {{Infobox automobile test}}
The old 'image' parameter still works but it is overridden when the new 'image_file' parameter is present (ie you can use the old or new format). Needs the doc page modified but that's trivial. If we agree to it then I can shift the changes to the real template. If we are still happy with it after a suitable time, then we can send a bot out to change all articles and then remove the old 'image' parameter from the template altogether.  Stepho  talk  13:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - looks great. I would be in support of increasing the image size somewhat (from the 250), say 275px perhaps? That way many long fields won't have to be broken up, and the pic will look good too. Cheers.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
One question, as per SamBlob - could we add the possibility of an "upright" parameter or such? That seems to be how this entire conversation began.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Since we're playing with only the test version, we can try out a few different options without hurting any articles. I changed '250px' to 'frameless|upright=1.25'. For users with default preferences this comes out to 275px. I think I prefer a variant of 'upright' rather than a variant of 'px' because 'upright' multiplies by the user's default setting but 'px' overrides the user. I know I hate it when I set my preferences to one thing and the article says 'screw you, you're getting what the editor wanted'. Anyway, are we happy with 'upright=1.25' (giving 275px by default)? Now is the time to play with options before we alter any articles. Personally I prefer the 'upright=1.15' (giving 253px by default), 275px taking up just a bit too much room when the browser window is set to only half screen or 3⁄4 screen.
PS: Thank you to Mr Choppers for removing the stray reference that I should have removed myself - sloppy work by me :)  Stepho  talk  01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Support: Stepho's excellent new changes. I think we should just retain the old "image" parameter instead of migrating to "image_file". The bot will only take a couple of hours to make the necessary changes, so surely we can deal with a corrupted template for this time. We can just add a temporary warning message to {{Infobox automobile}} so it is clear what is going on for the few hours while the changeover is occurring. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep 'image' and 'image_file' as separate parameters. It confuses editors when 'image' is used in one way for most of the infobox templates and then in a different way for 'Infobox automobile'. If a user puts both in then 'image_file' will be used and 'image' will be ignored. Which makes it safe.
By the way, I don't have any bot experience yet, so it will take some time for me to work out how to get a bot running.
Any comments on the image size:
"Image_file" is redundant though. Anyone who knows what most infoboxes use will be sufficiently experienced in this regard. Besides, users would normally just copy the code from somewhere else anyway, so it will be self-explanatory. Lastly, there are many infoboxes which use the parameter "image" in a manner similar to what your proposing (i.e. excluding [[File: ...). The shorter the code, the better. P.S., my vote for the image width is 1.35—this gets us up to 300px limit (under the default 220px thumbnail) that many of us have been asking to be instated for a while now. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
1.25 or 1.35 for me. The Image parameter should remain until a bot has replaced all instances of it, but then it needs to be removed to prevent further misuse. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I've modified the test template to show variations in the upright parameter. This modification will not be part of the final template but it does show how much screen real estate each size takes up.  Stepho  talk  08:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure what size monitors people are nowadays using mostly, but that 300 px might be too big, so I would say 275 -->Typ932 T·C 13:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am prepared to go with 1.25 in the spirit of compromise (any increase is welcome really), but obviously would prefer to go another size up (1.35). Now, we just need to agree on the name of the parameter: "image" or "image_file". As I said above, numerous templates are already using the standard Stepho has worked out and pretty much all of these that I have come across still use "image". I have yet to encounter an "image_file" as part of other infobox templates; but that's not to say this parameter does not exist.
If there are no objections, I will happily initiate a request to have a bot make the relevant changes. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 07:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you point me to the other templates that use image file. I'd like our template to be compatible with the others in the infobox family. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  12:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I randomly typed in several topics to see what comes up. "Image_file" never came up, nor did anything similar. "Image" seems to be the overwhelmingly prevalent usage, and in most cases the formatting is already the same as what we are proposing; that is:

| image = Example.jpg

Other infoboxes using the above format:

Plus many others I'm sure. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at {{Infobox UK place}}, which supports two images, and both methods of displaying images. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need two options. Consistency and simplicity are key. OSX (talk • contributions)
Ah, apparently this is no consistency among the infobox templates. The UK template even has static_image, static image_2, static_image_name and static_image_2_name. As a full-time programmer, this worries me but there is little I can do about it without starting fights (er, enthusiastic discussions) among multiple projects, so I'll withdraw my objections. Our changeover is best done in multiple steps.
  1. Alter the template to use the new form 'image_file' as well as the old form 'image'.
  2. Run a bot to convert all articles to use the new form.
  3. Alter the template so that the old 'image' now acts in the new way.
  4. Run another bot to rename usage of 'image_file' as 'image'.
  5. Remove 'image_file' from the template.
I've used this method to redefine live databases so that the users never even know that a changed occurred. It has an added advantage that timing is not critical - in my day job step 2 typically takes a month to be done company wide but WP is a bit faster :)  Stepho  talk  07:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
While there is no absolute consistency, "image" did come up in around 80 percent of cases. If image was not used, it was usually due to the establishment of a more specific paramater such as "logo" or "album art" (for songs).
I am not competent at programming by any means, but wonder what would be the implications in cutting down the number of steps as follows:
  1. Update the infobox template to use the new form of "image"
  2. Add a temporary disclaimer to the infobox template similar to the "this template is being proposed for deletion" notice. This will state that images will not be displayed correctly for a few hours due to an update.
  3. Run a bot to convert all articles to use the new form.
Stepho, if you think this is a bad idea, we won't run with it because you clearly know a lot more about this sort of stuff than I do. It is my understanding based on past events of a similar nature that the bot will not take more than a few hours to go through the few thousand or so articles that will be affected—1 month is definitely not realistic. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Using {{Infobox automobile test}} as a base, this is what happens when the old coding ([[File:Example.jpg|250px|Example]]) is combined with the new paramater:
Yes, it looks a little bit strange, but it is quite minor really. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer the 5 step procedure (really just 2 bot runs and some housekeeping for each). I'd expect the first run to be done say, in the morning, and then the second run done, say in the evening or perhaps the next day, depending in how busy/enthusiastic the bot controller is. The advantages of 2 bot runs is that timing is not critical and the articles look fine during the process.
Whereas a single bot run will make articles look awkward while the bot is running, prompting well-meaning editors to "correct" the issue by hand. In many cases these hand "corrections" are likely to screw things up for that article and it may take awhile for the affected articles to be properly repaired (some obscure article may never be repaired).  Stepho  talk  04:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
In favor of the 1.25 (ca 275px), wouldn't mind a hard change and a single option ("image"). But not strongly wedded to anything, really.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Stepho, can you please respond here and implement the "image_file" updates to {{Infobox automobile}}, {{Infobox automobile platform}}, and {{Infobox automobile engine}}? Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 09:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Other maintenance tasks that should be done at the same time

If we are going to go to the effort of deploying a bot for every article using {{Infobox automobile}}, we may as well get anything else fixed that has been relegated as part of the "too hard basket" as well:

  • Remove historical parameters:
    • Similar
    • Parent_company
    • Fuel_capacity
    • Fuel_economy
    • Electric_range
  • Anything else?

Finally, doing away with the parameter "designer" would be welcomed by maner users—the body of the article can accommodate this much better. This one has been lingering around for far too long now. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The designer data should not be removed without backing it up, there is much hard to find data and references. And I see no harm it being in the box anyway. And why you removed the layout example, I think there should be at least link to showcase good automobile article for new editors. -->Typ932 T·C 08:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone of our featured pages will serve this purpose perfectly. All Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts did was duplicate a years-old version of Lexus IS. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with deleting the original list of five, but I really feel that the designer field is very useful here. I will argue for at least two days to protect that one. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The designer parameter is as important as production, or manufacturer, and would not like to see it go. Warren (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Great photostream for Yank car fans

There are several thousands of great photos of older full-sized US cars in this guy's photo stream - and the most recent 4,000 are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia use. I am not interested enough in US cars to wade through and upload the most useful ones, but there should be plenty of interesting ones there.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Engine Question

I think Citroen quietly released a 5th engine for the C3 Picasso but can't tell if it's in the UK. Does anyone know if the EGS6 is the same as the 1.6 e-HDi (Diesel)? I need to be sure before i merge it. I'll offer a barnstar to the smart-arse who can figure this one out. Source 1Source 2Source 3Source 4 (UK engine list) Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.citroen.de/Resources/Content/DE/10_pdf/07_preislisten/preisliste_c3_picasso.pdf the engine specs looks same both manual and egs6 gearbox -->Typ932 T·C 12:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool =] That's just caused an unimaginable amount of work for me...Still i suppose i did promise a barnstar. Thanks a lot for that Typ932 ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Your starting point for me there has now shown me that EGS6 is Electronic Gear Stick 6-speed and so not the name of the engine after all. Thanks again ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The Engine Barnstar
...Bet you haven't seen one of these before =P Thanks for helping with my engine issue, now take this quickly before someone notices! ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. :D And animated! :D :D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Who manufactured Cobras: AC or Shelby?

User:FergusM1970 has been changing all references to Carroll Shelby manufacturing Cobras to AC (see AC Cobra, Carroll Shelby, Carroll Shelby International, etc.) Because this topic covers multiple articles and the more input the better, I am bringing the question to this Wikiproject: Who manufactured Cobras: AC or Shelby? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dino. All 1960s Cobras were manufactured by AC at Thames Ditton in Surrey. Shelby was responsible for fitting the engines and transmissions to the Cobras exported to the USA up to 1967 and (in the case of the MkIII) painting the cars. All Cobras for non-US markets, and all those built from 1967 to 1969, were completely assembled at the AC factory.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I have a magazine article somewhere that has Carroll Shelby very vehemently claiming that the Cobra (for at least the years covering the 429) was fully redesigned by Shelby and the redesign was paid for Cobra. His claim of being the official manufacturer may or may not be true (or maybe only applies to N.American sold Cobras) but he was very, very clear that he believed they were Shelby Cobras, not AC Cobras. I will try to dig up the article.  Stepho  talk  23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you mean the 427. The redesign was done by AC with computer assistance from Ford, but in any case the cars were still all built by AC. I believe that Shelby managed to get a court judgement naming him as "legal manufacturer of record" or some such bilge for the cars sold in the USA, but by any reasonable definition of "manufactured" they were ACs. Shelby had more of a manufacturing involvement in the US market 427s (MkIIIs) than he had in the previous cars, it's true - he painted them as well as installing the engines. However the MkIIIs, like all previous Cobras, were built in the AC factory from AC-manufactured parts and either shipped to the USA as rolling cars or completely assembled at AC for the non-US market. Shelby may well have believed that they were Shelby Cobras, but as they were not designed or built by him I'm afraid any such belief qualifies as delusional in my book.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably the most helpful thing in reaching a consensus on this issue is to determine what reliable sources state, otherwise it is pretty much just original research. There is a lot of literature out there on Cobras, so editors with access to those sources would be welcome to weigh in. 72Dino (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Good suggestion. What counts as a reliable source though? And what counts as "manufactured"? To call the car a Shelby I think we'd have to establish that they were built at his factory. On the other hand all the original production jigs and body bucks belong to AC and have never been to the USA. How did Shelby build the 1960s cars without the tools required to do so? Why do AC have those tools?
The fact is that Shelby was a racing driver, not a car manufacturer, and when the cobras were built Shelby American was a tuning workshop, not a factory. AC are a car manufacturer and they had a factory. Shelby simply didn't have the capability to build a car; AC did. It is not disputed by any RS that what Shelby did was fit the engines to US-market cars, which his workshop was capable of. The AC factory was also capable of doing this, and did so for all the cars sold outside the USA; the reason Shelby installed engines is that it made no economic sense to ship engines from the USA to England only to send them back again inside a completed car. When Shelby switched from the Cobra to the GT40 in 1967, AC went right on building the cars. The only suggestion that AC shipped parts to Shelby rather than assembled rolling cars comes from Shelby himself and concerns the 43 chassis that Shelby claimed he had in storage from 1965. As it is now known conclusively that those chassis are counterfeit parts manufactured in 1991-92 this rather poisons the well as far as believing Shelby goes. Shelby asked AC to design him a car; AC did so and built him a prototype. Shelby then asked AC to build him more cars, and AC did. The cars were marketed in the USA by Shelby and Ford, but there is no doubt at all that they were acually designed and manufactured by AC.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point. No-one's disputing that AC built the Cobra. But it's not about manufacturing, it's about branding. As I said on your talk page, the Opel Astra Cabrio is built by Bertone. And the Ford Ka is completely built by Fiat using zero Ford parts. Likewise, Shelby contracted AC to provide him with a car he could sell. That's why the cars are Shelby Cobras. --Pc13 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
See the heading - "Who manufactured Cobras; AC or Shelby?" The answer is AC. They designed it, they built it and they continued making them after Shelby lost interest in 1967. In any case the car was marketed in the USA as the Ford/Shelby AC Cobra; everywhere else it was simply sold as the AC Cobra. The common element is AC, with the involvement of Shelby and Ford being added for US advertising purposes. The whole controversy seems to exist only in the USA, where the Cobra's origins have been clouded by dishonest statements and actions by Shelby himself, to the extent that many people actually believe it's an American car. Anyway, how about we change the article lede from "colloquially known in North America as the Shelby Cobra" to "sold in North America as the Shelby/Ford AC Cobra"?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reword

Can someone do the impossible for me and combine these 2 paragraphs without losing anything important?:

  • The C3 Picasso Exclusive and VTR+ models - when equipped with the 1.6L VTi engine are capable of a top speed of 117 mph (188 km/h) in 10.6 seconds and 120 PS (88 kW; 118 bhp). This, and a smaller petrol engine, were co-developed with BMW along with two diesel engines and later a six-speed automatic gearbox variant (EGS6) with a Start-stop system system and Regenerative braking technology included in certain models, notably the German market's Exclusive and Tendance models. manual versions were introduced in 2011, along with a new eco-friendly and economical Stop/Start system, which Citroën claims to reduce CO2 emissions significantly. This coincided with the European emission standards (Euro 5) Carbon dioxide emissions limits being revised and lowered and the addition of Low-rolling resistance tires to the entire C3 Picasso range. These are designed to minimize wasted energy when the tyre rolls and have been independently estimated to save between 5-15% of fuel being wasted in a typical car.

If it's really good i may reward it. Thank you very much ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done - took a while and i bodged it but it's done ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Faure

Some early electric cars failed because of their inadequate Faure-King batteries. Eddaido (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to rename Mini

See Talk:Mini#Requested_move, where an editor is requesting to have the article renamed - following the reversion of his controversial move. Please join the discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The above does not really constitute a neutral canvass. So what the requested move was made after reversion of a move?
Note also that the move did not come following no discussion, these issues have been discussed at very great length on the talk page of Talk:Mini (marque)#What are the options? where there was a broad consensus for a restructuring of the Mini articles which involves a move of the article on the original Mini model. Interestingly Biker Biker actually took part and agreed with that approach only about a month ago. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

Incase nobody is watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment, I just requested an assessment. :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

C3 Aircross

I've finally got to the stage where i need the opinion of you guys on the C3 Aircross. It's a 4x4 variant of the hatchback C3, while the C3 Picasso is an mpv variant. It's closer to a C3 Picasso than a C3, especially in looks where it looks almost exactly the same. Is it better suited to the C3 article where there is just an image and a caption, or to the C3 Picasso article where i have actually detailed information on it and can merge it better? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

With the Picasso as they are the same car really. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
checkY Okedokie! ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Does it need it's own infobox or is it fine to include it in the C3 Picasso one (as i have for some aspects)? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would just have one personally. The Aircross appears to be a trim level really. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears that way. It's a very small market and no logic to create a car for just 2000 sales a year. And the similarities are strikingly similar. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the demise of the DS (which my dad owned), CX (which my dad also owned) and 2CV (of which I have owned five) all Citroens have been a P.O.S. so I'd be happy if none of them had an article on Wikipedia. Not a terribly helpful comment in the context of the project but I just needed to say it. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So even the previous generation C4 three-door and the stunning C6... or the new DS4 ??????? !!!!!!! OSX (talk • contributions) 01:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done btw. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Milton Othello Reeves 1911.png

File:Milton Othello Reeves 1911.png is missing source and author information. This would be a problem on Commons if it is to be moved there. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

FIAT Duna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Duna

isn't in the car timeline. and the problem is the commercial position, is between the family car and the small family car :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.71.172 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The timeline is made for european cars -->Typ932 T·C 02:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone working on new Citroens?

...Because i have worldwide production figures for their models for 2010 + 2011 here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS question

Do we prefer our measurements as 1.4L (Litre) or 1.4 L (Litre, with space)? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:WPAC -->Typ932 T·C 13:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Very useful. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

help with BMW engine articles straying too far from sources

Hi, there are a lot of back-and-forth reverts going on between myself and another editor on a couple of BMW engine articles. I have repeatedly asked the other editor to discuss the changes, since I believe his/her edits stray too far from the sources. Yet at best he/she just provides a scapegoat reason in the edit summary when making another massive revert. Any tips for dealing with this? (the articles in question are BMW N54 and BMW N55 if anyone else would like to check out the situation) Thanks in advance. 1292simon (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And now the same issues at BMW N52 and List of BMW engines. From the look of the user's talk page, it looks like lack of sources and discussion with other editors are recurring themes. 1292simon (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Units of measure / trolling?

Perhaps a member of this project would like to take a look at the recent item in Special:Contributions/JFine, and act accordingly? I suspect a bit of trolling is going on here but I simply don't have the time to get involved - although it could be fun.... --Biker Biker (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems OK. WP:UNITS says SI is only the default for scientific articles and some others; they can defer to local units. WP:AUN says use SI except for when the local units differ. In other words, it's SI for everything except American-market cars. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Not just US cars. Horsepower or PS are far more common across Europe than kW. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
See WP:AUN. Warren (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Question before requested move

Automobile platform i believe, should be renamed to either Platform (Automobile) or Platform (Vehicle) to make it easier to find compared to the other platform articles. Opinions? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason? The related category is Category:Automobile platforms, so not sure what benefit a rename would bring? Warren (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Because only people knowing where to look will find it easily and without ending up at Platform, which is a pretty big disambig page. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Lada Riva

This seems like a misnamed article. AFAIK, "Riva" was only ever used in the UK market. Canada received Signets and 1500s, while other markets used Nova, Laika, or the 2104/2105/2107 monikers. I originally leaned towards "Lada Classic", but this name usually includes the earlier 2101-series cars as well. The 2105 was the first version introduced, and would make a possible split into three separate articles (Lada 2105, 2104, 2107) very easy. I would welcome more learned opinions, and am also interested in the 2105's history in the New Zealand market.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the wide disparity I suggest we revert to the name used in its home market. Anyone know what that was? --Biker Biker (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
VAZ 2105, 2104, 2107. All three have separate articles in Russian WP. This might be the best solution.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep -->Typ932 T·C 05:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Lada 2105's were imported into New Zealand by the New Zealand Dairy Board by way of exchange for New Zealand dairy products exported to the Soviet Union. The Dairy Board is now Fontera.NealeFamily (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
It could be argued that the Riva/2104 etc are just facelifts and variations of the same core car and that they could all merge into VAZ-2101? Warren (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes if the article doesnt come too large I think all the 3 box Ladas could be on the same article.-->Typ932 T·C 18:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
That would be a hardliner approach, although justifiable. They share no bodywork and not the name (perhaps the glazing is the same), but it would definitely be an improvement. Splitting it into three articles seems silly, what about simply renaming it Lada 2105 for now? The 2105 was the first version, 2104 and 2107 would simply get their own sections.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
they are almost same car just slightly different body style, and because the 1st Lada article is named as VAZ-2101 (and not the one used in foreign markets) it would be in line if we would use similar naming, anyway my opinion is that they could be on the same page if the article doesnt grow too big.-->Typ932 T·C 21:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with one big article, it would be an improvement. I think that two articles would make more sense, if it wasn't for the pesky naming confusion. Here are the proposals, as far as I can tell:
That should be enough to vote on, unless I missed something. And belated thanks to NealeFamily for the info, I found a good source and updated the article accordingly.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 2. Checking my 1980s sources, the the 2014 is only an estate version of the 2105 so definitely only one article needed, and of course this was only facelift (interior, new front end, bumpers, revised/new engines) of the original 2101. The 2107 was of course the same as the 2105 but with the ridiculous large grille and "upgraded" interior. To muddy the water, I wonder if the articles should not be called Lada 2101 and Lada 2105 as VAZ was only used in the home market and not for export. Warren (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Naming is hard because no-one seems to know what names these have been sold form country to country. Here the VAZ-2101 etc was sold as Lada 1200,Lada 1300 and the new "facelift" boxy models as Lada 2105, 2107 etc. -->Typ932 T·C 15:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, they were all sold as VAZes in Russia/USSR, so the home market name is clear. Since export market names are all a blur the home name takes precedence (according to the rules). And also, the body panels are not at all shared - I think that the glazing may be the same, but nothing else that is directly visible is shared.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Not quite true about the body panels - the 2105 and 2107 share pretty much everything bar the bonnet and trim/light/bumper details and interior? Certainly happy to agree to a split between 2101/2102 and the later "square-front" models, but really don't see the need for individual articles for each derivative, therefore updated my vote for option 2. Ambivalent to the naming, as long as it is consistent - redirects can be used for regional variations to good effect. Warren (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Coupé utility

I'd be very interested in editors' thoughts on the Coupé utility article. I had deleted a couple of different cars that had no reference to being called a Coupé utility, and I certainly have never heard some of the cars being called this at all. Morris Marina pick up or Hyundai Pony pick up for example are included in this list which I find rather hilarious from a UK perspective. Warren (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazing, and there was I thinking ute was simply short for Utility. I could swear with some these articles people make it up as they go along. We should have a whole new page for Disputed utes. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It's all very strange and definitely not consistent with what most people would associate with "ute". In fact, as an Australian, I'd never even heard the term "coupe utility" until Warren posted that link. Given that ute/utility is basically an Australian term for trayback vehicles (which America and the rest of the world calls "pickups"), in my opinion the article should be renamed "ute" and content about any vehicles not sold in Australia should be moved to the pickup truck article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
"which America and the rest of the world calls 'pickups'" Actually, I've always heard these car-based types, like the Camino, called "pickoupes": pickup/coupé. I'd never heard "ute" til I found a link on WP. IDK if it's a neologism, but... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:15 & 11:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand the desire to set apart car-based pickups from more dedicated trucks. In Japan they often use "truck" for what Americans would call a pickup (say a Chevrolet Silverado) while pickup or utility was often reserved for car-based ones. In any case, "ute" = "pickup" as far as I can tell.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
It does run contrary to commonname, but IMO distinguishing from pickup or truck is a good idea, whatever it's commonly called...since it doesn't look like there's a universally-accepted "common". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

New Beetle

We could use more input on a merge regarding Volkswagen New Beetle and Volkswagen Beetle (A5) - please comment at Talk:Volkswagen Beetle (A5)#Merge. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Foos

I have come across three sources that state the Foos was an American make of automobile. Each source gives little detail and none agree on the production years. They give 1901-1904, 1913-1914, and between 1916 and 1924 respectively. Two of the sources suggest that the cars were made by the Foos Gas Engine Company, but information about the company that I have found makes no mention of them. Any assistance/information in sorting this out would be appreciated. NealeFamily (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Standard Catalog lists Foos as a gas engine maker of Springfield, Ohio, 1901-1906, and addresses that very notion saying, "Never, however, did Foos consider automobile manufacture." It sounds to me as though Kimes had some specific knowledge. The entry acknowledges they may have constructed an experimental car as an engine testbed. The Horseless Carriage Foundation library has no mention of them at all. Proscriptus (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Does WikiProject Automobiles cover car engines?

Hallo anoraks, do the rules and guidelines of this project cover engine articles as well? Greglocock (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To an extent i would think so. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
For car engines: definitely yes. For motorcycle engines: maybe. For truck engines: maybe. For marine engines, power generation engines, train engines, plane engines, rocket engines, etc: probably not.  Stepho  talk  09:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Greglocock (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Template conversion too big

Can i get a shortened version of {{convert|95|bhp|kW PS|0}} which doesn't have "brake horsepower" spelt out and instead links to bhp? Anyone know how to do this for me so i can keep the infobox tidy? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Try this one  :{{convert|95|bhp|kW PS|0|abbr=on|lk=on}} 95 bhp (71 kW; 96 PS), those numbers are better to place in table not in infobox anyway, infobox should contain only engine types and capacities -->Typ932 T·C 14:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
There's two 1.6 L HDi engines in this case so i listed bhp next to them ...but if that's the case then i'll just use the conversion in the rest of the article. Also why can't we have a better looking infobox for automobiles like French Wikipedia has? Theirs even splits stuff into sections and it looks much neater for that. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The {{infobox automobile}} template is based on {{infobox}} template - as is dozens of other templates used by thousands of articles. The French WP has a similar system but their base template is better than ours. It would take a huge effort to change the whole system over. It is possible to make the automobile articles use a system similar to the French (separate from the rest of the English infobox system) but even this would take a substantial effort. It's been suggested before and we mostly agree but I just don't have the energy.  Stepho  talk  13:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad we're in agreement then. Maybe you could help me on something different (easier?) which i'm having trouble with... I'll post on your talk page. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Task request

The Australian Holden VH Commodore article has been tagged as unreferenced for a very long time now. Could someone who is into cars and knows some good sources please do a little research and add some citations to this article. It is one of 17 articles that are part of WikiProject Australia and have been tagged for cleanup for more than 6 years. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat improved, now it has 1½ references (the "Wheels" reference was there already, is missing title, author, and page numbers if someone can help).  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging "Tourer" into "Touring car"

Talk:Touring car#Merge proposal

The above links to a discussion on merging the article Tourer into the article Touring car. The sticking point is whether the two concepts are too different to be covered by one article. I mention it here so that any project members interested in helping to resolve this issue may do so. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have a flair for good ledes?

I need a better lede as the guy doing my Peer Review for C3 Picasso has as requested pointed out issues with it. Is there anyone here good with that stuff as i can't do the wording for stuff like that easily (I major in research mostly). Wikipedia:Peer review/Citroën C3 Picasso/archive1 Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, i don't see anything in the Automobile conventions about how i highlight models...do i use:

C3 Picasso Millennium - bold
C3 Picasso Millennium - italics
C3 Picasso Millennium - regular
"C3 Picasso Millennium" - quote marks

Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Manual_of_style there is something, if not what you are looking for then normal Wikipedia manuals of styles -->Typ932 T·C 14:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
...I have no idea how i missed that as i remember reading the part about the wankel engine...Thanks for pointing it out Typ932! ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Automobile categories nominated for deletion

For your interest and comment: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 7#Automobiles powered by engine configurations --Falcadore (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Resource donation

This site (translated using Google) has listed a lot of different special and limited edition models for different manufacturers. He's also cited where the information came from. If you're lacking information then this site is pretty good! Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You might also like this - it's a database of every car you can think of with manufacturer and tested specs of the vehicles to compare. Could be useful. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Switching off 'glide

I'm coming to request additional eyes, & maybe more stringent action. User:Rangesh Dubey has now four times in the space of about an hour blanked Powerglide or dumped a bio of an Indian film director. The same bio appears at User:Rangesh Dubey's talk page in its entirety, which leads me to suspect promotion of some kind. I've warned twice...but I wonder if it will have any effect. Am I overreacting? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but this is the sort of report that belongs at WP:AIV. This talk page is about improving articles and other resources related to autos, not vandal fighting. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Volkswagen Wolfsberg

We're missing an article (or section) on the Wolfsberg (or maybe it's Wolfburg), an uncommon 1980s variant of the Volkswagen Westfalia that had a bigger bed instead of kitchen appliances. (The lack of kitchen stuff was considered a flaw by the market, but experienced travelers favored it for the extra human room, and preferred to cook outside on camping stoves and campground barbecue grills, to avoid stinking up the inside of the vehicle.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Citroën C3 Picasso#C3 Aircross

Would anyone support splitting this into a separate article? I feel it doesn't fit in the article so well anymore and would work better as a standalone short article. There's more to add to it, but i can only double (at most) the current article size with the information available. It's practically the same car as the C3 Picasso but it's been made into a 4x4 and sold in Latin America and so most of my safety tests, specs, sizes etc aren't very applicable to it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Aircross is a trim level to me, same as the Volvo XC70 and the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo. One article per model to me. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Rebadged vans

Citroen Berlingo and Peugeot Partner differ only slightly as they are rebadged twins. Should we merge them? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the merger, based on Merging#Reasons_for_merger -> "Overlap". Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I second this proposal, and see no reason why these weren't together from the start. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged, discussion is here for anyone interested. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Diesel engine

I have a large amount of concerns with this article beyond the tags that it already has. The correlation between the cars listed as having specific models of the engine on the article does not really correlate with what the individual car articles say. I'm not really sure what to make of the "Changes from petrol engines" section - should it be left as is, trimmed down, or totally junked? The problems of the Olds diesel section also clearly needs work. I've already streamlined the layout a bit, without losing any content, and I'll attempt to look for better sources and such in the near future, but any help with this article would be appreciated. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the "Changes" section should be rewritten in prose (and it could probably stand some pruning as well). As for the model listing, I would trust the inclusions here over not being mentioned in the articles themselves. I have some material, will check on some that seem unlikely to me, like the Pontiac 6000.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The "changes" section is a heap of unreferenced WP:cruft, I would not be sorry to see it removed. For me, the biggest issue was the bias of the article, I suspect it was written by an ex-Oldsmobile engineer trying to blame everyone else for the failure of these engines. 1292simon (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested merger between Write-off and Total loss

Same article essentially. Merger talk on Talk:Write-off for anyone interested. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Car Commercial

Car Commercial, which currently redirects to Television advertisement, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 28#Car Commercial. The discussion could do with more input, particularly with regards the question whether there is a possibility of an article about this topic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave my opinion. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts

Why are so many of the article alerts completely unrelated to this WikiProject? Lukeno94 (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Product pre-announcements

A lot of the articles have sections for new generations that have been announced but are not actually on sale yet. I'm not very keen on these because the manufacturers often change the specs between the announcements and the actual start of production. Every manufacturer claiming their new model will rival the second coming doesn't help either, along with every facelift being called 'ALL NEW!!!'. Also, the release dates are often vague (eg mid 2013) or slip to a later date. But some editors are keen to put in any knowledge that is available, so perhaps I'm being overly fussy. I'm currently in a discussion at talk:Toyota RAV4#4th Generation? but this affects many other articles, so I'd like to get a policy decision.  Stepho  talk  02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If discriminating third party sources think a future product is worth discussing, then you have something to base an addition to the article on. If all you have is the usual fan blogs that generate five different posts for each rumor or press release, then ignore it until something substantive appears. If all there are is press releases, that's less than nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
That would be a fine definition if we could identify discriminating third party sources. I am struggling to think of examples in the automotive media world, which by and large exhibit the taste of 12 year olds combined with the morals of crack-whores. Greglocock (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Bwahahah! Well put... I miss L. J. K. Setright, he always seemed incorruptible.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
If it's a general media source, outside the automotive press, that's an easy one. If it's part of the automotive media, then you have to use your judgement and discuss. If this work didn't require judgement, it could be done by a script. The key is probably to look for an objective reason why the future product is important, other than merely existing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
In the case of the RAV4 it was previewed at a car show and has Toyota press releases. I distrust press releases of this type (especially since it was laden with hyperbole about how wonderful it was). An official press release means that it will likely (but not guaranteed) to be sold but of course it may change in features and the release date is rarely trustworthy.  Stepho  talk  13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
For me what makes these future sections sort of needless is that they have to be replaced entirely once the car is introduced. This is not always done, leaving us with articles containing lost of crystal ball gazing stemming from 2011 and such.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The introduction date from the manufacturer should be accurate to within 3 months at 3 years out, and one year out it will be to within a month, because the switchover at the suppliers need that sort of lead time. I must admit I rather like the idea that we need to establish notability for a new model announcement, for all the reasons mentioned so far, especially mr choppers, has anyone got an idea for a concrete proposal? Here's one which you can shoot down in flames "New model announcements will only be entered into articles if they have been discussed in the main business or political section of a broadsheet newspaper". My reasoning is that if a new model is truly important then shareholder disclosure will push it out of the motoring section into politics and business. Where it would be absolutely excellent is that it would eliminate any discussion of show cars and concept cars. Greglocock (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I would vote in favor of such a proposal, seems reasonable enough.  Mr.choppers | ✎  08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Me too. I fear it won't convince some people though. Since I'm likely to use that policy/convention to erase a metric bucket-load of new generation announcements over many Toyota articles, I'll wait a bit for more opinions to chime in.  Stepho  talk  01:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I support that too. I've seen this used elsewhere on Wikipedia. A film really is notable if it's discussed outside the film media, a book is notable if it's covered outside the book media, etc. So there is precedent for this standard. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I support Greglocock's suggestion. It takes pre-announced models away from all the promo rubbish. NealeFamily (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I fear that waiting for the mainstream press to report new models, this will lead to innumerable arguments with car fans as the main stream press can be somewhat slow to report, and also a lot are behind pay walls (FT and The Times in the UK spring to mind). Surely if a car is reported in the reputable auto press (i.e. ones that involve being printed and published) that should surely be enough in most cases? I am all for not creating articles purely on press release and fan sites that do nothing but reprint press releases. Warren (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Paywalls are a non-issue. See WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE. Arguments with fans are unavoidable, because fans want something other than an encyclopedia. Fans want to see lists of engine and frame numbers, lists of celebrity owners, and in depth coverage of used car prices. I think everyone agrees that coverage in the mainstream press is at least a minimum. If you have a future car with no mention in the mainstream press, then there should be a discussion to establish what reason there is for creating an article. If there is a substantive reason to make an article without non-automotive coverage, then let it be made. Otherwise, wait a brief period and make the article when it's released. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The point, I badly made, is that if regular editors refrain from ever creating articles for forthcoming cars that are widely published in the professional press, then we will always be at odds with the fan editors and that seems a pointless position to be in. I see no reason for seasoned editors to take a punt on articles for forthcoming cars that have reasonable coverage, if only to help structure a new page with the right format and tone. By all means we need to ensure that PR spin from press releases is avoided, but I am not sure how not taking part in early trade press based editing is going to help. It will mean that pretty much anything from a motorshow will be written up by fans in the week or two it takes the mainstream press to get around publishing anything (if at all), and by then the articles will no doubt be in bad shape. Warren (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
If we have a clear policy then a bit of page reverting and explanation on the talk page ususally gets the lesson across. The same argument was made in respect of allowing refs to fan forums (see Lotus for an example), eventually they did stop. I disagree about the motoring press, they are only a tiny step up from the websites. Greglocock (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Citroen DS

Is the DS really a marque? The DS car marque article seems a little vague and with the wrong name - surely DS is a model designation? I've removed a little PR fluff, but the article needs a good look at, and maybe is better suited as part of the Citroen page and the individual models rather than a stand-alone article? Warren (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Citroën

Are these claims right? "Citroën was the first mass-production car company outside the USA [3] and pioneered the modern concept of creating a sales and services network that complements the motor car.[4] Within eight years Citroën had become Europe's largest car manufacturer and the 4th largest in the world.[5]"
Only asking because the sources might be reliable and then again they might not.

8-) Eddaido (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It is certainly the case (well, I have believed for as long as my father told it me) that Andre Citroen went to America, was impressed by what Henry Ford showed him in respect of mass production, came back to Europe and applied mass production techniques to manufacturing shells for the front line and became fantastically rich, and then after the war machines ran out of steam, pioneered mass production techniques to cars. so [3] "...the first mass-production car company outside the USA..." . I believe that is uncontentious.
On " ... [4] and pioneered the modern concept of creating a sales and services network that complements the motor car ..." I can't make the link you provide work. Maybe it's the copper wires they use here in lieu of cables or maybe it's a dead link. I've not heard the claim before, but it is plausible. Citroen was the largest auto maker in France and France, till the US got its act together during the first decade of the twentieth century, was the largest auto-producer in the world. In the 1920s German industry was on its knees and the top auto-producing nation in Europe must have been France or Britain, with the other second. I guess someone had to pioneer sales and service networks, though I imagine the claim is open to interpretation as in "how do you mean?" I wish I'd been able to access that link....
On "... [5}Within eight years Citroën had become Europe's largest car manufacturer and the 4th largest in the world. ... " it is certainly believable. Someone had to be Europe's top auto producer, and the pioneer of mass production techniques in Europe would be the obvious candidate. (Opel copied the techniques and indeed also appear to have copied the car that Citroen produced with the mass production techniques leading to a splendid fee-feast for the lawyers, but that really got going only a few years later in the 1920s than Citroen and even in 1931, which is the earliest year for which I can find numbers, Opel only produce 16,135 cars (total passenger car production in Germany that year was 56,039.) I think top dog in the numbers game in the British auto-industry for most or all of the relevant years was probably Morris who started by buying engines from an American supplier but after World War I ended up buying engines instead from ... um ... the French. (Hotchkiss, not Citroen.) In the end of course Morris bought the engine plant and so was producing his own engines but not in the first part of the 1920s. By the time you get to the mid-1930s the Brits have survived the economic traumas better than the French, through dint of deft currency devaluation (well, there was a bit more to it...). It may well be that by then the British auto-industry was larger than the French one, and by 1936 the Germans were producing more than 200,000 passenger cars per year (213,117 in 1936). Do you know a good source for equivalent stats on the French and British auto industries? So I think the claim you quote is believable, but I've not seen or heard it expressed that baldly before, and I wish output stats for the three largest European auto producers of those years - the 1920s and the 1930s - were more easy to get hold of than, till now, I have found them.
On [8], ?.
No further thoughts. Thanks for sharing the conundrums. Charles01 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Then my concerns are eased, thanks. This 8-) was an attempt to indicate that though beady-eyed I was hoping to seem friendly.
What this project needs is a really good nuts and bolts person on automobile mass production as currently practised with a good knowledge of relevant history. Someone like that is needed to make sense of the raw info available for Nuffield Tools & Gauges which can't be used by me for fear of creating nonsense instead of an encyclopaedic reference item. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"Within eight years Citroën had become Europe's largest car manufacturer and the 4th largest in the world." Can't say for sure, because I don't have it in front of me, but IIRC I've seen that in one of Georgano's books, too. (What I do have doesn't mention that, or the sales & service. :( ). If orders for 30,000 Type As mean anything, tho... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_34&oldid=1143406047"